Statistics Canada Reports II

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Interesting that London actually has amongst the highest downtown & transit friendly ratios in the country and is tied with Montreal at 30%. Such a statistic would not play well into NJB's narrative about the city so no doubt he will ignore the stat.

Who is NJB?

Now, I've looked at those maps and while interesting, quite a few of them seem off. For example Quebec City is way more car-oriented in reality than what it's given credit for.

[phone]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Who is NJB?

Now, I've looked at those maps and while interesting, quite a few of them seem off. For example Quebec City is way more car-oriented in reality than what it's given credit for.

Not Just Bikes?

[ssiguy]

Yes, Not Just Bikes with his condescending comments about his hometown of "fake London".

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Yes, Not Just Bikes with his condescending comments about his hometown of "fake London".

I prefer to think of it as London Junior, or "the one not in Europe".

[ericmacm]

London is always going to have a bad rep because it is a city that formed from an automobile-focused postwar boom, has minimal conventionally nice/interesting natural geography or features, visually has a lot in common with American rust belt cities, has a city council that thinks regressively, and doesn't really have a core unique identity (as of yet at least) that many of our largest cities do.

I have actually found London to be really underrated since moving here. Lots of people talk like it is a total dumpster but it really isn't. It offers a huge range of housing options and definitely offers way more variety for medium to high-density residential all across the city (even on the outer fringes) compared to other mid-sized cities in Canada. Along most major road corridors, there is generally a solid amount of diversity of land use with commercial, high density residential, and low-density residential all kind of mixed in together so you don't have to travel long distances all the time to get necessities. The urban form often leaves a lot to be desired, but at the end of the day, it is really functional for what it is and that's what matters in daily life.

I honestly think once London finally pulls its head out of the sand and builds a proper rapid transit network to deal with the traffic problem (traffic is easily one of the worst things about living here), it will be seen as one of the best cities in Canada to live in.

[rdaner]

I agree that London gets a bad rap. And aren't there three or four new developments opening downtown this year which will boost the population?

[Metro-One]

I recently watched a few NJB videos. The guy has a massive hard on for Amsterdam. He does have some really good points, but he does tread towards black and white, hyperbole rhetoric. He also tends to cherry pick the absolute worst urban examples of North America and then paints everywhere on the continent with that brush.

[ericmacm]

I agree that he tends to have good points, but there definitely is a personal bias in his content. I can’t blame anyone for hating the city that they grew up in, and I also can’t blame anyone for leaving Canada to seek a European urbanist lifestyle if that’s what one ultimately wants (there is nothing even remotely close to that here in Canada). There is a lot we can learn from European cities and I’m glad he is out here producing that kind of content to start these discussions here and elsewhere.

However, I do find the tone of NJB videos quite abrasive and condescending even though the overarching points are valid. People do like angry creators, but because of this general kind of tone, I think the people who need to hear his perspective the most will dismiss his viewpoints. This is unfortunately the worst aspect of many of the engineer/engineering-type creators that make these kinds of videos.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes I agree about NJB. His content tends to be excellent in terms of the actual facts and research, but the tone can be a problem. Everyone has a personal bias, but the NJB style of mocking places with development styles he doesn't like definitely isn't going to change many minds. That content is there for people who already agree to nod and say "amen" to. The best approach when it comes to changing minds is to meet the opposition where it is which entails empathizing with the opposition and explaining why their concerns can actually be addressed by your prescriptions.

Mocking them basically just implies that people with different priorities are stupid and their values and concerns are so irrelevant that they don't even need to be taken seriously. Which you're welcome to believe and it may even be true, but it isn't useful if the goal is to persuade. It's pretty rare to get someone to agree with you by telling them that they're stupid. Which is unfortunate because he often does a good job of presenting counter arguments and addressing concerns. He just doesn't present them in a way that people will find palatable.

[thewave46]

NJB reminds me of John Oliver, but at least NJB isn't trying to be funny.

Then again, John Oliver fails so badly at being funny I often question if he is actually a comedian. Yet people gobble it up. Bizarre.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by thewave46

NJB reminds me of John Oliver, but at least NJB isn't trying to be funny.

Then again, John Oliver fails so badly at being funny I often question if he is actually a comedian. Yet people gobble it up. Bizarre.

With Oliver I think it's mostly just a case of you and him having different senses of humour rather than him having any sort comedic deficiency. Obviously his humour appeals to a big enough percentage of people that he is able to be successful. Personally, while i don't always find him funny, I do often find him funny.

With NJB, I think he does try to be funny but it's just such dry humour that if it doesn't succeed you don't notice the attempt.

