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

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

Unlike clothing and most consumer goods there's no "cheap but lesser quality" option when it comes to housing.

No fundamental reason there couldn't be; it's the authorities who are hell-bent on making sure the remains of it are persecuted and finished off. The end goal seems to be a society in which everyone is either housed in a perfectly newest-codes-compliant unit or sleeping under the bridge, and we don't really care what the ratio between the two categories is.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by lio45

No fundamental reason there couldn't be; it's the authorities who are hell-bent on making sure the remains of it are persecuted and finished off. The end goal seems to be a society in which everyone is either housed in a perfectly newest-codes-compliant unit or sleeping under the bridge, and we don't really care what the ratio between the two categories is.

Ironically as municipalities hold a minimum acceptable standard on housing...tent cities form.

Here's a hard truth...housing is 50% building codes and 50% social class filtering. And it's a very effective tool to filter by social class under the guise of something else. If this were not the case nobody would give two hoots about things like "neighborhood character"...somebody in a mansion would be like "yeah sure come build that trailer park next to me".

[Build.It]

Your options are:
Detached
Semi
Townhouse
Condo
Tent

There are effectively (except for very minor parts of the country) no trailers, no tiny homes, no informal homes that people built themselves.

Basically, in Canada our various building and housing policies have made it illegal to house oneself if you're poor, other than to live in a tent.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

No fundamental reason there couldn't be; it's the authorities who are hell-bent on making sure the remains of it are persecuted and finished off. The end goal seems to be a society in which everyone is either housed in a perfectly newest-codes-compliant unit or sleeping under the bridge, and we don't really care what the ratio between the two categories is.

This is true, but I doubt it would be considered "acceptable" by Canadian standards at this time. Maybe in the future those attitudes will shift.

We obviously don't want to go the route of informal settlements but the idea of having developments with very basic construction initially that can be improved over time is something I've always thought was a good one. Here's an example of a pretty massive development in the Northern Suburbs of Johannesburg (Riverside) that has a mix of lower/middle-income market rate housing, social housing, apartments and retail. Note that it was more successful than most due to forcing the developer of the rich development to the South (Steyn City) to contribute:

Basic house as delivered: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mafqZX12d8P31PQF7

Owner-improved housing (it only started in 2019ish, so this is quick): https://maps.app.goo.gl/UoGHzZ38wmpbMFtr5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5NLDoyQFwtXRjxDK7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zzL2ZP3ZAVW8sikG7

Retail infill on residential streets as allowed by "Township zoning" (restaurant/grocery store):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jkVCRhXUdK8Aytfs5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cStDxDqng6NJJ4vq8

Walk-up apartment complexes (and a mall): https://maps.app.goo.gl/b34AibwZMSvdEaa77

It's still very suburban oriented but has been very successful as far as these things go. Still a *massive* housing shortage due to very high rates of in-migration and the fact stuff can't be built fast enough though. But if you're in the lower-middle class stuff is still generally available.

[Build.It]

It's pretty interesting to look at shanty towns in South Africa on google street. You can clearly see how many of them have transformed from tin-roofed shacks to legit suburbs in only 15 years.

You still see a lot of this, but it appears to be on the decline:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KXiue8XGLKDaa9dz7

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by niwell

This is true, but I doubt it would be considered "acceptable" by Canadian standards at this time. Maybe in the future those attitudes will shift.

We obviously don't want to go the route of informal settlements but the idea of having developments with very basic construction initially that can be improved over time is something I've always thought was a good one. Here's an example of a pretty massive development in the Northern Suburbs of Johannesburg (Riverside) that has a mix of lower/middle-income market rate housing, social housing, apartments and retail. Note that it was more successful than most due to forcing the developer of the rich development to the South (Steyn City) to contribute:

Basic house as delivered: https://maps.app.goo.gl/mafqZX12d8P31PQF7

Owner-improved housing (it only started in 2019ish, so this is quick): https://maps.app.goo.gl/UoGHzZ38wmpbMFtr5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5NLDoyQFwtXRjxDK7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zzL2ZP3ZAVW8sikG7

Retail infill on residential streets as allowed by "Township zoning" (restaurant/grocery store):
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jkVCRhXUdK8Aytfs5
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cStDxDqng6NJJ4vq8

Walk-up apartment complexes (and a mall): https://maps.app.goo.gl/b34AibwZMSvdEaa77

It's still very suburban oriented but has been very successful as far as these things go. Still a *massive* housing shortage due to very high rates of in-migration and the fact stuff can't be built fast enough though. But if you're in the lower-middle class stuff is still generally available.

you see, this takes this thing called land. Which in Vancouver and Toronto, is illegal. So it's a no-go.

