Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[LuluBobo]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

As someone working in residential construction, you are 100% correct.

The 2015 energy code added 10% to all new housing costs.

[WarrenC12]

I will chime in and say a lot of these new codes and requirements in the name of energy efficiency, safety, etc. also cost a lot of money down the road in maintenance, replacement, etc.

[chowhou]

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

This is really interesting analysis.

I was aware of the safety aspect as it's been discussed lately especially the redundant fire exits needed that doesn't exist in Europe and is a big impediment to the missing middle.

Nobody really talks in the current zeitgeist about the downsides of energy efficiency though even the straight financial waste of spending $50,000 to save $500 a year in energy costs matters. It's hidden so we can't vote against it but people are revolting over paying a fraction as much in carbon tax. Of course it's also an argument for a dergulation and imposition of a carbon tax letting the market find the most efficient solutions.

I was in the Nordics last winter and a friend works for a developer so we walked through a multiphase development of midrise apartments. In the one almost complete there was lots triple pane glass, heat recovery and other expensive efforts to get blood from a stone. Meanwhile looking at the phase one building in -10 weather and almost everyone had their windows open often een balcony doors. It seems lots of people heat their place mostly with the radiant floors leaving the main system off and open windows to enjoy the fresh air. The system should control moisture and let in some fresh air but it doesn't have that winter fresh air feeling.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was in the Nordics last winter and a friend works for a developer so we walked through a multiphase development of midrise apartments. In the one almost complete there was lots triple pane glass, heat recovery and other expensive efforts to get blood from a stone. Meanwhile looking at the phase one building in -10 weather and almost everyone had their windows open often een balcony doors. It seems lots of people heat their place mostly with the radiant floors leaving the main system off and open windows to enjoy the fresh air. The system should control moisture and let in some fresh air but it doesn't have that winter fresh air feeling.

It's funny you mention that, because it's a well known German (possibly Northern European) cultural norm to want that fresh air, which kills a lot of the efficiency gains the government pushes for.

Germany’s inefficient love affair with open windows

A devotion to fresh air is undermining Berlin’s push to make buildings more energy efficient.



Germans are obsessed with lüften, the act, or art, of ventilating their homes — but it is undermining efforts to make buildings more energy efficient.

Long considered to be a key measure for good respiratory hygiene, Germans often crack open windows to let nasty, stale air out and fresh, but cold, air in, even in the dead of winter.

But for all the enthusiasm for crisp air circulation, researchers suggest that the national devotion to lüften may be actively undermining buildings' energy efficiency — and Berlin's emissions reduction goals.

<...>

The answer, Bauer said, might be to simply insulate less.

"The key may be to have less insulation, because the current system seems to be too airtight to accomodate for residents' differing preferences," she said. "There are around 90 million buildings in Germany and about half will need to be renovated in the next 20 years, so less intense and less costly renovations would let us make more of them energy efficient faster."

https://www.politico.eu/article/germ...s-ventilation/

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto's biggest issue these days isn't #3, which has been mitigated a lot by legislative changes and reflects that Toronto has actually never been particularly nimby-friendly due to the existence of the OLT.

NIMBYs don't stand a chance against deep-pocketed, politically-connected developers (hence there being no lack of high-rise development in Toronto); but they absolutely have a big impact on smaller-scale missing middle type development.

Unless they comply with as-of-right zoning (which in Toronto, is very rare - basically nothing existing within established older neighbourhoods would comply with current zoning bylaws), smaller developments most commonly go through the Committee of Adjustment for approval of minor variance to the bylaws. This is where the public is given a voice to oppose projects, and are able to kill even the most reasonable of proposals, like this one. Applicants can still appeal to the OLT, but for smaller builders this adds time, cost, complexity, and uncertainty which can ultimately kill a project's viability and discourage future small-scale development.

I don't disagree that DCs are a much bigger problem than NIMBYs though.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

While not a local municipal-specific issue (except in BC where there's both the provincial building code and municipal building code in some cities), this is also a good point and some great insight.

Don't get me started on BC's upcoming code change which will require 100% of units in large buildings to be built to - larger, more expensive - adaptable standards (ie. accessible).

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

In other words, a case of optics trumping logic & common sense.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's funny you mention that, because it's a well known German (possibly Northern European) cultural norm to want that fresh air, which kills a lot of the efficiency gains the government pushes for.

Maybe the next code update can ban operable windows. After all, they already barely open on most new developments. Try getting a breeze in through one of these bad boys:




Airtightness is a funny one. You of course need a certain amount of fresh air flow into a building or else air quality degrades and it becomes less healthy, etc. But as building standards & efficiency requirements evolve, so too is less fresh air able to penetrate the building envelope, thus necessitating costly and inefficient HVAC systems to be able to supply the clean air that was formerly achieved through leaky envelopes and operable windows. We've created a problem where none existed.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

Oh absolutely. And that’s in Kingston! Wait until you learn about how Toronto has its own “green code” standard which adds even more costs..

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

This is a really good post - it explains the issue quite eloquently. I might use that analogy in other discussions now!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Here in BC 99% of electricity is zero-carbon. Ontario is around 91%. Quebec is almost 100%. What benefit exactly do we get by forcing new homeowners to spend an additional $100k in home efficiency to save $100 bucks a year on heating and cooling costs? I currently live in a 70 year old house with close to zero wall insulation and single pane windows. My entire energy bill each month beyond heating and cooling is around $250 bucks. Even if that could somehow be reduced to zero, that's a better economic deal than pay $100k to maximize energy efficiency in my house.

