Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The mayors who have to pay for infrastructure in these neighborhoods and protect the economy of the city at large, seem to think otherwise.

Again, this is easily solved by just opening up zoning. Don't want to move? Don't. But don't stop your neighbour from putting up a quadplex.

Exactly.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Don't want to move? Don't. But don't stop your neighbour from putting up a quadplex.

AND your wealth could start to be taxed more fairly. It would be hard to complain about that. (Not that they wouldn't, of course.)

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They're not "dying", though. Just not transitioning as quickly or in the way that people would like.

these neighbourhoods will never become completely empty, obviously, but they aren't places people raise children in large numbers any longer. They trend significantly older than Canada as a whole (I wouldn't be surprised if the average age on my street is in the upper 50's or low 60's), and have retirees living in large homes with multiple empty, unused rooms while Families cram 3 children into a bedroom in a condo or live in a small townhouse.

The effect in Mississauga is likely even worse, as houses are newer and even larger. There are a lot of neighbourhoods I'm sure with 3,000+sf houses with 1 or two people living in most of them.

I agree we shouldn't be going around evicting people from their homes because they don't "need" them any more, but it's a real issue and really highlights the class disparities right now between generations.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I agree we shouldn't be going around evicting people from their homes because they don't "need" them any more, but it's a real issue and really highlights the class disparities right now between generations.

Agreed. I suspect some of the only things you CAN do involve removing some of the NIMBY-quotient via relaxed zoning. I'm curious as to what other things would make sense and not be "targetting grandma".

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This whole thing wouldn't be such an issue if the same people staying in these houses weren't also actually fighting development.

Ironically, the kind of development they fight are the exact ones that provide options for older residents to remain in their neighborhoods.

And this is a spiral that is hard to get out of without zoning changes. As amenities are lost, the neighbourhoods become less attractive and only makes it less attractive for other businesses to setup.

This is why I am a proponent of getting rid of NIMBYism and making tax cuts illegal.

NIMBYism has mad our cities and suburbs the way they are, and they way they are really doesn't work. Whether it be the meandering streets and cul du sacs with no sidewalks or the miles of SFH, it is not a good use of the land, and if we really wanted to fix most of the problems, we'd need to do some bulldozing of properties.

Cutting taxes means you need more and more people to support the same services. Keeping taxes at (inflation)+1% would keep those properties at a rate to support their services. I will say what I have been saying for a long time - I pay too little in taxes for the services the governments offer.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

AND your wealth could start to be taxed more fairly. It would be hard to complain about that. (Not that they wouldn't, of course.)

Yep. But as seen in that John Tory interaction, the wealth of oldies is way more important than the living conditions of the young.

Of course, these same old folks will be screaming at governments about shortages of doctors and nurses and why the pharmacy is so far away, etc

[Acajack]

I support the mayors who are working towards densification and more sound and sustainable urban development practices, however it's worth it to point out that in terms of "costs", a large SFH with a long granny living in it brings in the exact same tax dollars to the city as if it had a family of 4-5-6 living there.

The public infrastructure is already in place and any maintenance or reconstruction of it that is needed is covered by the tax bill just as it would be if it were inhabited by a young, "nuclear" family.

If anything, it might be slightly cheaper to have granny living there as there is less actual usage of certain city services.

The city was able to operate just fine with this type of development for decades, and now it can't?

[Truenorth00]

^ Correct on residential taxes. However, if businesses close up shop or commercial real estate losses value, those tax revenues decline. And more than taxes, those places closing up is a loss of amenities that the governments cannot replace.

Upzoning on the other hand increases both the revenue from residential properties and improves the value (and outlook) of local businesses.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I support the mayors who are working towards densification and more sound and sustainable urban development practices, however it's worth it to point out that in terms of "costs", a large SFH with a long granny living in it brings in the exact same tax dollars to the city as if it had a family of 4-5-6 living there.

The public infrastructure is already in place and any maintenance or reconstruction of it that is needed is covered by the tax bill just as it would be if it were inhabited by a young, "nuclear" family.

If anything, it might be slightly cheaper to have granny living there as there is less actual usage of certain city services.

The city was able to operate just fine with this type of development for decades, and now it can't?

I don't get the impression he was talking about actual physical services likes water and sanitary, but the public land uses that are usually attached to new subdivision construction with families in mind. Elementary and high schools, recreation centres, soccer fields, etc.

As the demand for these services falls, they become the black sheep on municipal budgets. Once they're gone, they are very hard to bring back given the massive growth in land value that occurs after the original greenfield construction. In Mississauga, imagine your scenario plays out and the old generation currently "underutilizing" their SFH spaces finally passes on or moves out, and young families return to this more centralized neighbourhood. Is the city going to expropriate entire blocks of SFH to bring back an elementary school?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ Correct on residential taxes. However, if businesses close up shop or commercial real estate losses value, those tax revenues decline. And more than taxes, those places closing up is a loss of amenities that the governments cannot replace.

Society is fluid, though, as are the communities that comprise it.

Businesses catering to one population are replaced by new ones catering to others.

The areas I know that have empty nest aging boomers aren't generally declining business-wise.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I don't get the impression he was talking about actual physical services likes water and sanitary, but the public land uses that are usually attached to new subdivision construction with families in mind. Elementary and high schools, recreation centres, soccer fields, etc.

As the demand for these services falls, they become the black sheep on municipal budgets. Once they're gone, they are very hard to bring back given the massive growth in land value that occurs after the original greenfield construction. In Mississauga, imagine your scenario plays out and the old generation currently "underutilizing" their SFH spaces finally passes on or moves out, and young families return to this more centralized neighbourhood. Is the city going to expropriate entire blocks of SFH to bring back an elementary school?