The model we need to look at under current land use regulations is closer to Asia. Something more akin to this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4466...6656?entry=ttu

Mass slab towers built as cheaply as possible to deliver large amounts of housing in a dense form.

It's just not going to work otherwise - but even these need large development parcels which are challenging to find in Vancouver and Toronto. We basically ban the assembly of existing low-rise properties and municipalities try to prohibit the assembly of employment parcels as well.. so we are left with nowhere to deliver large-scale housing estates built in low-cost forms. And that's what we need for housing affordability.

[Coldrsx]

I find some of the HAF decisions and allocations perplexing given that many areas that are receiving monies require significant new infrastructure, does not have ample public transit options and will lead to potential conflicts with existing neighbourhoods.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

you see, this takes this thing called land. Which in Vancouver and Toronto, is illegal. So it's a no-go.

The model we need to look at under current land use regulations is closer to Asia. Something more akin to this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4466...6656?entry=ttu

Mass slab towers built as cheaply as possible to deliver large amounts of housing in a dense form.

It's just not going to work otherwise - but even these need large development parcels which are challenging to find in Vancouver and Toronto. We basically ban the assembly of existing low-rise properties and municipalities try to prohibit the assembly of employment parcels as well.. so we are left with nowhere to deliver large-scale housing estates built in low-cost forms. And that's what we need for housing affordability.

To be clear I don't think it would work in Toronto or Van, just an example of approaching things from a different perspective. With Code changes there's still plenty of room for relatively cheap 4 storey walkups if there was the will. Slab towers akin to what was built in the 70s are honestly a better option than the master planned tower communities in many cases as well.

[goodgrowth]

Again housing is the most effective class filtering tool in society. It's the (true but would never admit) foundation of lot of municipal rules and the development approval process.

Are people just going to be indifferent to social status all of a sudden? Nope. Which is why "affordable" or cheaper or basic housing will always be elusive and pushed to the fringes.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Again housing is the most effective class filtering tool in society. It's the (true but would never admit) foundation of lot of municipal rules and the development approval process.

Are people just going to be indifferent to social status all of a sudden? Nope. Which is why "affordable" or cheaper or basic housing will always be elusive and pushed to the fringes.

Even this is mostly banned in Canadian metros, and basically limited to sidewalk tents and Walmart RVs.

It is effectively illegal to be poor in Canada:
- If you don't make X amount of dollars you are not allowed to put a reliable roof over your head.
- If your labour isn't able to attract X amount of dollars/hour, you are not allowed to work either (except for delivering food on a bike, or picking fruit).

[ssiguy]

Canada already produces cheap housing, they're called modular/prefab homes. The issue is that, as noted by goodgrowth, is that they are illegal in 99% of our urban areas.

This is where the prov/fed gov't should step in and sell ALL urban land holdings near our cities for next to nothing with the proviso that the developers build all the civic infrastructure and only allow prefab/modular housing types that can be built for less than $200k and only available to people who are eligible for CMHC which gets rid of anyone who is not a citizen and has owned property in the last 7 years. They would purchase the house for $150k and $100k for the property. Remember these are NOT mobile homes so could have basements and meet all building codes for regular homes.

This would bring cheap and affordable housing onto the market and very fast. Of course, that assumes the cities and senior levels of gov't actually want to have affordable housing which they most certainly don't.

[Build.It]

Canada:

Where the second largest land mass has a land shortage and the population has to settle for living in cheaply constructed high rise slab buildings.

[Innsertnamehere]

Ultimately dense housing is expensive - it's a really unfortunate fact.

Especially since Canada's largest housing markets have placed artificial limits on land availability, it forces land values up so that only the wealthy can afford any significant amount of it, and shuts the door on what are traditionally the most affordable housing forms (i.e. trailer parks).

Things like modular apartments get a bit closer to that form in a high-density form, but really still don't get particularly close with per-unit costs of $300k or so..

