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

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

All true but none of your "plusses" have to do with the look of the built environment.

Aesthetics aren't worth much when we aren't housing people properly. How many of our 70s and 80s era commie blocks and towers-in-parks are very aesthetically pleasing? Honestly, if existing homeowners want aesthetics on new development they should be forced to pay. Lift all the development charges and then maybe there's a case for being able to demand aesthetic compliance.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Aesthetics aren't worth much when we aren't housing people properly. How many of our 70s and 80s era commie blocks and towers-in-parks are very aesthetically pleasing? Honestly, if existing homeowners want aesthetics on new development they should be forced to pay. Lift all the development charges and then maybe there's a case for being able to demand aesthetic compliance.

As the saying goes "If You Think Good Design is Expensive, You Should Look At The Cost of Bad Design". This debate goes back to saying we should emulate Tokyo. We can do better, even with building multifamily on small lots.

[giallo]

This discussion about Tokyo inspired me to finally post a bunch of pics from my last visit. I'm not sure the photo thread will speak to the peacefulness of Tokyo as I purposely focused on the bustle of the city, but I think the images still show off what an amazing city Tokyo is.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0#post10199820

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by giallo

This discussion about Tokyo inspired me to finally post a bunch of pics from my last visit. I'm not sure the photo thread will speak to the peacefulness of Tokyo as I purposely focused on the bustle of the city, but I think the images still show off what an amazing city Tokyo is.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0#post10199820

There's a few shots that show exactly how they get everything right. The street of shops with towers in the background and man walking on the shaded street with the same.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

As the saying goes "If You Think Good Design is Expensive, You Should Look At The Cost of Bad Design". This debate goes back to saying we should emulate Tokyo. We can do better, even with building multifamily on small lots.

That saying has nothing to do with aesthetics. You can have very functional design and poor aesthetics. And you can have great aesthetics and poor functionality. In our context, you're going to a have tough time pushing for aesthetics when you fail at basic function. People who are homeless or having more precarious housing everyday aren't going to very concerned with aesthetics. Indeed, the fact that you are kinda shows your privilege here.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That saying has nothing to do with aesthetics. You can have very functional design and poor aesthetics. And you can have great aesthetics and poor functionality. In our context, you're going to a have tough time pushing for aesthetics when you fail at basic function. People who are homeless or having more precarious housing everyday aren't going to very concerned with aesthetics. Indeed, the fact that you are kinda shows your privilege here.

So, in other words "aim lower". And let's be real, none of the proposed units being discussed on these SFH lots are going to be remotely affordable or geared to anyone experiencing homelessness. In fact, if Vancouver's experience is anything to go by, the new small units cost the same or more than the price the developer paid for the house and lot originally. However, now that the cat is out of the bag, these lots will sell for far higher prices as they no longer prospective homes, they're development sites. Thus pushing young families' dreams of ever owning a house even further out of reach.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So, in other words "aim lower".

If you want aesthetics, figure out a way to pay for it that doesn't involve new homebuyers footing the bill. Otherwise? Yes, you should aim lower. Young people are fed up with ever moving goalposts from those who already have assets. To use tired terms, it's nothing but gatekeeping by the privileged.

And I say all this as someone who absolutely detests most condos nowadays and thinks anything above 6 storeys (5+1) outside very core downtowns are symptoms of policy failure. But I don't think my tastes supercede someone's right to access affordable housing.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by giallo

This discussion about Tokyo inspired me to finally post a bunch of pics from my last visit. I'm not sure the photo thread will speak to the peacefulness of Tokyo as I purposely focused on the bustle of the city, but I think the images still show off what an amazing city Tokyo is.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0#post10199820

Fantastic. Fantastic shots of a fabulous city.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by whatnext

All true but none of your "plusses" have to do with the look of the built environment.

yeah, parts of it don't look that great from the air (your aerial shot). But at the ground level, much of it is far better than what we have here (utterly banal blue glass canyons, concrete commie blocks).

