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

[urbandreamer]

Craig Race Architects consistently produces tacky inappropriate buildings for their context. I would trust a Montreal firm, or perhaps Studio AC/JCI in Toronto. We need red brick, pointed brick & perhaps interesting details like wrought-iron or patterned zinc panels. The proposal here is very utilitarian and looks like the garbage going up in Waterloo, Brampton and Hamilton.

Even those common doctors' specials, or whatever they called 1950s-60s 4plexes featured better exteriors, and of course expansive 1-3 bedroom interiors.

For example, this Montreal project by Locus architecture and design is similar scale but looks much better: https://forum.agoramtl.com/t/96-104-...-3-etages/2838
Provides exterior terraces and generous balconies, pointed brick and red brick, variation on the main street-facade.

[niwell]

Fairly hideous design, but this is an interesting project that was built recently in East York: https://www.thestar.com/real-estate/...ddb7f18c6.html

To me the interesting part is the condo ownership, which is something I've always been curious about when it comes to plex buildings. Units seem extremely expensive but work out to about $650 psf, which is a fair bit cheaper than a lot of new condo buildings. And minimal condo fees.

[Innsertnamehere]

I'd hate to own in a 4-unit condo. Dealing with the other owners would be nightmarish.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'd hate to own in a 4-unit condo. Dealing with the other owners would be nightmarish.

It's not for everyone but it seems like a fairly common model in other cities such as Boston and even Montreal. A friend of mine owns in a similar setup in Glasgow as well. Not sure how they make it work - the condo act here may be more onerous from that perspective. If there are enough of them a lot of issues could also be handled through a property management company.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'd hate to own in a 4-unit condo. Dealing with the other owners would be nightmarish.

A 3- or 5-unit condo would at least not be an even number. The main problem for a 4-unit condo IMO would be the high potential for a 2v2 stalemate.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'd hate to own in a 4-unit condo. Dealing with the other owners would be nightmarish.

I once lived in an 8 unit condo. No problems that I recall.

[Innsertnamehere]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...medium=twitter

Housing plans’ impact on Canada’s fertility rate would strain economy, increase social tensions

The federal government’s new budget is largely dedicated to building more homes, faster, so that young workers can afford to own one. The Conservative housing plan claims to do the same, only better.
There is one problem: These plans would further force down Canada’s fertility rate, straining our economy and increasing social tensions.
Densification, fourplexes-as-of-right, infill and high-rises near transit hubs all conspire to ensure Canadians have fewer and fewer babies. Environmentalists cheer that outcome. But anyone who wants reliable health care or a good education for their children or clean drinking water or safe streets – or any of the things essential to a stable, happy society – should worry.
The housing measures announced to help with affordability in the 2024 federal budget
Couples who want to have children generally prefer a house with several bedrooms and a backyard – the kind of house so many of us grew up in. This kind of house has fallen out of favour with planners and urbanists because, to be affordable, it needs to be built on the cheap land found at or even beyond the edges of cities, requiring expensive new infrastructure, the paving over of farmland and long car commutes to work, all of which contribute to global warming.
Far better to densify existing neighbourhoods, goes the theory, to concentrate populations near services and infrastructure.
Sure. But have you looked at birth rates lately? When Darrell Bricker and I started researching Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline eight years ago, Canada’s fertility rate was 1.6 children per woman, half a baby short of the replacement rate of 2.1 needed to keep a population stable. Today, the rate has swooned to 1.3.
Fertility rates in developed and many developing societies were falling before the pandemic, and COVID-19 suppressed them even further.
There are many factors influencing fertility – urbanization, the increasing rights of women, the waning power of religion and clan. But housing is also a factor. The more people live in apartments, the lower the fertility rate.
About two-thirds of the people in Spain are apartment dwellers. The fertility rate there is 1.2, and the country has started losing population. But only a third of the people next door in France live in apartments, and the fertility rate there is 1.7, though it is also declining.
About 10 per cent of Australians live in apartments. The fertility rate there is 1.6. On the other hand, more than 60 per cent of South Koreans live in apartments, and South Korea has the world’s lowest fertility rate: 0.7 in 2024, according to government projections.
Again, other factors are also in play. But the nature of a country’s housing stock influences that country’s fertility rate. And as governments in Canada place an increasing emphasis on densification, that will further discourage people from having children.