The more I look at it, the only way to restore large-scale affordability is to restore access to development land. Be that through redirecting growth to parts of the country to accommodate it (i.e. Maritimes) or though opening up lands on the suburban fringes of existing growth centres, it's the only way to allow affordable square footage to be built at an adequate scale.

It should of course be tied with deregulating land use regulations within existing urban areas as well, but I don't believe legalizing multi-plexes and upzoning transit areas for high-denisty developments is going to fix the problem by themselves.

[Build.It]

Is this your way of saying we need to get rid of the Greenbelt and Places-to-Grow?

And also get rid of most zoning requirements?

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is where the prov/fed gov't should step in and sell ALL urban land holdings near our cities for next to nothing with the proviso that the developers build all the civic infrastructure and only allow prefab/modular housing types that can be built for less than $200k and only available to people who are eligible for CMHC which gets rid of anyone who is not a citizen and has owned property in the last 7 years. They would purchase the house for $150k and $100k for the property. Remember these are NOT mobile homes so could have basements and meet all building codes for regular homes.

Why sell, and lose ultimate control of it?

Retain ownership, and go out for public tender for who gets to build on it. Make developers compete for the right to build without all the headaches of zoning and site plan approval.

[whatnext]

Yet another example showing why government schemes to make home ownership affordable are bound to fail. Outside of them outright building rentals it is futile.

Affordable-housing buyers already owned homes, civil suits claim
B.C. Housing has sued 13 people, accusing them of lying to obtain below-market-price condos in Victoria
Jason Proctor · CBC News · Posted: Mar 05, 2024

Built with a $53-million low-interest loan from the province to underwrite the below-market sale of family homes, Victoria's Vivid condominium development was supposed to be a new model for affordable housing in B.C.

Then-housing minister — and now premier — David Eby hailed the 2021 completion of construction on the 135-unit building in the provincial capital's downtown as "great news" for middle-income British Columbians hoping to achieve the dream of home ownership.

But court documents obtained by CBC allege that as many as a dozen of those condos were sold to people who already owned property — in some cases multiple homes worth millions.

B.C. Housing claims 13 purchasers never lived in homes they agreed would be their principal residences — in violation of agreements signed for the right to buy at discount prices....

....The court documents claim two of the purchasers never set up the intercom systems for their units and another never booked the elevator for a move.

In June 2022, B.C. Housing claims a student from China contacted the Vivid strata council claiming she was paying $1,800 a month to rent the unit for which a Victoria couple paid $317,400.

She allegedly said she was being evicted.

"She had been instructed that rentals were not permitted and that she could not tell anyone that she was renting," the lawsuit reads.

According to the civil claim, the unit's owners also own six other homes in the Victoria area worth a combined total of $7.75 million...

....The buyers named in the lawsuits come from all walks of life — scientist, student, insurance broker, businessman. A number are retired — including a man who allegedly owns a $1.7-million home in Nanaimo where he "currently operates what appears to be a small hotel."

Yet another of the retired buyers was allegedly living in subsidized housing in Chinatown instead of her $309,120 unit at Vivid when B.C. Housing filed suit against her in December 2022.

The bulk of the lawsuits were filed in 2022, but B.C. Housing filed the latest notice of civil claim this week against a software engineer who allegedly paid $300,400 for a unit at Vivid; the suit says he also owns a $716,000 detached home and $425,300 townhome in Victoria.

The agency is also suing real estate agent Janet Yu, who B.C. Housing claims "realized significant personal profit by acting as the realtor for a number of purchasers in the Vivid building." She also bought a unit for herself.

"Nearly all the purchasers for whom [Yu] represented as a realtor have also failed to comply with the terms of the Affordable Home Ownership Covenant," the claim against her reads.

B.C. Housing claims Yu made commissions worth nearly $53,000 from the sale of 12 units. The court documents say Yu lives at a different address with her partner and owns or co-owns properties worth nearly $3 million....

...Yu denies the allegations.

In her response, Yu claims she "does not speak English as her first or principal language, and has limitations with respect to her understanding of English."...(bold mine)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...uits-1.7131524

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is where the prov/fed gov't should step in and sell ALL urban land holdings near our cities for next to nothing with the proviso that the developers build all the civic infrastructure

A) Wait, is this for the purpose of making housing affordable or making it plentiful? That cost is going directly to the buyer.

B) This presupposes that developers can line up the lines of credit to rapidly scale up their production.

