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

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

As the other poster said, lots of people. We suffered a barking dog for years at our last house. Covid was a blessing in one way because the neighbours were home full time and the dog was quiet. Complaints to the city were a waste of time as the owners convinced Animal Control that the dog had anxiety and didn't bark very long after they left... which was completely untrue. During the warmer months they would leave an upstairs window open while they were away and the dog would stand at the window and bark for hours on end. Now that we're in a condo we don't have to worry about this as condo rules would have a barking dog removed post haste. I'm surprised your condo doesn't have a similar rule.

Yeah it happens fast in a well run condo. More and more are adding no pets or no large pets rules too. Agree it's crazy some people have Dalmatians in a 500 sq Foot apartment.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

The greenbelt undoubtedly affects land prices though. It's a massive area that virtually envelops the GTA. It has made the greenfield land that is available more even valuable.

The same economic issues with incrementally drip-feeding upzoned land to the market apply to incrementally drip-feeding greenfield land to the market.

In the simplest terms, what you're saying supply vs demand theory but that's not how the market is operating. It's not home buyers driving the market. It's investors and not all domestic. There's no cap on the supply of investors based on the local population of the GTA.

Intensification is not providing lower per square foot pricing. As of right multi-family zoning will only make single family housing even more unaffordable just for that redevelopment potential. You don't have to build in Toronto to capitalize. There's probably more preconstruction units than if you were to take every single family home and multiply it by four and that has had little effect on upzoned property values.

[whatnext]

I thought this headline from BNNBloomberg summed up the latest Trudeau attempt to "do something" about affordability:

Developers to get cheap land leases in Canadian homebuilding push

Nothing about the end user. Developers are businesses. Unless it makes business sense to do so they won't build.

And what are the Liberal considering "affordable"? Pre-Covid prices?

[WhipperSnapper]

I keep see headlines from CMHC saying Canada needs a million homes per year for the next 6 years (or like 600,000 more than built now) to bring prices back down to 2004 levels. I haven't read these articles. I don't see why any of these businesses would partake in building an oversupply dropping prices to 2004's affordability losing billions for their equity partners.

This should lower the cost of housing providing a cap on the price above the cost is in any contract. Overall, it just comes across as a bad tax dollar investment. I don't see the bubble for overpriced shoeboxes surviving the length of a land lease term.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I keep see headlines from CMHC saying Canada needs a million homes per year for the next 6 years (or like 600,000 more than built now) to bring prices back down to 2004 levels. I haven't read these articles. I don't see why any of these businesses would partake in building an oversupply dropping prices to 2004's affordability losing billions for their equity partners.

This should lower the cost of housing providing a cap on the price above the cost is in any contract. Overall, it just comes across as a bad tax dollar investment. I don't see the bubble for overpriced shoeboxes surviving the length of a land lease term.

Yes. I'm generally not in favour of a massive gov't intervention but the only way I can see out of this mess the two major parties have created over the last 20 years is a massive government building program. Vienna seems to be the only truly successful example of mantaining affoordability and if it worked for them we should try it.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes. I'm generally not in favour of a massive gov't intervention but the only way I can see out of this mess the two major parties have created over the last 20 years is a massive government building program. Vienna seems to be the only truly successful example of mantaining affoordability and if it worked for them we should try it.

Tokyo and Japan in general has been pretty good at maintaining affordability as well in the last two decades.

[Innsertnamehere]

Maintained by having a falling population and therefor falling housing demand which acts as a relief valve.

Housing is never cheap in high growth markets, just varying levels of expensive.

[Truenorth00]

Tokyo's population has been growing. But Japan famously has incredible flexibility on zoning and Tokyo has a public transit network that makes it easy to connect any two points in the city (making it easy to live just about anywhere).

[goodgrowth]

Is this peak housing crisis?


Ontario landlord posts ad charging $500 for tent space in private encampment
https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-t...te-encampment/

[SignalHillHiker]

Prices have taken a bit of a dive here.

[lio45]

Higher than ever here and continuing to climb:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jSRp2cJ5zjKoLy

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Is this peak housing crisis?


