Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Truenorth00]

Anybody been on House Sigma lately? It's entertaining. There's a few flippers in Ottawa who hace taken quarter million dollar baths in 3-4 months.

[goodgrowth]

https://schoolofcities.github.io/yellowbelt-canadian-cities-2022/

[Nashe]

*record scratch*

"CALGRAY"

I assume "TRONNO" is the 3rd one?

[Coldrsx]

Interesting to compare Edmonton and Calgary in terms of mixed-use.

[casper]

Terminology is also important.

In Vancouver, most of the single detached are on lots that allow for a legal secondary suite and a laneway house above the garage.

So in basically every single family residential lot allows for three households.

That said, they do need to expand what is allowed along major arterials.

[esquire]

I assume those maps show permitted uses under zoning and not actual uses? I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that green in Edmonton is single family home suburbia.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

I assume those maps show permitted uses under zoning and not actual uses?

Yes, obviously.

As casper points out, the mapmaker could easily have justified putting all of the yellow in Vancouver in green (zoned for triplexes).

I have the feeling the phenomenon is the same in Edmonton, but for some reason, the mapmaker is familiar with it in Edmonton but not in Vancouver...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rbt

They take monthly starts, multiply by 12 (to create an annual equivalent), and perform an adjustment for seasonality (beef up february, decrease may, etc.).

Even then, it'll halve or double on a month to month basis and is basically useless.

The data did look like garbage, I was just curious...

Why not just stick with the exact amount of actual construction passing from the permits stage to shovels-in-the-ground in the month in question, and publish that instead? I'd also distinguish between condos and detached houses, because... why not. The data would look like "this month, in Toronto, X new SFHs began to be U/C, while Y condos units did (in Z physical buildings)."

[someone123]

Originally Posted by casper

So in basically every single family residential lot allows for three households.

Divide up the square footage of a detached house, present it in terms of "households", and magically you make it sound like you have created more living space.

The typical laneway house is around 600 square feet and costs about as much to build as an average Canadian house did a few years ago (with city permits/fees being $40k+). There's nothing wrong with them as an option for homeowners but they're no substitute for good quality apartment buildings from a renter's perspective.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by lio45

I have the feeling the phenomenon is the same in Edmonton, but for some reason, the mapmaker is familiar with it in Edmonton but not in Vancouver...

I took a minute to check out of curiosity, and unsurprisingly, I was right

I went to the City of Edmonton's website, got the zoning map, and immediately saw that vast swathes of what's green on the map is "RF1" zoning. Then I looked it up:

https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/infraplan/zo...F1)_Single_Detached_Residential_Zone.htm

(RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone

The purpose of this Zone is to provide for Single Detached Housing while allowing other forms of small scale housing in the form of Secondary Suites, Garden Suites, Semi-detached Housing and Duplex Housing.


... so, basically, an apples-to-apples mapmaker would have also put Vancouver all green (except for the existing pale blue parts).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Divide up the square footage of a detached house, present it in terms of "households", and magically you make it sound like you have created more living space.

The typical laneway house is around 600 square feet and costs about as much to build as an average Canadian house did a few years ago (with city permits/fees being $40k+). There's nothing wrong with them as an option for homeowners but they're no substitute for good quality apartment buildings from a renter's perspective.

True, but then the general argument that just because an entire city is zoned for multiplexes doesn't automatically mean it won't still be shitty housing forms always applies anyway. We can't conclude much from just a zoning map. It doesn't tell us what the actual built form is.

[goodgrowth]

Funny the thing that stood out to me in those maps is actually industrial land(the gaps in the map). Calgary and especially Edmonton seem to have quite a bit more industrial land relative to Vancouver and the GTA.

Cutting down on "sprawl" in those cities might require just as much rethinking density for industrial areas as it does residential.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

True, but then the general argument that just because an entire city is zoned for multiplexes doesn't automatically mean it won't still be shitty housing forms always applies anyway. We can't conclude much from just a zoning map. It doesn't tell us what the actual built form is.

I think for Vancouver the takeaway is that even though there's a lot of lip service paid to housing problems, City Hall is still happy to leave major constraints on new development on most of the land. This is true whether or not they allow basement apartments and laneway houses.

