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

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I was in the Nordics last winter and a friend works for a developer so we walked through a multiphase development of midrise apartments. In the one almost complete there was lots triple pane glass, heat recovery and other expensive efforts to get blood from a stone. Meanwhile looking at the phase one building in -10 weather and almost everyone had their windows open often een balcony doors. It seems lots of people heat their place mostly with the radiant floors leaving the main system off and open windows to enjoy the fresh air. The system should control moisture and let in some fresh air but it doesn't have that winter fresh air feeling.

It's funny you mention that, because it's a well known German (possibly Northern European) cultural norm to want that fresh air, which kills a lot of the efficiency gains the government pushes for.

Germany’s inefficient love affair with open windows

A devotion to fresh air is undermining Berlin’s push to make buildings more energy efficient.



Germans are obsessed with lüften, the act, or art, of ventilating their homes — but it is undermining efforts to make buildings more energy efficient.

Long considered to be a key measure for good respiratory hygiene, Germans often crack open windows to let nasty, stale air out and fresh, but cold, air in, even in the dead of winter.

But for all the enthusiasm for crisp air circulation, researchers suggest that the national devotion to lüften may be actively undermining buildings' energy efficiency — and Berlin's emissions reduction goals.

<...>

The answer, Bauer said, might be to simply insulate less.

"The key may be to have less insulation, because the current system seems to be too airtight to accomodate for residents' differing preferences," she said. "There are around 90 million buildings in Germany and about half will need to be renovated in the next 20 years, so less intense and less costly renovations would let us make more of them energy efficient faster."

https://www.politico.eu/article/germ...s-ventilation/

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

Oh absolutely. And that’s in Kingston! Wait until you learn about how Toronto has its own “green code” standard which adds even more costs..

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Toronto's biggest issue these days isn't #3, which has been mitigated a lot by legislative changes and reflects that Toronto has actually never been particularly nimby-friendly due to the existence of the OLT.

NIMBYs don't stand a chance against deep-pocketed, politically-connected developers (hence there being no lack of high-rise development in Toronto); but they absolutely have a big impact on smaller-scale missing middle type development.

Unless they comply with as-of-right zoning (which in Toronto, is very rare - basically nothing existing within established older neighbourhoods would comply with current zoning bylaws), smaller developments most commonly go through the Committee of Adjustment for approval of minor variance to the bylaws. This is where the public is given a voice to oppose projects, and are able to kill even the most reasonable of proposals, like this one. Applicants can still appeal to the OLT, but for smaller builders this adds time, cost, complexity, and uncertainty which can ultimately kill a project's viability and discourage future small-scale development.

I don't disagree that DCs are a much bigger problem than NIMBYs though.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It's not just excessive taxes/DC charges. "Code inflation" - increases in construction cost driven by more complex/advanced building codes is a big part of it.

There's a nonprofit developer in Kingston (charity-run) that I've donated money to that goes on about this all the time. The guy literally has on his desk a hardcopy of the current Ontario Building Code (bound in a book) which he keeps next to a copy of the Ontario Building Code from 1999. The 1999 book is literally a third of the size. By his estimate, if he was allowed to build new non-market units to the 1999 building code standard, they would be about $100,000 cheaper. His accountant disagrees and thinks its closer to $150,000.

It's not like buildings in 1999 were death traps. Heck, a building built to 1999 building code rules is probably better than the average Canadian home that already exists, given that most Canadian homes were built before that year.

My husband is an engineer whose work has involved him in energy standards written into building codes. He's actually against stricter energy efficiency rules for new builds and wants them rolled back to earlier less stringent standards. His two arguments are always:

1) The material complexity required for higher efficiency builds negates the environmental benefit from reduced energy use (ie. thicker walls, more insulation, thicker windows, etc. = more trees cut down, more chemicals having to be manufactured, more glass having to be made, etc.). He has done modelling for the feds showing that in provinces like Quebec where primary energy use is mostly zero-carbon, increased energy efficiency rules actually increases the carbon footprint of new construction for this reason.

2) It reduces the lifespan of buildings & their components (thus increasing the long term material footprint of them), by encouraging more complex designs that don't have as much durability. Building envelopes are a big one - because newer designs are required to have much more insulation (and thus less exchange of air with the outside world), moisture doesn't freely evaporate as well as it used to in older designs, so the likelihood of mould or rotting of structural components in the building envelope is much higher for new builds than for older builds.

Part of the solution needs to be to roll back these standards to reduce the cost of construction. And also eliminating development charges in favour of using property taxes to pay for growth-related costs instead. Both of this policies will provoke very intense backlash, but they're arguably necessary parts of the puzzle.

