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

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

So Timmins is declining (immigrants don't like winter), but Edmonton is growing (immigrants don't mind winter)?

This is the SSP weather fetish manifesting. It is not reflective of reality.

Timmins was declining (don't know if it still is as of 2024) because it's a low-growth, high-skill blue-collar mining city 300km north of Sudbury - itself not particularly appealing a city. It is 700km away from the GTA.

Edmonton is a city of a million-plus and 300km away from Calgary, another city of a million-plus people. I cannot overstate the level of isolation of Timmins compared to Edmonton. Timmins and Edmonton are not terribly comparable living experiences, except for maybe weather.

You either like the small town in the boonies, or you don't. If one is new to a country, one tends to stay in larger centres, because you're more likely to find people who are similar to you.

That being said, if such a housing crisis is indeed happening in Timmins (debatable), clearly the big wave of immigration has exacerbated it. So in that sense, Timmins is just getting a taste of what the rest of the country has been experiencing for awhile now.

What Timmins allegedly needs is what the rest of the country is crying for - skilled labour. That's the knock, though. We're not importing skilled labour and if one is skilled, one generally has choices about where to live and find employment. Timmins is usually low on that metric.

[Truenorth00]

By far the dumbest housing argument that needs to be called out is the NDP argument about "luxury condos". It is exactly this kind of nonsense that reminds me to never vote NDP.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/sta...2NCK2D26w&s=19

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Since 2019 and especially since the Covid pandemic we have had a huge influx of people. We have at least 2000 students from India who attend Northern College.

Did you just admit the only reason you guys are gaining people is the Ponzi Scheme?!? (Yes, you did.)

It’s like if I argued that massive new potable water infrastructure should be urgently built in the middle of the Sahara, and when theman23 correctly points out that it’s a desert and should be left in its natural state, I point out that I have tricked a large amount of suckers into settling there and they just did, therefore, THAT is why water is now needed there.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

By far the dumbest housing argument that needs to be called out is the NDP argument about "luxury condos". It is exactly this kind of nonsense that reminds me to never vote NDP.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/sta...2NCK2D26w&s=19

It's kind of baffling they would take this angle. There's a huge problem with investor targeted condos - particularly in the GTA and Vancouver. And it's true they certainly aren't cheap in these locales. But the issue isn't typology it's the fact they aren't particularly livable for large segments of the populations. It's a far-cry from the slab apartments in the 70s that while ugly tended to be perfectly fine for families in terms of unit size/layout.

Part of this is driven by form - for a point tower to make sense financially in an area with high land values either small unit sizes or very expensive units are almost necessary. Not saying we need to return to slabs but they are inherently more efficient in this respect.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We have the second most arable land per capita in the entire world. Even if we double in population, there is plenty of usable land for everyone. Lack of land isn't our problem, governments at various levels preventing houses from being built are the problem. Under normal circumstances a sudden high number of migrants may cause house prices to go up, but then the market would adapt to the new demand. However in Canada this isn't allowed to happen due to various rules in place of what can and can't be built, to what extent, and where.

The only country with more arable land per capita than us is Australia, who ironically has an even worse housing bubble than us.

Arable land means it's good for farming. It's not just "available" for whatever. Of course cities tend to exist where farming is possible, and some land ends up having to be used for cities, but it's still a finite resource that is only going to become more critical with climate change.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Arable land means it's good for farming. It's not just "available" for whatever. Of course cities tend to exist where farming is possible, and some land ends up having to be used for cities, but it's still a finite resource that is only going to become more critical with climate change.

In what world does using land so people can have a place to live qualify as "whatever"? As long as this line of thinking exists, we will continue to have a shortage of houses and the most unaffordable prices in the world. People need to live somewhere. Anyone who personally lives in a SFH, but then votes to prevent other people from being able to build new SFHs for their families is the definition of the word "selfish" - and there are a lot of people in Canada who fit that description.

All of our homes used to be farmland as well by the way, but luckily prior generations allowed it to be developed, so you could now live in it.

Here is a satellite image of Canada. We could literally double our cities' urban footprint and it would barely make a dent.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by niwell

Part of this is driven by form - for a point tower to make sense financially in an area with high land values either small unit sizes or very expensive units are almost necessary. Not saying we need to return to slabs but they are inherently more efficient in this respect.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg scenario, in the sense that land prices are ultimately driven by what price a buyer thinks they can sell the end units for. You don't pay $200 per buildable square foot if you think you can only sell the units for $600 PSF. If there's enough evidence to suggest you can sell out 400 "luxury" condo units, then you're almost certainly going to be willing to pay more for the land than someone else who envisions a healthy mix of family-sized units. When it comes to selling their product, developers for the most part are price takers rather than price setters.

