Cost of housing in Canada

[Kirkhill]

There was and always will be a demand for that sort of living, I grew up in the country where the nearest store was in a hamlet 1 mile down the road. I get it, I enjoyed growing up that way and could easily go back to it. Having now lived in the "downtown" of a major city, and having travelled to cities around the world where people quite happily live in apartments/condos within easy walking distance of transit and all the things they need, I get that living as well.

If living the "15 minute city" life was made convenient, and plausible for people, I suspect most youth today would jump at it. Particularly since traffic has become a significant problem across NA as cities keep growing, and fuel prices have done nothing but go up ever since I have been driving (98).

Also, lets not forget that the government has incentivised home ownership for decades via first time homeowners incentives, and no capital gains tax on home value increases. So, it's not as if the government has had nothing to do with Canadian's preference for a detached home and a long commute.

Do we have to create an either/or urban/rural dichotomy? Can we not just figure out how to manage a society where some people voluntarily choose rural life and others voluntarily choose urban life? And some choose both - either concurrently or in sequence?

Freedom used to be a thing.

A factoid I found really interesting recently was that a large portion of Brits choose to live Off-Grid despite living in a relatively densely populated little island.

Many Britons choose to live off-grid in boats, camper vans and mobile homes, particularly during the pandemic.

Estimates suggest that between 25,000 and 1.5 million homes are powered off-grid in the UK,

Cost of living hits Britons living off the grid – DW – 10/23/2022

Many Britons choose to live off-grid in boats, camper vans and mobile homes, particularly during the pandemic. Now, they are among the people hit hardest by Britain's cost-of-living crisis, Shafi Musaddique reports.

www.dw.com

Perhaps some people value freedom more than convenience and the company of others.

Living Off Grid in the UK: All You Need to Know | Live Off Grid

Going off grid helps people find and better themselves. Learn everything you need to know about living off grid in the UK here.

liveoffgrid.co.uk

 

[Furniture]

Do we have to create an either/or urban/rural dichotomy? Can we not just figure out how to manage a society where some people voluntarily choose rural life and others voluntarily choose urban life? And some choose both - either concurrently or in sequence?

Freedom used to be a thing.

A factoid I found really interesting recently was that a large portion of Brits choose to live Off-Grid despite living in a relatively densely populated little island.

Cost of living hits Britons living off the grid – DW – 10/23/2022

Many Britons choose to live off-grid in boats, camper vans and mobile homes, particularly during the pandemic. Now, they are among the people hit hardest by Britain's cost-of-living crisis, Shafi Musaddique reports.

www.dw.com

Perhaps some people value freedom more than convenience and the company of others.

Living Off Grid in the UK: All You Need to Know | Live Off Grid

Going off grid helps people find and better themselves. Learn everything you need to know about living off grid in the UK here.

liveoffgrid.co.uk

I'm not sure where you got the idea I wanted to reduce people's choice or freedom, I was simply pointing out that people buying homes isn't purely market forces, governments have been involved. I pointed out that I have lived both the urban and rural lifestyles, to highlight that I am coming at this from a perspective many may not have.

If you want to have an off-grid home in Pierceland SK, have at 'er. If you want a condo in downtown Vancouver, have at 'er.

My overarching point in all of this has been, and will remain; governments at all levels, through regulation and incentives, have essentially pushed for suburban sprawl, and now we are hitting the natural limits of what that can achieve for the massive urban populations of the country. We tried to pretend that Canadian cities are just small towns, when they have long since outgrown that, and now we are behind in getting the housing and infrastructure that our large cities need.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure where you got the idea I wanted to reduce people's choice or freedom, I was simply pointing out that people buying homes isn't purely market forces, governments have been involved. I pointed out that I have lived both the urban and rural lifestyles, to highlight that I am coming at this from a perspective many may not have.

I perhaps mistook your argument. I sensed that you were arguing for a particular solution. Apologies if I was wrong.

If you want to have an off-grid home in Pierceland SK, have at 'er. If you want a condo in downtown Vancouver, have at 'er.

To be honest I want both. Although Hawaii would suit better than BC for a condo.

My overarching point in all of this has been, and will remain; governments at all levels, through regulation and incentives, have essentially pushed for suburban sprawl, and now we are hitting the natural limits of what that can achieve for the massive urban populations of the country. We tried to pretend that Canadian cities are just small towns, when they have long since outgrown that, and now we are behind in getting the housing and infrastructure that our large cities need.

And here, I think is a difference. I agree that government policies influence events. In this case though I feel that those policies are a trailing indicator. Politicians wanting to get elected supplied policies that permitted their electors to buy the houses and the life-styles the electors wanted.

Politicians didn't force people into the suburbs. As you have noted suburbs are expensive to build, service and maintain. People demanded the suburbs.

Perhaps that day has passed and people are demanding something else. But given the rising prices of single family dwellings and the constant debates about green belts in the western world I remain to be convinced.