Posting this for people's thoughts. I suspect it won't be overly well recieved here.. but it's an interesting thought experiment.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I'd hate to own in a 4-unit condo. Dealing with the other owners would be nightmarish.

That’s why they say a duplex is the worst form of ownership. If the other person hates your guts or vice versa it can be hell.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...medium=twitter


Posting this for people's thoughts. I suspect it won't be overly well recieved here.. but it's an interesting thought experiment.

It's certainly an interesting point - I've never thought of the correlation between the prevalence of apartment dwelling and fertility rates. It does seem to track pretty positively from the countries cited, though it's hard to tell if those are just cherrypicked examples or something that's part of a wider trend. A broader study on this would be worthwhile I think.

Either way, it's definitely true that we aren't building enough family-sized housing in Canada. While I wouldn't be opposed to more greenfield SFH development (if well designed), that's only part of the equation though. A house with a yard shouldn't be the only option - there's no reason that apartments or denser housing forms can't also be family friendly if they're sized appropriately. The problem is, most of the housing units we're building are 0-1 bedroom units. 2-bedroom units are less common, and mostly still pretty small (or in Ontario's case, one or both of the bedrooms won't even have actual windows); while 3+ bedroom units are rare and are prohibitively expensive.

Basically, we need more of every form of housing; but we particularly need more SFH (and more variety in SFH - not just McMansions), more townhomes, and more 2-3+ bedroom apartments & condos (particularly in ground-oriented housing typologies) if we want to have any hope of young families actually being able to have kids.

[niwell]

^Agreed. It doesn’t have to be a traditional SFH per se but more family sized units and in particular ground-oriented housing would be a huge help. I definitely know people (myself included, probably) who may have had kids earlier on if housing was less precarious.

I know quite a few people who were raised in apartments in Toronto but the slabs of the 70s for all their faults tend to be much more conducive to this.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's certainly an interesting point - I've never thought of the correlation between the prevalence of apartment dwelling and fertility rates. It does seem to track pretty positively from the countries cited, though it's hard to tell if those are just cherrypicked examples or something that's part of a wider trend. A broader study on this would be worthwhile I think.

It’s an interesting point in that we definitely need to make sure we’re not just building 1- and 2-bedroom apartments and considering that as fulfilling our housing needs.

But as other commenters on that story have pointed out, fertility rates in Canada actually tend to correlate with denser census tracts. And fertility rates have done most of their dropping since the 1950s during the 1960-2000 period, when most population growth was in expending, SFH suburbs.

Ibbitson’s correlation feels like it’s largely based on reactionary assumptions and a clear preference for his preferred lifestyle.

[goodgrowth]

Survey finds half of Metro Vancouver residents think about leaving region; one-quarter likely to move within five years

https://vancouversun.com/news/survey...hin-five-years

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Survey finds half of Metro Vancouver residents think about leaving region; one-quarter likely to move within five years

https://vancouversun.com/news/survey...hin-five-years

This is what happens when you sell yourself out to money from offshore.

[lio45]

As the classic saying goes, 1 Metro Van résident de perdu, 10 FNSs de trouvés!

(There's no direct equivalent in English, AFAIK)

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...medium=twitter



Posting this for people's thoughts. I suspect it won't be overly well recieved here.. but it's an interesting thought experiment.

This makes it sound like the only solution for a family-sized home is in the existing yellowbelt. As if to say that opening up bigger chunks of the 905 region single family homes, semis, townhomes, and stacked town development is off the table.

This is why anyone outright opposing Fords reasonable scaling back of the greenbelt is a fool. Brownfields and greenfields should be open for single, semi & new townhome and stacked townhome development appropriate for families. Therefore families will have better options that wont be priced at as high of a premium , and therefore these same families wont be bidding up the prices of condos and fourplex units.

The free market is the best at providing options, and that means government getting out of the way on the supply side, and cooling down and winding down overheated stimulus programs. The FHSA is just a more recent form of demand stimulus.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

This makes it sound like the only solution for a family-sized home is in the existing yellowbelt. As if to say that opening up bigger chunks of the 905 region single family homes, semis, townhomes, and stacked town development is off the table.