While not a local municipal-specific issue (except in BC where there's both the provincial building code and municipal building code in some cities), this is also a good point and some great insight.

Don't get me started on BC's upcoming code change which will require 100% of units in large buildings to be built to - larger, more expensive - adaptable standards (ie. accessible).

[niwell]

The previous rent control rules in Argentina have very little bearing on what's happening here, as they were far more strict than anything that's existed in Canada coupled with an extremely dysfunctional economy (that isn't exactly getting any better) that incentivized keeping property vacant. We don't really have that particular issue when it comes to housing - just a host of others!

Overall I've always found the correlation to be kinda tenuous and tertiary to other economic factors. As can be seen in Canada, rents in urban Quebec are amongst the lowest in the country despite having the strongest tenant protections, while Calgary's (with relatively few rent stabilization protections) have skyrocketed in the previous years. Things in Toronto have stabilized, albeit at a very high cost in real terms.

As noted above I'd suspect that a revamp of development charges would have far greater effect on supply which ultimately influences end price. There's also the issue of housing as a speculative investment, but that's been discussed ad nauseum in this thread already.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by niwell

The previous rent control rules in Argentina have very little bearing on what's happening here, as they were far more strict than anything that's existed in Canada coupled with an extremely dysfunctional economy (that isn't exactly getting any better) that incentivized keeping property vacant. We don't really have that particular issue when it comes to housing - just a host of others!

Bear in mind that apartment vacancy rates in Canada don't tell the whole story. There are tons of basement suites here in Vancouver that go unrented because of landlords not wanting the fuss that go unreported in vacancy rates.

Overall I've always found the correlation to be kinda tenuous and tertiary to other economic factors. As can be seen in Canada, rents in urban Quebec are amongst the lowest in the country despite having the strongest tenant protections, while Calgary's (with relatively few rent stabilization protections) have skyrocketed in the previous years. Things in Toronto have stabilized, albeit at a very high cost in real terms.

Despite these talking points, rents in Calgary remain lower or equal to rents in Montreal. Comparing Calgary to "urban Quebec" means you ought to compare rents in Edmonton and Red Deer as well, which are the rock bottom of Canada. This is despite Calgary currently growing faster in real numbers than Montreal a city almost twice its size (not just by %); and Alberta growing almost as fast as Quebec in real numbers, a province almost twice its size.

As noted above I'd suspect that a revamp of development charges would have far greater effect on supply which ultimately influences end price.

Now this I can agree with.

[WarrenC12]

I will chime in and say a lot of these new codes and requirements in the name of energy efficiency, safety, etc. also cost a lot of money down the road in maintenance, replacement, etc.

[chowhou]

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

In other words, a case of optics trumping logic & common sense.

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's funny you mention that, because it's a well known German (possibly Northern European) cultural norm to want that fresh air, which kills a lot of the efficiency gains the government pushes for.

Maybe the next code update can ban operable windows. After all, they already barely open on most new developments. Try getting a breeze in through one of these bad boys:




Airtightness is a funny one. You of course need a certain amount of fresh air flow into a building or else air quality degrades and it becomes less healthy, etc. But as building standards & efficiency requirements evolve, so too is less fresh air able to penetrate the building envelope, thus necessitating costly and inefficient HVAC systems to be able to supply the clean air that was formerly achieved through leaky envelopes and operable windows. We've created a problem where none existed.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Maybe the next code update can ban operable windows. After all, they already barely open on most new developments. Try getting a breeze in through one of these bad boys:

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

Window limiters make sense when the opening is at or around floor level, but for window openings at 42" or higher (ie. railing height) it's a bit silly, especially considering most of these buildings also have balconies.

This is a prime example of safety regulations taken too far - it's about liability moreso than a genuine safety concern, while the livability for residents suffers as a result. It's not as if people are accidently falling out of older buildings on a regular basis.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

Darwin. Or maybe families were never meant to live 20 stories in the air.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That's a safety issue to prevent people (especially children) from falling out of windows, especially when they're 20 storeys up like in your picture.

The good part is there's usually an easily removable restrictor plate in there.

You didn't hear it from me if things start falling out of your apartment though.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately it takes a strong government to make these changes. I like to call it the 99 food inspector issue. I had this real discussion with someone once and their response baffled me.

If a slaughterhouse requires by law 99 food inspectors per meat packer, the labour costs and productivity per worker is going to be atrocious. Perhaps nowhere else in the world requires this many food inspectors per meat packer. But if you propose to reduce the regulations and require only 98 food inspectors per meat packer, suddenly you're a neoliberal shill trying to reduce food safety for everyone and a bootlicker for the meat packing industry. Deregulation = bad, full stop. Meanwhile, there's someone out there who is proposing to increase the number of food inspectors to 100 per meat packer in the name of food safety. After all, more inspectors = more safety = more better, right?