Just as I remain to be convinced that the majority of the world voluntarily choose a vegan diet over cheap steaks when they can find them. Most countries seem to have significant populations that aspire to the middle class American dream.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I perhaps mistook your argument. I sensed that you were arguing for a particular solution. Apologies if I was wrong.



To be honest I want both. Although Hawaii would suit better than BC for a condo.



And here, I think is a difference. I agree that government policies influence events. In this case though I feel that those policies are a trailing indicator. Politicians wanting to get elected supplied policies that permitted their electors to buy the houses and the life-styles the electors wanted.

Politicians didn't force people into the suburbs. As you have noted suburbs are expensive to build, service and maintain. People demanded the suburbs.

Perhaps that day has passed and people are demanding something else. But given the rising prices of single family dwellings and the constant debates about green belts in the western world I remain to be convinced.

Just as I remain to be convinced that the majority of the world voluntarily choose a vegan diet over cheap steaks when they can find them. Most countries seem to have significant populations that aspire to the middle class American dream.

There is a difference between wanting a single detached home and the reality of being able to have a single detached home is where the government comes in.

A large percentage of the population has decided they wish to live in a specific area. We can’t keep sprawling forever it simply isn’t feasible we are running out of land to do so. At some point we need to build up not out and I would argue it is the duty of a responsible government to ensure the needs of society (food, water, shelter) are met before the wants (in this case a dispersed living in a area that should be high density). No one is stopping you from living in detached homes, but just as no one is stopping me from having a castle on a 1000 acre estate, it is out of most peoples reach though.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is a difference between wanting a single detached home and the reality of being able to have a single detached home is where the government comes in.

A large percentage of the population has decided they wish to live in a specific area. We can’t keep sprawling forever it simply isn’t feasible we are running out of land to do so. At some point we need to build up not out and I would argue it is the duty of a responsible government to ensure the needs of society (food, water, shelter) are met before the wants (in this case a dispersed living in a area that should be high density). No one is stopping you from living in detached homes, but just as no one is stopping me from having a castle on a 1000 acre estate, it is out of most peoples reach though.

Fine. Go ahead and build up not out. And then we will both know if people still want to live in the same location under the new conditions.

Or, perhaps, they might opt to move to distant pastures and do things differently because the life they thought they were buying into is no longer on offer.

As to the duty of responsible government - obviously we disagree here. My version of a responsible government is one that doesn't deny food, water or shelter to its citizens. Not the same thing as ensuring food, water and shelter at all. For me it is sufficient that they leave me freedom to roam. I don't ask that they bring food and drink to the slot in my door.

 

[Remius]

Fine. Go ahead and build up not out. And then we will both know if people still want to live in the same location under the new conditions.

Or, perhaps, they might opt to move to distant pastures and do things differently because the life they thought they were buying into is no longer on offer.

As to the duty of responsible government - obviously we disagree here. My version of a responsible government is one that doesn't deny food, water or shelter to its citizens. Not the same thing as ensuring food, water and shelter at all. For me it is sufficient that they leave me freedom to roam. I don't ask that they bring food and drink to the slot in my door.

While not the same thing, there are places where food desertification is a thing.

 

[Furniture]

And here, I think is a difference. I agree that government policies influence events. In this case though I feel that those policies are a trailing indicator. Politicians wanting to get elected supplied policies that permitted their electors to buy the houses and the life-styles the electors wanted.

Politicians didn't force people into the suburbs. As you have noted suburbs are expensive to build, service and maintain. People demanded the suburbs.

Perhaps that day has passed and people are demanding something else. But given the rising prices of single family dwellings and the constant debates about green belts in the western world I remain to be convinced.

Neither of us will ever know, because nothing happens in a vacuum, and governments are incentivising home ownership.

I want a yacht, private estate, and a harem of 1000 beautiful women... Want means nothing if you don't have the means to achieve it. Governments are/were giving people the means to achieve things that otherwise they couldn't.

To be abundantly clear, I'm not suggesting that governments make home ownership harder, I'm suggesting that governments make condos and apartments more viable through incentives. Incentives like better transit, and mixed zoning. If more people find renting/condos appealing, it lowers the demand for detached homes, which is win/win for urbanites and suburbanites.

 

[Kirkhill]

While not the same thing, there are places where food desertification is a thing.

And that is true...

Which brings up this archaeological article that I just came across today.

China's ancient water pipe networks show they were a communal effort with no evidence of a centralized state authority​

China's ancient water pipe networks show they were a communal effort with no evidence of a centralized state authority

A system of ancient ceramic water pipes, the oldest ever unearthed in China, shows that neolithic people were capable of complex engineering feats without the need for a centralized state authority, finds a new study by University College London researchers.

phys.org

This continues a trend.

It used to be thought that irrigation systems and other monumental public works were the apogee of civilization and that for a civil society to develop it had to be authoritarian with a great man or woman with a great idea living at the top of the pyramid.