The idea that you can simply regulate away the luxury market is so obnoxiously NDP though. Imposing restrictions on certain unit types doesn't remove the buyers from the market, it just means they will flow down into the next housing typology available. If you suddenly banned construction of 4,000+ SF mcmansions, then those buyers will bid up whatever the next best available product is instead. Congratulations, a 2,000 SF townhome is now "luxury". To get the market to provide that diverse mix of unit types desired, you have to let it saturate the top-end of the market first before the capital and resources flow down into the lower tiers when there isn't enough demand left for high-end units. We are at such an imbalance in certain markets like Toronto and Vancouver, where the supply pipeline can't even match the demand at the top tiers of that typology pyramid, so how do we ever expect it to be economical to build mid-tier 3-bedroom condos, long-term rentals, etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's kind of baffling they would take this angle.

Is it?

Casper has basically had the same argument here for a while. There's a certain segment of the left who basically thinks affordable housing can't be delivered by anybody but the government. Basically, it's not "affordable" unless it's a co-op. I just wonder how many young people fall for this.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

The idea that you can simply regulate away the luxury market is so obnoxiously NDP though. Imposing restrictions on certain unit types doesn't remove the buyers from the market, it just means they will flow down into the next housing typology available. If you suddenly banned construction of 4,000+ SF mcmansions, then those buyers will bid up whatever the next best available product is instead. Congratulations, a 2,000 SF townhome is now "luxury". To get the market to provide that diverse mix of unit types desired, you have to let it saturate the top-end of the market first before the capital and resources flow down into the lower tiers when there isn't enough demand left for high-end units. We are at such an imbalance in certain markets like Toronto and Vancouver, where the supply pipeline can't even match the demand at the top tiers of that typology pyramid, so how do we ever expect it to be economical to build mid-tier 3-bedroom condos, long-term rentals, etc.

Indeed. Another one of the issues that's complicated by the seemingly bottomless supply pipeline.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is it?

Casper has basically had the same argument here for a while. There's a certain segment of the left who basically thinks affordable housing can't be delivered by anybody but the government. Basically, it's not "affordable" unless it's a co-op. I just wonder how many young people fall for this.

It's an argument that may have more merit in a theoretical scenario where we aren't saddled by the combination of factors (and the one BIG one) that have made the housing market untenable. But we aren't in that situation, and won't be bar some massive changes.

[suburbanite]

The thing I find most baffling about the argument of those who seem to think developers are greedy and government is the only way is that those same developers served the Canadian market pretty damn well until sometime around 2011-2012. Did they all gather around a giant boardroom table twirling their mustaches and decide that the Canadian homebuyer needed to get screwed over? Or did the market get distorted to the point where the most beneficial outcome for them no longer aligned with public's best interest? Mattamy basically built all of Milton in the early 2000's. They delivered thousands upon thousands of affordably-priced units and did it more efficiently than the old guard. Peter Gilgan became a billionaire for doing so and should be encouraged to do it again. The De Gasperis Family basically did the same thing in Mississauga in the 70's/80's, they sold tons of reasonably priced units and accommodated the city's population growth because that was the best way for them to make money.

Am I arguing that developers are completely benevolent with the goal of supplying Canadians with the cheapest housing available? Obviously not, but if you create a market where speculating on land values is a more profitable activity than actually building homes, or funneling all of your resources towards one housing type is more profitable, than people are going to make the simple calculus that leads them to inefficient market outcomes. The government's job is to create the framework and incentive structure that leads to the best outcome, not to create a dysfunctional mess and then have to become an active participant in said mess.

[niwell]

Developers were also very much involved with the creation of the GTHA's greenbelt and subsequent Places to Grow Plans (in all their iterations).

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Apparently, student visa applications from India have dropped 86% in the last quarter of 2023.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../106920406.cms

Sincerely hope this is true and continues. For their sake. And ours.

I don't blame them. Coming to Canada as a middle class student in 2024 would be a very stressful experience. I've read a lot of stories about foreign students coming here, and skipping meals to make it work financially.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by niwell

Developers were also very much involved with the creation of the GTHA's greenbelt and subsequent Places to Grow Plans (in all their iterations).

Being involved is not the same thing as being in the drivers seat. Developers were very much not in the drivers seat of it and almost universally hate the Greenbelt and places to grow act which artificially restrict the supply of greenfield housing supply.

The Liberals issued a directive it was coming - developers obviously got involved to make sure it worked for them as best as possible - not the other way around.

With the reversal of most urban boundary expansions in the GTA in November by the PCs there will be basically no greenfield expansion areas in many parts of the GTA in a decade or so, effectively "banning" the supply of large properties for the upper end of the market as @suburbanite referenced.

Get ready for a reality of townhouses being a luxurious product for the executive class in the GTA in 20 years. It's coming, fast, and I don't see any signs of the ship being turned around on that front.

Hamilton is basically already out of significant greenfield land and developers are converting almost all of the remaining areas to townhouses as land costs have become too high for the sale of sfhs other than at the luxury level.