This is why anyone outright opposing Fords reasonable scaling back of the greenbelt is a fool. Brownfields and greenfields should be open for single, semi & new townhome and stacked townhome development appropriate for families. Therefore families will have better options that wont be priced at as high of a premium , and therefore these same families wont be bidding up the prices of condos and fourplex units.

The free market is the best at providing options, and that means government getting out of the way on the supply side, and cooling down and winding down overheated stimulus programs. The FHSA is just a more recent form of demand stimulus.

I largely agree with this I think. There is plenty of natural demand for apartment units given the small household sizes we are seeing today and other factors involved leading to lower birth rates, but cutting off the supply of family-sized housing units is likely a contributing factor to a lower birthrate, and we need to try to minimize contributing factors as much as possible. A revamped tax and incentives regime around having kids is also important in my mind - the Liberals have done some good work on that front already with the CCB, changes to maternity and parental leave, and $10 a day daycare, but there is more to go.. I think the family-friendly housing issue is counteracting those actions and worse right now.

I don't think we need 5-bedroom mega homes on half-acre lots to satisfy the family-friendly housing need, but it needs to be 3-4 bedroom options with a small outdoor space at a minimum and in a way which has low construction costs. We can probably look at very townhouse-heavy developments.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

It’s an interesting point in that we definitely need to make sure we’re not just building 1- and 2-bedroom apartments and considering that as fulfilling our housing needs.

But as other commenters on that story have pointed out, fertility rates in Canada actually tend to correlate with denser census tracts. And fertility rates have done most of their dropping since the 1950s during the 1960-2000 period, when most population growth was in expending, SFH suburbs.

Ibbitson’s correlation feels like it’s largely based on reactionary assumptions and a clear preference for his preferred lifestyle.

After birth rates plummeted in the 60s & 70s (which was because of access to contraception, abortion, and changing social norms rather than anything to do with the built form) they generally stabilized in the 1.5-1.8 range from the 1980s to 2010s. More recently though, there's been a precipitous drop since around 2016. 2021-2022 saw the biggest single year percentage drop since the 60s.

Absent any larger cultural shift as happened in the 60s, it's hard to ignore the correlation where fertility rapidly started dropping in the same years that housing costs began to soar - particularly when fertility rates are the lowest in the most expensive provinces (ie. the ones where young couples will struggle to afford anything more than 1-bedroom condo).

[casper]

The story about the Vancouver Special was there was a draft person who sold the design to everyone and his dog. It basically exploited a clause in the building code that let you double the livable space. The local supply yards were so use to it that that if you told the local supply yard that was what you were doing they could send a truck with all the supplies over the next day. It was ugly but very cost effective. you could order all the material.

I did not realise that weird split level that is all over the province had a similar story.

• Video Link

[casper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Survey finds half of Metro Vancouver residents think about leaving region; one-quarter likely to move within five years

https://vancouversun.com/news/survey...hin-five-years

Odd so many are looking to Edmonton and Alberta. I think that speaks to the lack of progress BC is making on opening up and building new housing in places like Nanaimo, Victoria and the Okanagan.

[ssiguy]

Obviously what people say they do in terms of leaving and what they actually end up doing are 2 different things.

That said, it does speak volumes about how people are dissatisfied with the life they have in Vancouver. Yes, the mountains are beautiful but that doesn't help you pay the rent, put food on the table, save for your retirement or your kids education, or enjoy the small perks of life like going out for dinner or a yearly vacation.

It's also very importantly, the demographics of those that are leaving AND not moving here in the first place. How does a young person who just came out of university/college survive in Vancouver? How can they plan for the future and enjoy the fruits of their education when they are spending 2/3rds of their income on a dumpy one bedroom in the burbs?

The Boomers can certainly afford to leave as they cash in their houses and move any where they want and spend 3 months of the year in Arizona to enjoy a REAL reprieve from winter but an economy does not rely on retirees but on a workforce and those, much to Vancouver's detriment, are the ones that are leaving.