The crazy part of that map is the areas around the red dots that are yellow or industrial (also de facto low density). IMO even allowing up to 4 storey apartments around inner rapid transit stations in a metro area of 2 million+ is absurdly restrictive. The model here is that highrises are okay in Coquitlam Centre 1 hour from downtown by transit but not okay along much of the Canada Line where commutes are more like 15-20 minutes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think for Vancouver the takeaway is that even though there's a lot of lip service paid to housing problems, City Hall is still happy to leave major constraints on new development on most of the land.

Of course! They're elected by the voters, many of whom are owners. If your electoral platform promises to trigger a real estate crash if elected, you don't get elected. At least not yet.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Funny the thing that stood out to me in those maps is actually industrial land(the gaps in the map).

Huh, didn't realize that. I assumed (didn't really think about it) that it was parks/rivers/lakes/mountains.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by lio45

Huh, didn't realize that. I assumed (didn't really think about it) that it was parks/rivers/lakes/mountains.

There is some of that like with Nose Hill Park in Calgary's case but most is industrial in you compare with google maps satellite.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

The typical laneway house is around 600 square feet and costs about as much to build as an average Canadian house did a few years ago (with city permits/fees being $40k+). There's nothing wrong with them as an option for homeowners but they're no substitute for good quality apartment buildings from a renter's perspective.

I never personally knew anyone who rented a laneway house. From a renter’s perspective, it prioritized all the wrong things. You paid a premium to live in a space with poor functionality, where ceilings were angled under a roofline and stairwells ate into the square footage. You had bespoke features like quartz countertops and black-lacquered rain showers, but most renters don’t care about living in an Instagram post; they want to maximize space and/or location for price and don’t care about aesthetics. Finally, you had to deal with private landlords who lived on the property with all the burdens that entails. People do rent laneway homes to strangers but, in my experience, it’s treated more like a guest house for affluent homeowners. I think you can also tell the bank you plan to rent it out and get a bigger home loan than they would ordinarily give you. Looked at it this way, laneway homes may actually make affordability worse.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I never personally knew anyone who rented a laneway house. From a renter’s perspective, it prioritized all the wrong things. You paid a premium to live in a space with poor functionality, where ceilings were angled under a roofline and stairwells ate into the square footage. You had bespoke features like quartz countertops and black-lacquered rain showers, but most renters don’t care about living in an Instagram post; they want to maximize space and/or location for price and don’t care about aesthetics. Finally, you had to deal with private landlords who lived on the property with all the burdens that entails. People do rent laneway homes to strangers but, in my experience, it’s treated more like a guest house for affluent homeowners. I think you can also tell the bank you plan to rent it out and get a bigger home loan than they would ordinarily give you. Looked at it this way, laneway homes may actually make affordability worse.

A lot of people looking to rent in Vancouver would be happy to get what you describe, given the alternatives:

Photos: This tiny, windowless room is what $750 will rent you in downtown Vancouver

[casper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Funny the thing that stood out to me in those maps is actually industrial land(the gaps in the map). Calgary and especially Edmonton seem to have quite a bit more industrial land relative to Vancouver and the GTA.

Cutting down on "sprawl" in those cities might require just as much rethinking density for industrial areas as it does residential.

That is more driven by how municipalities work in different provinces.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan you have rural municipalities that are responsible for vast tracks of mostly farm land. In the middle of a rural municipality you may have a town that is actually quite small and just has the built up area. If the town needs to grow it will transfer the land for a subdivision from the rural municipality to the town. That is the reason Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon and Regina grew into these large amalgamated communities.

That does not happen in Vancouver. That map is for Vancouver proper and does include Burnaby and Richmond. There is far more industrial land in both those municipalities.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Well, if you'd like to snap one on the block so you could build a shrine or something....

And no gross icky things like big trees!

Investor and builder alert!!! Rare opportunity to own a 52*130 lot in Dunbar. The property is located in one of the most beautiful street West 28th Ave with no big trees, quiet & friendly neighbors. The lovely house is well-kept and walking distance to St. George private school, Lord Byng secondary school, community, parks, and restaurants. Buy and hold, and then you will build your own dream house in the most prestigious area. Please call today for private showing.

https://www.rew.ca/properties/3855869/4015-west-28th-avenue-vancouver-bc?property_click=map

Trees are a nuisance if you want to build new on site. Hence the reference in this ad.