Ontario landlord posts ad charging $500 for tent space in private encampment
https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-t...te-encampment/

This is an abomination but Trudeau will probably herald it as affordable accommodation.

That said, I think the landlord probably had the best of intentions. $500 is exceptionally cheap and it provides the "tenants" bathroom and kitchen services and, very importantly, electricity so they can have some sort of heating mechanism in the winter greatly reducing fire hazards. It also would, at least hypothetically, give them an address which would be beneficial in terms of mail, getting gov't services, access to job training, and financial supports where a permanent address is required.

Don't get me wrong, this is truly horrifying that our country has come to this but it is a far better and safer situation than having people living in our urban parks with no such facilities or sense of permanence wondering when tthe cops are going to come by and dismantle their homes with no place to offer them as an alternative ala Vancouver.

[MonkeyRonin]

Crazy that stuff like this is still happening: 3-storey, 8-unit apartment building + laneway house, 500m from a subway station has been rejected by the City of Toronto because of neighbourhood opposition.



https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-t...venue-toronto/

[theman23]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Crazy that stuff like this is still happening: 3-storey, 8-unit apartment building + laneway house, 500m from a subway station has been rejected by the City of Toronto because of neighbourhood opposition.



https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-t...venue-toronto/

apparently the neighbours and the city believe that the dumping of a rusting Pontiac Parisienne is a better use of that land than housing 10 families.

[bolognium]

Damn that Toronto rejection is hella disappointing, and that^ streetview capture is hilarious.

I'm curious, do you guys feel like the tide is turning with regards to this kind of stuff overall, though? In London we definitely still see neighbourhood opposition to infill and intensification, but it seems like more often than not council ultimately approves what's proposed. The NIMBYs are given an opportunity to air their grievances, they might even shriek loudly enough to get a local article written about the project, but in the end the building gets approved. Sometimes there's an unfortunate detour through the Ontario Land Tribunal when it's a richer more organized neighbourhood, but even then things are ultimately approved.

What's it like in other parts of the country? Which cities seem most welcoming of infill? And who's the worst?

While it may be happening at a frustratingly glacial pace, it does seem like the NIMBYs are losing their power.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is an abomination but Trudeau will probably herald it as affordable accommodation.

Trudeau has generally been more interested in stimulating demand than restoring the supply to what we had decades ago

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Tokyo's population has been growing. But Japan famously has incredible flexibility on zoning and Tokyo has a public transit network that makes it easy to connect any two points in the city (making it easy to live just about anywhere).

The city itself is but surrounding areas aren’t and that acts as a relief valve on the market in a lot of ways.

And yes, zoning is very relaxed. That helps new units go up easily, but it’s not the primary reason. The primary reason is that there are more houses than people in Japan which gives people a lot of options in finding housing. Some submarkets like Tokyo are growing, but sub markets don’t act in a vacuum.

[niwell]

Very disappointing about the Toronto proposal - I've been following it for a bit. Hopefully it's approved on appeal, though it's an annoying process to go through. I will say that as presented the rendering of the backyard laneway units looked a lot more imposing than they would in reality.

On the whole I think the tide is turning on these things though. Lots of multiplex conversions around me (ironically houses that used to have multiple units, turned into SFHs and now being turned back) that seem to go under the radar.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by theman23

apparently the neighbours and the city believe that the dumping of a rusting Pontiac Parisienne is a better use of that land than housing 10 families.

WTF??? How could this proposal possibly be rejected. The scale is similar to what was there before, and the building is infinitely better than the present structure. What is there to object about???

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

WTF??? How could this proposal possibly be rejected. The scale is similar to what was there before, and the building is infinitely better than the present structure. What is there to object about???

Largely because of this image I think, particularly the laneway units which are basically up to the lot line. Still an appropriate proposal IMO - very much inline with traditional apartment buildings scattered around these neighbourhoods. The triplex I live in actually extends far into the backyard in a similar manner, but it was built in 1928.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLAhbsGW...name=4096x4096