Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In their defined metro areas Vancouver has almost double Munich's pop density (918 per sq/km vs 460, so try again.

Why compare just Vancouver (a city that is uniquely geographically constrained) and Munich?

[ssiguy]

Politicians are why you get places like Vancouver and Burnaby where you have seas of SFH with ultra small pockets of skyscrapers popping out of no where. A numbing 80% of Vancouver is zoned for SFH. Even townhomes and rowhomes are basically non-existent.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why compare just Vancouver (a city that is uniquely geographically constrained) and Munich?

OK - Toronto 4,149 sq/km vs Berlin at 4,227 or Vienna at 4,657. Not that much difference.

There is a very active developer narrative that has been taken up by yappy YIMBYs that we need to densify our cities to have things like great transit yet Europe shows that isn't the case. Likewise the "just let developers build what they want wherever" myth fails when you see what they're building in places like Vancouver's Oakridge where they were given a fairly free hand- overly expensive units heavily marketed offshore.

[Truenorth00]

We can have transit without density. If we pay taxes like Europeans to fund that kind of infrastructure buildout. There's no free lunch. But NIMBYs are also usually the same crew that whine about taxes.

In our situation, given that raising taxes is politically impossible, it's either density or more and more traffic and hours spent in the car.

And this is all aside from the absurd idea that neighbours should get to have total control over what you build on your property. That's the real absurdity of our zoning system. Ridiculous restriction on property rights.

[JHikka]

I see we're back to playing the municipal density game despite it being a fool's errand to try and compare European city municipalities to those in North America, or even those within Canada to each other.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I see we're back to playing the municipal density game despite it being a fool's errand to try and compare European city municipalities to those in North America, or even those within Canada to each other.

So, if there are no comparables allowed, just this mean we don't have to listen to cyclists prattle on about Amsterdam and Copenhagen?

[goodgrowth]

I agree. It's developer driven.

It's well known that developers become more altruistic when in the Edmonton area. Something about the air that relaxes the greediness area in the brain.

However I knew a Edmonton developer who's entire personality changed when he landed in Vancouver. He would start yelling at homeless people and would add a 200% greed surcharge on to every build because he couldn't help himself. The air is different there.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, if there are no comparables allowed, just this mean we don't have to listen to cyclists prattle on about Amsterdam and Copenhagen?

I didn't say there are no comparables allowed - just not for things like density, pop. averages over specific areas, things of that nature. It goes without saying that cities like Berlin and Vienna are not at all equivalent or comparable to Toronto or Edmonton for a multitude of reasons. There are ways to compare them, particularly in urban realm or pedestrianization of urban and retail areas, but things get increasingly more difficult the more broad the scope becomes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek

You’re overestimating the amount of power city planners have. In most municipalities the planners are there to give suggestions. Elected officials at the end of the day make the final decision and a lot of the time they think they know more then city planners which causes them too overrule either a development,
infrastructure project, or adjustment to policy that were usually approved by the city planning department in the first place.

God the amount of times I’ve seen in Winnipeg where the city planning group approves a multi-unit project only to get is shelved because the councillors can’t handle the heat of NIMBYs is ridiculous.

Now that I think about it, even here, it is the elected officials that don't want to follow the plan.If they could, we might see better designed neighbourhoods.

[ssiguy]

Median price in Fraser Valley {Sur/Lang/WR/Delta/Abb/Mis} for SFH is down $455k from it's peak in February of this year for SFH. Still another $700k drop needed before they start to even resemble local incomes.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Median price in Fraser Valley {Sur/Lang/WR/Delta/Abb/Mis} for SFH is down $455k from it's peak in February of this year for SFH. Still another $700k drop needed before they start to even resemble local incomes.

It is things like that that make me wonder if having an additional tax at the time of sale for all housing over what a median income can afford would do.

"Your $1 million dollar house has a 10% overvalued tax."

How long till most housing is back in the realm of affordability?

[Truenorth00]

Pick your poison....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Pick your poison....

This really explains what the real problems that has inflicted Canada for over 50 years. The bigger problem is that politicians like to tout it as a fallacy. Every election you hear that they will cut taxes and increase spending. I think they feel voters cannot do basic math.

[yaletown_fella]

Tax cuts end up becoming a bigger expense in the long run since they are dishonestly funded by loose monetary policy/QE .

The principal residence TE is also inflationary as it exacerbates the problem of low supply and artificially high/greater fool demand.

[Al Ski]

No worries, this is all about to come to its tragic, horrible yet utterly predictable end.

And Permanent Capital will scoop up the abandoned hopes and dreams of the devastated, like they always do.

But hey.. maybe they'll commission a SOOPERTALL in your town in honour of their victory so all is not lost, right?

Just think of the potential skyline enhancement..

Kinda makes you look forward to the collapse, doesn't it? The resulting SOOPERTALL!!

With all those people camping outside the bulletproof glass podium..

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, if there are no comparables allowed, just this mean we don't have to listen to cyclists prattle on about Amsterdam and Copenhagen?

Damned cyclists! If only they drove cars we'd have much less traffic!

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

No worries, this is all about to come to its tragic, horrible yet utterly predictable end.

And Permanent Capital will scoop up the abandoned hopes and dreams of the devastated, like they always do.

But hey.. maybe they'll commission a SOOPERTALL in your town in honour of their victory so all is not lost, right?

Just think of the potential skyline enhancement..

Kinda makes you look forward to the collapse, doesn't it? The resulting SOOPERTALL!!

With all those people camping outside the bulletproof glass podium..

Why are all your comments filled with such hyperbole?

This might come as a shocker to you but there’s this concept called “middle housing” which increases density using townhouses, small scale apartments, and more compact land use. It’s not like density can only increase because of a SOOPERTALL…

[niwell]

That Venn diagram is largely accurate, though I think ignores that while the relationship between density and service costs exists, it isn't always as simple as often presented. Generally speaking - yes, higher density areas will result in lower service costs per resident. If starting from a blank slate I'd say it's an absolute.

But - and this can be crucial - in an existing urban area the addition of density beyond a threshold can not only have diminishing returns but in fact be counterproductive (from a servicing cost perspective only - not talking about urban vibe/feel). We've reached a point in some places where land costs and the state of existing infrastructure results in exorbitant expense to scale up beyond a certain point. Neglecting this results in the situation that's already being felt in certain parts of central Toronto - schools are full, the sewer system is near peak capacity, traffic is atrocious and transit is lagging. The latter is partially being rectified but as we all know it's not cheap!

I'm not trying to do a NIMBY "no more towers!!" thing, but rather highlighting that we've dug ourselves into a bit of a hole that's becoming increasingly difficult to get out of. I don't have the answer, but I can't foresee success with any magic bullet solution. Higher taxes - whether it be at the municipal or provincial level will no doubt need to be part of it.

[Truenorth00]

The problem in a lot of low density areas is the lack of turnover. So a lot of these neighbourhoods are at risk of actually losing services. See the discussion about Mississauga from a few months ago.

Meanwhile, we actually do build density. In haphazard and unplanned ways. See all the illegal basement apartments in neighbouring Brampton.

We'd all be better off if we just let builders build more quadplexes and let homeowners put up ADUs.

[goodgrowth]

The answer is do all of the above. New greenfield developments should be allowed and upzoning should happen.

Some of the upzoning that is happening is lagging what is actually needed...and you can tell by the pricing.

If you look at what is actually being built in greenfield areas now days it's probably just as dense if not more than what is being allowed with some of these new rules for infill.

Plexes/townhouses may not even cut in some of these inner city areas..