I actually had this math dilemma at my house recently. It's of a similar vintage and insulation is also quite poor. I added a heat pump to reduce my natural gas consumption but the math was just not there to retrofit the house to make the insulation better. And that math was with my husband doing the actual work instead of a contractor (there's benefits to marrying an engineer ) so the cost for us would have just been materials + inspections.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Maybe the next code update can ban operable windows. After all, they already barely open on most new developments. Try getting a breeze in through one of these bad boys:

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

[ssiguy]

Canada could double or even triple the amount of SFH and 2 story apts overnight if it wanted to.

Question?...............how many of you have bought a car and then stood in your driveway waiting for all the materials and labour to show up so they can build it? I think it's fair to say none of you but that is exactly how we currently build our housing.

Modular housing {not mobiles} conform to all housing standards and you could be living beside a 3 story with basement one right now and not even know it. They are built in factories and assembled on-site. They are always of higher quality due to not being built in the rain and snow, are up to 30% to 50% faster AND cheaper to build {depending on the model} and can come in any shape, size, or material you want.

They employ the savings of scale, the productivity of an assembly line, and require fewer skilled labourers to do it. The latter point is key in an era of skilled workers shortages. This is because you don't need someone who can build the whole building but just train someone to do their specific part, no different than a autoworker doesn't require an engineering degree need to know how to build the car but short-term training to know how to just assemble their little portion of it.

Also, due to being factory built, they are not constrained by city regulations which state they can only be on-site during the day and not on weekends. They can be producing homes 24/7, 365. In Scandinavia 50% of all new housing is now modular. If our developers weren't bribing our politicians, it would already be happening.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

Window limiters make sense when the opening is at or around floor level, but for window openings at 42" or higher (ie. railing height) it's a bit silly, especially considering most of these buildings also have balconies.

This is a prime example of safety regulations taken too far - it's about liability moreso than a genuine safety concern, while the livability for residents suffers as a result. It's not as if people are accidently falling out of older buildings on a regular basis.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Window limiters make sense when the opening is at or around floor level, but for window openings at 42" or higher (ie. railing height) it's a bit silly, especially considering most of these buildings also have balconies.

This is a prime example of safety regulations taken too far - it's about liability moreso than a genuine safety concern, while the livability for residents suffers as a result. It's not as if people are accidently falling out of older buildings on a regular basis.

I don't see a balcony there. Plus, furniture can be moved so that the height of that window is no longer at 42". If you've ever been in charge of looking after a toddler, you should know that their ingenuity for getting into trouble knows no bounds, and that safety needs to be designed into everything they get near, even if you think "for window openings at 42 inches or higher it's silly to have limiters". Over 3300 children under 18 are treated in hospitals in the US for injuries related to falling from windows. If kids can't get through windows because of window limiters regardless of how high the windows are, kids can't fall from them.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada could double or even triple the amount of SFH and 2 story apts overnight if it wanted to.

Question?...............how many of you have bought a car and then stood in your driveway waiting for all the materials and labour to show up so they can build it? I think it's fair to say none of you but that is exactly how we currently build our housing.

Modular housing {not mobiles} conform to all housing standards and you could be living beside a 3 story with basement one right now and not even know it. They are built in factories and assembled on-site. They are always of higher quality due to not being built in the rain and snow, are up to 30% to 50% faster AND cheaper to build {depending on the model} and can come in any shape, size, or material you want.

They employ the savings of scale, the productivity of an assembly line, and require fewer skilled labourers to do it. The latter point is key in an era of skilled workers shortages. This is because you don't need someone who can build the whole building but just train someone to do their specific part, no different than a autoworker doesn't require an engineering degree need to know how to build the car but short-term training to know how to just assemble their little portion of it.

Also, due to being factory built, they are not constrained by city regulations which state they can only be on-site during the day and not on weekends. They can be producing homes 24/7, 365. In Scandinavia 50% of all new housing is now modular. If our developers weren't bribing our politicians, it would already be happening.

Yes the development I was touring was all modular built. The bathrooms arrived as essentially a kit. The 4-5 story buildings were not poured concrete but built like lego. They also import a lot of this from lower cost areas like Poland. I think we still build SFHs cheaper with our track housing approach though than modular. Granted the quality is much lower. But for apartments they should be building this stuff in Mexico and shipping to us. Are you sure it's developers that are against this? Seems they should be in favor of it.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I don't see a balcony there. Plus, furniture can be moved so that the height of that window is no longer at 42". If you've ever been in charge of looking after a toddler, you should know that their ingenuity for getting into trouble knows no bounds, and that safety needs to be designed into everything they get near, even if you think "for window openings at 42 inches or higher it's silly to have limiters". Over 3300 children under 18 are treated in hospitals in the US for injuries related to falling from windows. If kids can't get through windows because of window limiters regardless of how high the windows are, kids can't fall from them.

Whether a balcony is visible or present in this particular building is irrelevant, as there are no restrictions on how high a balcony can be in a new tower, provided it has guards up to 42" above floor level. And just as inside a building, so too can furniture be moved closer to the railings.

There's nothing stopping parents of a toddler to install limiters or child guards of their own if open windows are a concern. The onus should be on the resident to child-proof their own home as needed; but in our overly litigious culture, that becomes a liability for the builder or even for regulators.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

Darwin. Or maybe families were never meant to live 20 stories in the air.

[jonny24]

You could also make it so you can't fit a person (or even a toddler) through a window while still actually having it open a useful amount for air flow.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Darwin. Or maybe families were never meant to live 20 stories in the air.

Do you ever have anything useful to say?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

The good part is there's usually an easily removable restrictor plate in there.

You didn't hear it from me if things start falling out of your apartment though.