Regarding Tokyo streetscapes, the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts, even when some (even many) of the buildings, individually, are not attractive. I'll take Tokyo over any Canadian city.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by giallo

This discussion about Tokyo inspired me to finally post a bunch of pics from my last visit. I'm not sure the photo thread will speak to the peacefulness of Tokyo as I purposely focused on the bustle of the city, but I think the images still show off what an amazing city Tokyo is.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0#post10199820

Amazing shots! Reminds me why SO and I would love to move back to Tokyo some day.

Toronto and Montreal just doesn't hit the same way. Urban Canada is lacking in so many ways.

[casper]

Originally Posted by giallo

This discussion about Tokyo inspired me to finally post a bunch of pics from my last visit. I'm not sure the photo thread will speak to the peacefulness of Tokyo as I purposely focused on the bustle of the city, but I think the images still show off what an amazing city Tokyo is.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...0#post10199820

Great photos.

It has been over a decade since I have been in Tokyo. What can't be understated is just how pedestrian and public transit oriented that city is.

The free for all of zoning in Tokyo could work in Canada.

[Coldrsx]

Canmore struggles to build more rental stock

XIMENA GONZALEZ
CANMORE, ALTA.
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Last November, after a four-year stint renting in Canmore, Alta. Dylan Stewart and his partner, a health-care worker, decided to move 80 kilometres east, to Cochrane.
“It’s quite a crazy [rental] market, even in Cochrane,” Mr. Stewart says. “But we found something there that suited our incomes better.”
As much as they enjoyed living in close proximity to the Rocky Mountains, the couple found their situation untenable in Canmore, as they weren’t willing to spend more than 40 per cent of their income in rent to stay in a town where the cost of living is well above the rest of the province.
“The first year, our landlord didn’t raise our rent,” Mr. Stewart says about their last rental. “But the second year she wanted to raise it over 20 per cent – we were already paying $2,150 a month.”
This situation is not out of the ordinary.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...-rental-stock/

or non-paywall
https://archive.ph/KjM6E#selection-2667.0-2691.0

[giallo]

Just another day in one of the most unaffordable regions on the planet. You'd think there wasn't a crippling housing crisis here that is affecting absolutely anything and everything.

There will always be an excuse; "We support density, but not here". "We didn't have enough time to look at the plan before the vote". "It's all about the greedy developers". "It'll ruin the character of the neighbourhood". "We don't have the infrastructure for more people."

They are anti-development, straight up. It doesn't matter what's proposed, they'll rally against it. Zero care or regard for what the younger generation is facing right now. It's all about them and their assets.



• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

^ 100%. That's why it's good to see the federal and provincial governments starting to refuse funding to municipalities which don't cooperate. There should be a price for non-cooperation. This is where the LPC approach doesn't go far enough. I would like to see more sticks that compel immediate cuts of services or tax increases for municipalities and provinces that don't cooperate.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ 100%. That's why it's good to see the federal and provincial governments starting to refuse funding to municipalities which don't cooperate. There should be a price for non-cooperation. This is where the LPC approach doesn't go far enough. I would like to see more sticks that compel immediate cuts of services or tax increases for municipalities and provinces that don't cooperate.

For municipalities like Delta there isn't a lot of provincial or federal funding that comes there way, and some of what is provided is for non-market housing - so refusing to provide that would seem to be counter-productive.

And while the CBC's story focused on residents lining up to oppose the new OCP, it's worth noting that the City of Delta has approved it, so they're doing their part (late in the day and with provincial prodding) to accommodate a fair amount of potential extra housing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Changing City

For municipalities like Delta there isn't a lot of provincial or federal funding that comes there way, and some of what is provided is for non-market housing - so refusing to provide that would seem to be counter-productive.

I would love to see automatic blacklisting for ALL federal funding if a municipality doesn't comply. This means exclusion from permanent transit funding and any other infrastructure funding. Be that a new sewer main or road. Funding goes to the region or province? Reduce proportionally. This will force regions to cut services or increase taxes in those municipalities.