Until we fix the supply of greenfield development area anything other than an apartment will become an increasing luxury in the GTA. I think we are seeing real signs of making sure the supply of apartments stays relatively level with demand, especially if population growth can return to more normal levels, but ground-related housing supply is only getting more and more highly regulated and artificially regulated.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

By far the dumbest housing argument that needs to be called out is the NDP argument about "luxury condos". It is exactly this kind of nonsense that reminds me to never vote NDP.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/sta...2NCK2D26w&s=19

I think he was specifically referring to the Griesbach neighbourhood (a former military lands) which is a Canada Lands Company development. The majority of developments in that neighbourhood are detached houses and I think there is one rental apartment building on site currently by the school.

I know it isn't complete, maybe 55% of the land so far, but I've followed this development from the beginning and I can't recall any government housing on site until now. Could be a standard case that the affordable components / social housing gets built last, as we saw in 2022 the 1st (and only so far) government supported affordable housing (I think $3 million so far) to help build in partnership 212 homes.

These buildings (so far) are located on Castle Downs Rd. (the commercial to the south isn't complete yet and I hope it will contain a grocery store), but you could imagine being lower income, not having a car in Edmonton, and the government sticks you in a food desert. Not to mention I think Sobey's still has a covenant to prevent competition - a common Edmonton item - in one of the retail centres and has yet to build.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I think he was specifically referring to the Griesbach neighbourhood (a former military lands) which is a Canada Lands Company development.

Singh has made similar statements for projects in Toronto. This kind of language has become very common across the NDP base. You'll see the same language used by NIMBYs too. They'll argue that some or the other condo isn't necessary because it's "luxury".

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Build.It

In what world does using land so people can have a place to live qualify as "whatever"? As long as this line of thinking exists, we will continue to have a shortage of houses and the most unaffordable prices in the world. People need to live somewhere. Anyone who personally lives in a SFH, but then votes to prevent other people from being able to build new SFHs for their families is the definition of the word "selfish" - and there are a lot of people in Canada who fit that description.

All of our homes used to be farmland as well by the way, but luckily prior generations allowed it to be developed, so you could now live in it.

Here is a satellite image of Canada. We could literally double our cities' urban footprint and it would barely make a dent.

all i see is massive mountainous area in the west and a cold tundra/prairies in the middle and then a bunch of mosquito filled lakes and then the rest of Canada

btw, SFH require huge amount of infrastructure to support. Someone has to pay for this.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Singh has made similar statements for projects in Toronto. This kind of language has become very common across the NDP base. You'll see the same language used by NIMBYs too. They'll argue that some or the other condo isn't necessary because it's "luxury".

I'd agree with the "non-luxury home" argument to a degree if those other developments you're referring to were on federal lands.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by djmk

all i see is massive mountainous area in the west and a cold tundra/prairies in the middle and then a bunch of mosquito filled lakes and then the rest of Canada

btw, SFH require huge amount of infrastructure to support. Someone has to pay for this.

We don't have a shortage of land for any purpose by any stretch of imagination. We have more than enough land to comfortably and affordably house everyone, AND grow all the food our population needs, AND have food left over to export to other countries. We could double our population to 80M people at the same density we have now, and STILL be in the top 10 countries of arable land per capita and STILL comfortably house everyone, feed everyone and export food to other countries. If other countries are able to accomplish this with less land, and keep homes that people actually want affordable, why can't we?

The infrastructure for SFHs are paid for by the purchasers of SFHs. That is part of the reason why they cost more.

The little grey speckles are our cities. The sea of light green which I outlined in red are our farms. And probably being conservative as there are 1000s of acres of land in the maritimes that are still forest, but technically could grow food.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Build.It

We don't have a shortage of land for any purpose by any stretch of imagination. We have more than enough land to comfortably and affordably house everyone, AND grow all the food our population needs, AND have food left over to export to other countries. We could double our population to 80M people at the same density we have now, and STILL be in the top 10 countries of arable land per capita and STILL comfortably house everyone, feed everyone and export food to other countries. If other countries are able to accomplish this with less land, and keep homes that people actually want affordable, why can't we?

The infrastructure for SFHs are paid for by the purchasers of SFHs. That is part of the reason why they cost more.

The little grey speckles are our cities. The sea of light green which I outlined in red are our farms. And probably being conservative as there are 1000s of acres of land in the maritimes that are still forest, but technically could grow food.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

this map is definitely not to scale!

1/2 of Canada's population already lives in that middle box stretching from Windsor to Quebec City

Vancouver and the lower mainland is that far right box

and there is a reason why not many people want to live in the rest of those boxes. You will never able to convince a million people to move to a place to a place like Peace River Alberta or a Loydminster.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by djmk

this map is definitely not to scale!

1/2 of Canada's population already lives in that middle box stretching from Windsor to Quebec City

Vancouver and the lower mainland is that far right box

and there is a reason why not many people want to live in the rest of those boxes. You will never able to convince a million people to move to a place to a place like Peace River Alberta or a Loydminster.

I'll get to the rest of your post a bit later after I'm done work, but in the meanwhile I have a question for you:

What makes you think that you get a say in what someone else does with land that they (and not you) own?