Quite literally, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say: "Families have rediscovered this neighbourhood, so much so that we need a new school - but darn it, there is no place to put it!" And I am actually talking about inner city Montreal and Toronto, which have seen major influxes of young families in the past decade.

Pretty sure Mississauga will be OK.

[Truenorth00]

^^^ Exactly. This is the problem. Also, municipal governments now facing rising bills from the growth ponzi scheme (Mississauga was infamous for relying on development fees to keep property taxes low) now face massive pressures to sell underutilized public property (like an undersubscribed elementary school) to free up cash to keep the ponzi scheme going. This is creating massive consequences in the long run. All because of NIMBYs who don't want to leave and don't want others to come in.

And again it's not just public infrastructure. Think of all those failing neighbourhood malls and strip malls that get redeveloped. That retail ain't coming back either. A decade from now these residents are going to find out that their areas are food, shopping, healthcare and education deserts.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Pretty sure Mississauga will be OK.

I don't get why you think this when their own politicians and planners are worried about the current state of affairs.

I don't think they'll cease to exist or something. But quality of life can definitely get worse, while costs keep rising.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't get why you think this when their own politicians and planners are worried about the current state of affairs.

I don't think they'll cease to exist or something. But quality of life can definitely get worse, while costs keep rising.

I think you and I probably broadly agree on most of this stuff. I'd likely be in favour of your proposed measures.

I'm just not as gloomy as you are when it comes to the future prospects of these areas.

Politicians and planners are generally a mix of worry-warts who raise the alarm so people pay attention, and people who genuinely want to make things better.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Quite literally, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say: "Families have rediscovered this neighbourhood, so much so that we need a new school - but darn it, there is no place to put it!" And I am actually talking about inner city Montreal and Toronto, which have seen major influxes of young families in the past decade.

Pretty sure Mississauga will be OK.

This is 100% an issue in central Toronto, don't know where you're getting that from. There have been some successes in shoehorning new schools into large redevelopments like Cityplace, but those opportunities are few and far between in a city that's pretty dense already. The inner ring of SFH neighbourhoods are pretty desolate in terms of school coverage, and it's in those SFH-heavy neighbourhoods where it's harder to place a new school since you don't have as many intensification sites to try and fit one in.

I'm sure it's not going to be the end of education in Toronto, but it is a growing pain that has to be worked through.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^^^ Exactly. This is the problem. Also, municipal governments now facing rising bills from the growth ponzi scheme (Mississauga was infamous for relying on development fees to keep property taxes low) now face massive pressures to sell underutilized public property (like an undersubscribed elementary school) to free up cash to keep the ponzi scheme going. This is creating massive consequences in the long run. All because of NIMBYs who don't want to leave and don't want others to come in.

And again it's not just public infrastructure. Think of all those failing neighbourhood malls and strip malls that get redeveloped. That retail ain't coming back either. A decade from now these residents are going to find out that their areas are food, shopping, healthcare and education deserts.

They're quite unlikely to become service "deserts" because they'll still be somewhat populated, reasonably affluent and not particularly problematic in terms of crime and other disorderly behaviour.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They're quite unlikely to become service "deserts" because they'll still be somewhat populated, reasonably affluent and not particularly problematic in terms of crime and other disorderly behaviour.

It's literally happening as we speak. Why would that change? If you have a business, there will be a threshold population that you need. If it's not there, you will move your business. It's that simple. As the population of these neighbourhoods drop, their carrying capacity for many types of services does so too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

This is 100% an issue in central Toronto, don't know where you're getting that from. There have been some successes in shoehorning new schools into large redevelopments like Cityplace, but those opportunities are few and far between in a city that's pretty dense already. The inner ring of SFH neighbourhoods are pretty desolate in terms of school coverage, and it's in those SFH-heavy neighbourhoods where it's harder to place a new school since you don't have as many intensification sites to try and fit one in.

I'm sure it's not going to be the end of education in Toronto, but it is a growing pain that has to be worked through.

I am not sure that this is really the crux of the problem, though. Pretty much every single neighbourhood in Toronto already has an existing school or schools within it. These are existing government-held properties than can be renovated, expanded or enlarged. It seems to me the issue is more with funding from the province in order to get that done. Something which often doesn't keep pace with the level of development and population growth. This is a problem in the suburbs as well.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure that this is really the crux of the problem, though. Pretty much every single neighbourhood in Toronto already has an existing school or schools within it.

Not for long....

Around 50,000 desks that should be occupied by students are sitting empty at underutilized schools throughout Toronto, costing the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) millions of dollars a year as the province embarks on a review of a moratorium on school closures.

The latest enrollment numbers from this school year reveal that almost 20 per cent of TDSB schools are underutilized – a fact that has both TDSB director John Malloy and Education Minister Stephen Lecce saying change is necessary.

....

Under capacity schools have been a problem in Toronto for years due to declining enrollment and shifting demographics. But trustees have been reluctant to close them due to fears they may be needed again and because it is extremely unpopular with parents.

The former Liberal government put a moratorium on school closures in 2017 and the Ford government promised to keep it in place until a review of school closures is complete.

For now, the province’s hands are tied. But Education Minister Stephen Lecce says that could soon change.

Lecce confirmed with CityNews that a review will take place this year, after which underutilized schools could be shuttered.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/02/27/cash-strapped-tdsb-losing-millions-on-underutilized-schools/

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's literally happening as we speak. Why would that change? If you have a business, there will be a threshold population that you need. If it's not there, you will move your business. It's that simple. As the population of these neighbourhoods drop, their carrying capacity for many types of services does so too.

If you look at areas of Canadian cities that are "deserts" for retail services, they're almost all places where it's a pain in the ass (relative to ROI) to run a business due to undesirables breaking or stealing shit, or making your customers nervous.