[theman23]

Great news if you own a Tim Hortons in this country:
• Video Link
As of October, the labour force has grown by 81,000 a month in 2023 but only added 28,000 jobs a month. The latter is on a downward trend, with job growth in October down to 18,000.
Source:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...31103a-eng.htm

[thewave46]

Indeed, importing people at a rate four times the job growth rate will certainly help that unemployment rate. It’s been far too low for too long - we need to get it up past 7%, stat. At 0.1-0.2% increase per month, the scheme will likely be complete by the Liberals face the electorate again. Maybe even quicker if the resources/debt/housing quicksand the Canadian economy is so stably built upon starts shifting.

Indeed, for the briefest of windows, low wage labour did have some leverage for improving its condition. Silly peons, improving working conditions are for Landed Gentry.

Fortunately for the Landed Gentry, the continued mass wave of people arriving have kept home prices high despite 5% Bank of Canada rates and their rental properties bursting at the seams. If for a moment one was worried about the Landed Gentry losing their overleveraged homes or their amateur landlord status, fear not.

Team Red/Orange, the real heroes of the little guy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by theman23

Great news if you own a Tim Hortons in this country:
• Video Link
As of October, the labour force has grown by 81,000 a month in 2023 but only added 28,000 jobs a month. The latter is on a downward trend, with job growth in October down to 18,000.
Source:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...31103a-eng.htm

It’s also good news if you own a portfolio of urban real estate. It (the Scheme) is the main cause for optimism at the moment (interest rates being the main cause for pessimism).

Edit — thewave46 totally beat me to it

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Team Red/Orange, the real heroes of the little guy.

Yes, orders of magnitude better, even if one doesn't agree with all individual decisions. We can't make much of month to month changes since there's a lag time in economics, but for one, they're less prone to pitting different "little guys" against one another. The age old "they're terking er jeeerbs!" rhetoric while ignoring the much larger effects of supply-side economics and the corporate race toward the bottom strategy has been successful at devastating the middle class over the decades. Though it's important not to ignore the difference between red and orange as the red part former is much more corporatist than the latter.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Yes, orders of magnitude better, even if one doesn't agree with all individual decisions. We can't make much of month to month changes since there's a lag time in economics, but for one, they're less prone to pitting different "little guys" against one another. The age old "they're terking er jeeerbs!" rhetoric while ignoring the much larger effects of supply-side economics and the corporate race toward the bottom strategy has been successful at devastating the middle class over the decades. Though it's important not to ignore the difference between red and orange as the red part is former is much more corporatist than the latter.

If there's been something devastating to the middle class in the last decade, huge property price appreciation and rent inflation has been it. I recall middle-class neighbours raising four kids in a bungalow in the 1980s and 1990s. Seems but a dream now for anyone below the upper-middle class in all but the cheapest locales.

I care not of the colour of the political party, nor their ostensible party platform. That's partisan bullshit, and if Team Orange abets Team Red's corporatism, they wear the stain of it too. If government is so blind to their own failings are to make Team Blue appear the better option (see my cynicism on Team Blue's pitch in my previous posts), we deserve what we get.

Oh, but the housing price appreciation felt so good and the cost of screwing over the future wasn't felt at the time. Until we had to keep it up, because we'd built a little scheme. In keeping up the scheme via high immigration, we traded away the pressure release valve of ordinary times. One might lose their overleveraged house, but they'd at least land with somewhat affordable rent. Except that option's gone in many places. Lose the house and get hosed on rent. Proper screwed, with no path forward.

Pressure comes out somewhere. I like safety release valves personally, but watching things go 'Bang!' in ugly ways is fun too.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by thewave46

If there's been something devastating to the middle class in the last decade, huge property price appreciation and rent inflation has been it. I recall middle-class neighbours raising four kids in a bungalow in the 1980s and 1990s. Seems but a dream now for anyone below the upper-middle class in all but the cheapest locales.

I care not of the colour of the political party, nor their ostensible party platform. That's partisan bullshit, and if Team Orange abets Team Red's corporatism, they wear the stain of it too. If government is so blind to their own failings are to make Team Blue appear the better option (see my cynicism on Team Blue's pitch in my previous posts), we deserve what we get.

Oh, but the housing price appreciation felt so good and the cost of screwing over the future wasn't felt at the time. Until we had to keep it up, because we'd built a little scheme. In keeping up the scheme via high immigration, we traded away the pressure release valve of ordinary times. One might lose their overleveraged house, but they'd at least land with somewhat affordable rent. Except that option's gone in many places. Lose the house and get hosed on rent. Proper screwed, with no path forward.

Pressure comes out somewhere. I like safety release valves personally, but watching things go 'Bang!' in ugly ways is fun too.

A guy was out road biking down the highway when he notices a small dark smudge on the side of his right leg. He realizes that his chain must have rubbed against his skin at some point. Annoyed, he stops to wipe off the smudge. At that moment his dirt biker friend emerges from a forest trail covered head to toe in mud. His friend comes over takes a look at him and says well, well, well. You always claimed you didn't want to try dirt biking because it was too messy and you wanted to stay clean. But I guess you should have taken up dirt biking after all. I don't have a single spot of bike grease on me!