Who wants to be the government to say "actually, we think it's okay for insulation to be 5% less thick, we think it's okay for windows to have 5% more air gaps, we think it's okay for fire to escape a room in 30 minutes instead of an hour, we think it's okay for some houses to not be wheelchair accessible, we think it's okay for some electrical sockets to shock you if you mess with them, we think it's okay to not have direct sunlight in some windows, we think it's okay to remove trees sometimes."

Who wants to be the government to "degrade our standard of living?" (While meanwhile rapidly increasing housing costs are degrading our standard of living.)

This is a really good post - it explains the issue quite eloquently. I might use that analogy in other discussions now!

[ssiguy]

Canada could double or even triple the amount of SFH and 2 story apts overnight if it wanted to.

Question?...............how many of you have bought a car and then stood in your driveway waiting for all the materials and labour to show up so they can build it? I think it's fair to say none of you but that is exactly how we currently build our housing.

Modular housing {not mobiles} conform to all housing standards and you could be living beside a 3 story with basement one right now and not even know it. They are built in factories and assembled on-site. They are always of higher quality due to not being built in the rain and snow, are up to 30% to 50% faster AND cheaper to build {depending on the model} and can come in any shape, size, or material you want.

They employ the savings of scale, the productivity of an assembly line, and require fewer skilled labourers to do it. The latter point is key in an era of skilled workers shortages. This is because you don't need someone who can build the whole building but just train someone to do their specific part, no different than a autoworker doesn't require an engineering degree need to know how to build the car but short-term training to know how to just assemble their little portion of it.

Also, due to being factory built, they are not constrained by city regulations which state they can only be on-site during the day and not on weekends. They can be producing homes 24/7, 365. In Scandinavia 50% of all new housing is now modular. If our developers weren't bribing our politicians, it would already be happening.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Canada could double or even triple the amount of SFH and 2 story apts overnight if it wanted to.

Question?...............how many of you have bought a car and then stood in your driveway waiting for all the materials and labour to show up so they can build it? I think it's fair to say none of you but that is exactly how we currently build our housing.

Modular housing {not mobiles} conform to all housing standards and you could be living beside a 3 story with basement one right now and not even know it. They are built in factories and assembled on-site. They are always of higher quality due to not being built in the rain and snow, are up to 30% to 50% faster AND cheaper to build {depending on the model} and can come in any shape, size, or material you want.

They employ the savings of scale, the productivity of an assembly line, and require fewer skilled labourers to do it. The latter point is key in an era of skilled workers shortages. This is because you don't need someone who can build the whole building but just train someone to do their specific part, no different than a autoworker doesn't require an engineering degree need to know how to build the car but short-term training to know how to just assemble their little portion of it.

Also, due to being factory built, they are not constrained by city regulations which state they can only be on-site during the day and not on weekends. They can be producing homes 24/7, 365. In Scandinavia 50% of all new housing is now modular. If our developers weren't bribing our politicians, it would already be happening.

Yes the development I was touring was all modular built. The bathrooms arrived as essentially a kit. The 4-5 story buildings were not poured concrete but built like lego. They also import a lot of this from lower cost areas like Poland. I think we still build SFHs cheaper with our track housing approach though than modular. Granted the quality is much lower. But for apartments they should be building this stuff in Mexico and shipping to us. Are you sure it's developers that are against this? Seems they should be in favor of it.

[jonny24]

You could also make it so you can't fit a person (or even a toddler) through a window while still actually having it open a useful amount for air flow.

[ssiguy]

Another way that condos/apt can be built much faster and much cheaper is by getting rid of our standard 3 story apts and making them 2 stories.

The front areas are near the street while at-grade parking is in the rear accessed by a one-way laneway. The difference is that the 2 stories can be built in a modular fashion of any design and materials BUT there is no enclosed area. The homes are simply placed on top of one another and access to the second floor apt is via a stairway at the front wide enough to support a staircase with automated inclined chair for people with disabilities/aged.

Such an arrangement allows for much faster and cheaper builds and the apts are one level, unlike a townhome where so much of the room is wasted space due to the staircases, and you need to be a mountain goat to get from the garage to your bedroom. This also means there are no hallways/elevators/storage units/garages to be both built and maintained. This not only greatly reduces time and money of construction but also results in no strata fees as owners are responsible for their own upkeep just like a regular home.