Developers are largely building what they can and that means 240,000 to 270,000 houses per year. We need volume and that means the entities that can can line up the financing the easiest are the ones that need to step up to get the job done. We need to rely less on the individual lendees taking on their loans to get the houses built as that only gets us more stagnation.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

A) Wait, is this for the purpose of making housing affordable or making it plentiful? That cost is going directly to the buyer.

B) This presupposes that developers can line up the lines of credit to rapidly scale up their production.

Developers are largely building what they can and that means 240,000 to 270,000 houses per year. We need volume and that means the entities that can can line up the financing the easiest are the ones that need to step up to get the job done. We need to rely less on the individual lendees taking on their loans to get the houses built as that only gets us more stagnation.

Modular/prefab homes are MUCH cheaper to build than standard construction, are of superior quality, and can be built up to 40% faster. 45% of all housing built in Scandinavia are modular/prefab and God knows their income levels are substantially higher than ours.

The cost of homes in Vancouver has nothing to do with the house itself and everything to do with the land price. By getting rid of this, the houses can be built at a fraction of the price. This not only brings much cheaper housing to the masses but also increases supply of affordable housing which results in lower prices for all housing due to being uncompetitive.......... unfortunately that's the problem. Ottawa and Victoria don't want houses prices to drop.

As far as meaning to take away land from Greenbelt/ALR reserves, yes. They have proven themselves to have direct impact on the price of housing. As for Vancouver's ALR, it is some of the richest land in the country but is surprisingly unproductive due to now being little more than a place to build a monster house with massive tax benefits.

Sell the land at a song, demand all buyers qualify for CMHC to get rid of flippers & money launderers, and people looking to buy tons of housing they don't need. Get the cities to wave all permit/application fees but have some of the land put aside for schools/community centres etc in order that they too can be built much cheaper.

When the land is dirt cheap, there is absolutely NO reason why these homes couldn't be built and sold for $250k.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Your options are:
Detached
Semi
Townhouse
Condo
Tent

There are effectively (except for very minor parts of the country) no trailers, no tiny homes, no informal homes that people built themselves.

Basically, in Canada our various building and housing policies have made it illegal to house oneself if you're poor, other than to live in a tent.

Trailers in particular are subject to really harsh treatment by municipalities and provinces. In almost every municipality in Ontario, even in more permissive rural ones, it is often banned to have a person living permanently in a trailer. If having a trailer is no permitted on the property at all it comes with caveats of the property needing to have a proper house on it and nobody being allowed to stay in it on a non-temporary basis.

Banks are also a problem too. One of the biggest barriers to further development of the prefab home industry is that almost all Canadian banks are extremely allergic to giving a mortgage on any home that is deemed "manufactured". As in, flat denial of financing, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Trailers in particular are subject to really harsh treatment by municipalities and provinces. In almost every municipality in Ontario, even in more permissive rural ones, it is often banned to have a person living permanently in a trailer. If having a trailer is no permitted on the property at all it comes with caveats of the property needing to have a proper house on it and nobody being allowed to stay in it on a non-temporary basis.

Banks are also a problem too. One of the biggest barriers to further development of the prefab home industry is that almost all Canadian banks are extremely allergic to giving a mortgage on any home that is deemed "manufactured". As in, flat denial of financing, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Manufactured and modular are 2 VERY different things. Manufactured are usually called mobile homes and can only be placed in certain areas and getting financing is much more difficult. Modular homes, on the other hand, are built to A277 standards and can be put anywhere a regular house is because they are regular houses that just happen to be built off-site. They can be several stories and have basements. You maybe living beside one right now and not even know it.

Check out www.wholesalehousing.ca to get a an idea of just how cheap they are. If the gov't sold off it's lands for {ie 100K per lot with $25k going towards the municipalities for civic infrastructure} you could have massive development of thousands of new SFH all for under $300K including 3 bedrooms/2 baths and much cheaper for smaller units. All built in a fraction of the time as regular housing. With all that unproductive ALR lands surrounding Vancouver, they could put up tens of thousands of these homes.

Mass Modular/pre-fab housing is the ONLY way we are going to get out of our Trudeau created housing affordability crisis. Cheap gov't land, cities waiving permit "fees", and no GST/HST on these modular CMHC qualified homes is our only way forward. This idea that housing can't be built affordably is just developers and real estate agents protecting their turf but it is a bold face lie.