But seriously this whole topic is verging on the ludicrous. First of all, the housing affordability crisis is the result of income inequality rather than vice versa. David Hulchansky, Canada's foremost housing policy expert and PhD author, researcher, and UofT professor has written about the topic in great detail. You can access a full discussion he gave on the topic here. So while it's a complex issue with many variables, if you want to blame anyone for housing unaffordability the best place to start is with those whose policies have most increased inequality prior to the crisis taking hold. Policies that erode union protections, allow inflation to outpace minimum wages, reduce corporate taxes, increase corporate welfare, weaken the social safety net, etc.

The NDP are well aware that for all the liberal shortcomings they are significantly better in all such regards compared to the conservatives. And since the the NDP aren't poised to actually take power any time soon which is the only way to actually implement their preferred policies, keeping the conservatives out of power as long as possible is pragmatically the most good they can do. There's no "smudge" associated with them for making that (correct) calculation unless you think they could have actually enacted their preferred policies somehow?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So while it's a complex issue with many variables, if you want to blame anyone for housing unaffordability the best place to start is with those whose policies have most increased inequality prior to the crisis taking hold. Policies that erode union protections, allow inflation to outpace minimum wages, reduce corporate taxes, increase corporate welfare, weaken the social safety net, etc.

This doesn't really pass the sniff test as far as current prices go in major markets like Toronto or Vancouver. There isn't any reasonable adjustment of wages that could be made such that real estate would become widely affordable. Material from 2019 is outdated now as prices have increased while interest costs multiplied.

If you're talking about 2010's Vancouver rents or Toronto housing prices, sure, raising wages by some fraction through unionization or something might have helped. Those days are gone.

The main drivers these days are immigration-driven population growth relative to new supply and financial/regulatory considerations relating to housing itself that leads to bubbly pricing. I don't think these clearly map on to the NDP vs. Cons. The NDP have had more of a role in the current government that has overseen a catastrophic deterioration of housing affordability in the last few years. IMO the Canadian public doesn't really grasp the magnitude of what has gone wrong and there are so many third rails and sacred cows in Canada that politicians can't generally propose the kind of policy shift that's needed (fiscal discipline, halting human QE and live with miserable economic growth numbers, building lots of housing even if it annoys NIMBYs, etc.).

[someone123]

I don't have any strong opinions on London ON but I don't think those statistics capture what this NJB person cares about. London will tend to look relatively good on density stats because it has "well packed" development with few geographical barriers (while a place like Stockholm would have a big census tract level density penalty). Commuting transport mode is interesting but doesn't get at urbanism very directly and I wonder how relevant it is in the post-Covid WFH environment. Is work from home a mode or do they shrink the denominator? What if you work from home 3 days and go in 2 days?

For NJB you'd want to look at whether there are vibrant areas of mixed use where people in practice get around on foot or by bike for day-to-day activities (not just commuting). I will leave it to others to debate whether lots of people in London ON live an Amsterdam-like lifestyle that includes things like many short trips to small scale local businesses.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by someone123

The main drivers these days are immigration-driven population growth relative to new supply and financial/regulatory considerations relating to housing itself that leads to bubbly pricing. I don't think these clearly map on to the NDP vs. Cons. The NDP have had more of a role in the current government that has overseen a catastrophic deterioration of housing affordability in the last few years. IMO the Canadian public doesn't really grasp the magnitude of what has gone wrong and there are so many third rails and sacred cows in Canada that politicians can't generally propose the kind of policy shift that's needed (fiscal discipline, halting human QE and live with miserable economic growth numbers, building lots of housing even if it annoys NIMBYs, etc.).

Pretty much this.

The various 'prop up things by thowing money/half-assed solution at it' avenues are closing, and late-era government policy is mostly the act of trying to pretend things are fine when they're not.

So, what would make me happy?

1. Acknowledgement that pain has to come via deleveraging and not just piling on more debt at a consumer or government level.
2. The acceptance that people who bought insanely inflated-price homes and can no longer afford them are going to lose said homes and will not be bailed out.
3. A reduction of the amount of students/TFWs entering the country to reduce pressure on the rental side of the housing market when this happens, so that those locals who are losing their homes will have somewhere to land and rebuild.
4. This reduction in labour supply will take the sting out of the inevitable recession and prevent a big pop upwards in unemployment numbers.
5. A policy of pro-housing and pro-rental development in context of the expected growth of the country so as to divorce the idea that one's shelter is also an appreciating financial asset.
6. Government moves towards balance by accepting that its programs must be paid for by taxes and not obligations to future generations.
7. Tighter restrictions on future mortgages.

This will be an ugly process, but perhaps controllable if we accept it as a process. It's just less ugly than the big oscillations of government will be when some sort of world financial/debt crisis hits us smack in the face without warning.