What's more, these setups do not require developers. The land is there and the homes are simply placed upon one another and connected to standard city services. This is no different than just building a stand alone home.

[FactaNV]

Great news out of Winnipeg, the first tranche (25MM) of the HAF funding Winnipeg received has been awarded. 11 projects will receive some of the money. Hopefully a new round of grantis are announced soon and the province matches some of this money.

The projects are as follows :

1. 440 Edmonton St. (UWCRC 2.0 Inc. & 10162513 Manitoba Ltd.): This project will convert a vacant 13-story commercial building into a residential complex with 180 transitional, social, and affordable housing units.

2. 145 Transcona Blvd. (Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation): This new development will provide 154 units designed to house families and individuals with disabilities at risk of homelessness. Nearly half of the units will be deeply affordable.

3. Endaaying – Our Home (Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad): This 23-unit transitional housing development will support Indigenous youth in Winnipeg’s North End.

4. Our Safe Space (Manitoba Inuit Association): This project will create 15 transitional housing units for Inuit women and women with children fleeing gender-based violence.

5. Market Lands North Mixed-Use (Market Lands Inc.): This mixed-use development will offer 128 housing units, including 48 deeply affordable units, along with commercial space and a daycare.

6. Second-Stage GBV Transitional Housing Project (University of Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation): A new 15-unit transitional housing facility for Indigenous and Newcomer women, Two Spirit, trans, and non-binary individuals who have experienced gender-based violence.

7. 228 King St. & 261 Princess St. (Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation): This project will create 54 units in Chinatown, including affordable and rent-geared-to-income units.

8. 346 Pacific Ave. (MRH Properties): This development will convert a downtown parking lot into 128 units of housing, including 38 affordable units.

9. 2675 Portage Ave. (Shoal Lake 40 First Nation): This new development will provide 150 housing units, with about 40% being affordable.

10. 530 St. Mary Ave. & 252 Good St. (Longboat): This privately owned development will offer 165 units, including 50 affordable housing units and commercial space.

11. 125 Garry St. (Westgate Developments Ltd and LVDC Holdings Ltd): This project will convert a largely vacant commercial building into a mixed-use apartment with 126 housing units, including 32 affordable units.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Great news out of Winnipeg, the first tranche (25MM) of the HAF funding Winnipeg received has been awarded. 11 projects will receive some of the money. Hopefully a new round of grantis are announced soon and the province matches some of this money.

The projects are as follows :

1. 440 Edmonton St. (UWCRC 2.0 Inc. & 10162513 Manitoba Ltd.): This project will convert a vacant 13-story commercial building into a residential complex with 180 transitional, social, and affordable housing units.

2. 145 Transcona Blvd. (Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation): This new development will provide 154 units designed to house families and individuals with disabilities at risk of homelessness. Nearly half of the units will be deeply affordable.

3. Endaaying – Our Home (Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad): This 23-unit transitional housing development will support Indigenous youth in Winnipeg’s North End.

4. Our Safe Space (Manitoba Inuit Association): This project will create 15 transitional housing units for Inuit women and women with children fleeing gender-based violence.

5. Market Lands North Mixed-Use (Market Lands Inc.): This mixed-use development will offer 128 housing units, including 48 deeply affordable units, along with commercial space and a daycare.

6. Second-Stage GBV Transitional Housing Project (University of Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation): A new 15-unit transitional housing facility for Indigenous and Newcomer women, Two Spirit, trans, and non-binary individuals who have experienced gender-based violence.

7. 228 King St. & 261 Princess St. (Winnipeg Chinatown Development Corporation): This project will create 54 units in Chinatown, including affordable and rent-geared-to-income units.

8. 346 Pacific Ave. (MRH Properties): This development will convert a downtown parking lot into 128 units of housing, including 38 affordable units.

9. 2675 Portage Ave. (Shoal Lake 40 First Nation): This new development will provide 150 housing units, with about 40% being affordable.

10. 530 St. Mary Ave. & 252 Good St. (Longboat): This privately owned development will offer 165 units, including 50 affordable housing units and commercial space.

11. 125 Garry St. (Westgate Developments Ltd and LVDC Holdings Ltd): This project will convert a largely vacant commercial building into a mixed-use apartment with 126 housing units, including 32 affordable units.

These drop-in-the-bucket government-planned housing developments are not going to make housing affordable for the general public. Only for the lucky few who happen to get one of those few hundred units.

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

These drop-in-the-bucket government-planned housing developments are not going to make housing affordable for the general public. Only for the lucky few who happen to get one of those few hundred units.

Debbie Downer lol. A lot of these are targeting critical needs in Winnipeg's homelessness situation.