Originally Posted by Changing City

And while the CBC's story focused on residents lining up to oppose the new OCP, it's worth noting that the City of Delta has approved it, so they're doing their part (late in the day and with provincial prodding) to accommodate a fair amount of potential extra housing.

Not saying they did the wrong thing. I just think NIMBYs get away with this crap, and politicians cater to them because the costs aren't tangible. They need to be made very explicit and tangible. I suspect the discussion on this issue would be very different if councillors could tell them how their backwards ideas would actually raise their taxes.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would love to see automatic blacklisting for ALL federal funding if a municipality doesn't comply. This means exclusion from permanent transit funding and any other infrastructure funding. Be that a new sewer main or road. Funding goes to the region or province? Reduce proportionally. This will force regions to cut services or increase taxes in those municipalities.

Delta doesn't receive federal money for transit, so this stick wouldn't work in this case. I'm not sure what other federal infrastructure money it would receive, possibly some for Deltaport, but removing any federal funding for that would severely impact Canada's economy.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would love to see automatic blacklisting for ALL federal funding if a municipality doesn't comply. This means exclusion from permanent transit funding and any other infrastructure funding. Be that a new sewer main or road. Funding goes to the region or province? Reduce proportionally. This will force regions to cut services or increase taxes in those municipalities

There's almost never federal funding for sewers or main roads here. If the funding was reduced proportionately to TransLink for transit in Delta, (like support for electrifying the bus fleet) there's just less transit for the whole region (or in the case of something like a SkyTrain line, not enough money for it to be built, which doesn't advance anything). How would having reduced infrastructure make any reluctant municipality build more housing? It would just give them an excuse not to allow more development (and in the case of infrastructure like sewers, it might be genuinely an issue).

The province has already introduced legislation setting targets for additional housing, with the backstop of stepping in and taking over to ensure there's more development, if municipalities don't deliver.

There are literally tens of thousands of already approved units not being built for all sorts of reasons across Metro Vancouver, and it's not clear that the province could actually make a difference. Mortgage rates, confidence in the market, and the availability of project financing are all mostly beyond their control, and far more important in determining how much gets built. Both the province and the federal government are providing loan financing for rental projects, and that is supporting the construction of buildings that either wouldn't be being built, or at least, not as soon. Ironically, there are provincially funded non-market housing schemes that are waiting for financing to start construction, but are delayed because the building contractors bidding are needing more than the budgeted amount.

[casper]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Delta doesn't receive federal money for transit, so this stick wouldn't work in this case. I'm not sure what other federal infrastructure money it would receive, possibly some for Deltaport, but removing any federal funding for that would severely impact Canada's economy.

Federal government provides a portion of the GST on gas station sales to the province to be turned over to municipalities. That helps pay for road infrastructure.

But, yes public transit is provided by Translink (a provincial government entity) that has a role for mayors on an advisor council. But it is more a provincial thing than a municipal thing. Major transit expansion projects are handed by the provincial government directly and then turned over to Translink to operate.

Outside of the lower mainland, BC Transit operates public transit through a weird arrangement between regional districts, municipalities and the province. The province is the one that controls the money, not the municipal governments.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's almost never federal funding for sewers or main roads here. If the funding was reduced proportionately to TransLink for transit in Delta, (like support for electrifying the bus fleet) there's just less transit for the whole region (or in the case of something like a SkyTrain line, not enough money for it to be built, which doesn't advance anything). How would having reduced infrastructure make any reluctant municipality build more housing?

TransLink would have a choice. Hurt the whole region. Or simply cut local service in Delta and direct all future transit expansion elsewhere. Alternatively, nothing stopping regional and provincial authorities from imposing specific property taxes in Delta to make up for the cut in federal funding. And this is my point. Creating direct costs is the kind of positive punishment needed to reduce NIMBYism. Suggesting nothing can be done simply empowers NIMBYS to argue that development can be moved elsewhere. Don't cost them a thing right now.