Now there is a developing body of evidence from places like Gobekli Tepe and Skara Brae and various Tells in the Middle East that "disorganized" hunter gatherers were quite capable of organizing themselves for temporary benefit to create monumental public works. Temples as markets and community halls at cross road where people met on a regular schedule - and then dispersed to their home ranges to meet again next week, next year or next month.

Equally cities evolved from a group of adjacent villages. Not as a result of central planning.

Urbanism and the Prehistory of Violent Conflict: Tell Brak, northeast Syria

Urbanism Traditional reconstructions of the world’s earliest cities place them in southern Mesopotamia (South Iraq), during the mid-4th millennium BC. Excavations at southern sites such as Uruk-Warka found evidence for rapid settlement growth, religious power represented...

archeorient.hypotheses.org

People seem to have developed a habit of adapting to their circumstances when needs must.

 

[Kirkhill]

Neither of us will ever know, because nothing happens in a vacuum, and governments are incentivising home ownership.

I want a yacht, private estate, and a harem of 1000 beautiful women... Want means nothing if you don't have the means to achieve it. Governments are/were giving people the means to achieve things that otherwise they couldn't.

To be abundantly clear, I'm not suggesting that governments make home ownership harder, I'm suggesting that governments make condos and apartments more viable through incentives. Incentives like better transit, and mixed zoning. If more people find renting/condos appealing, it lowers the demand for detached homes, which is win/win for urbanites and suburbanites.

Fair enough. Let the people who wish to live that lifestyle pay for it from their local taxes or by paying local service providers. Equally I think that people who choose to live in the suburbs should pay the full freight from their local taxes and to their local providers.

And yes indeed. Wanting isn't getting. I am in Lethbridge - not Oahu.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I can guess that governments "incentivize" home ownership by not taxing capital gains on primary residences because they don't want to deal with the headache of dealing with capital losses.

The problem with transit is that the users rarely pay all the costs of construction and operation. At least with roads everyone may use them - even people with something less than a car.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I hear folks bleating about needing more public transit yet we don't fill what we already have.

 

[dapaterson]

I hear folks bleating about needing more public transit yet we don't fill what we already have.

I hear folks bleating about needing more roads, yet we don't fill what we already have.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I hear folks bleating about needing more roads, yet we don't fill what we already have.

Naw....id be happy with just keeping them from feeling like corduroy roads.

 

[Furniture]

Naw....id be happy with just keeping them from feeling like corduroy roads.

Most people who want transit want it more convenient, and more comfortable...

 

[YZT580]

There was and always will be a demand for that sort of living, I grew up in the country where the nearest store was in a hamlet 1 mile down the road. I get it, I enjoyed growing up that way and could easily go back to it. Having now lived in the "downtown" of a major city, and having travelled to cities around the world where people quite happily live in apartments/condos within easy walking distance of transit and all the things they need, I get that living as well.

If living the "15 minute city" life was made convenient, and plausible for people, I suspect most youth today would jump at it. Particularly since traffic has become a significant problem across NA as cities keep growing, and fuel prices have done nothing but go up ever since I have been driving (98).

Also, lets not forget that the government has incentivised home ownership for decades via first time homeowners incentives, and no capital gains tax on home value increases. So, it's not as if the government has had nothing to do with Canadian's preference for a detached home and a long commute.

I did the rural living commute thing for 30 years with an average driving time of 40 minutes on two lane rural roads except for the last 10 minutes. That same drive is now one and a half hours on a good day and it is all 4 lanes and stop lights. An extra million or two in population makes a huge difference. I don't believe that that particular dream is practical anymore around any of our major cities. So people with a job in the city are going to need to find either a place in the city or on a rapid transit line, not a highway, for the commute. The covid restrictions caused a lot of folks to realize that highrise living was great when living was good but when you are shut in that form of living is no good: hence the desire for space. Places like Drayton and Port Perry, Uxbridge and Port Colborne now have subdivisions full of Toronto commuters. So all those trains that they de-commissioned decades ago will need to be replaced. And that's ok. There are certainly enough folks wanting to stay in the cities that there is no problem disposing of any and all properties. Government should probably cancel the incentives and simply ensure that the infrastructure (including commuter lines) is in place. Cause that is a huge problem. Drive up to Milton or Oakville or Ajax and places east and one discovers hundreds of new-builds and no way for their owners to get around except by pmv.
Sorry for babbling, but here is the point. Regardless of housing type or location, install the infrastructure before you build the housing. Ensure that the number of houses available or under construction is at least equal to the number of people entering the country plus the number of residents who are reaching their majority and will need housing. that should ensure that prices stabilize or come down. And finally, government needs to stop trying to get rich at the expense of the builder. Fees should be realistic

 

[Brad Sallows]

I hear folks bleating about needing more roads, yet we don't fill what we already have.

Don't travel much on major highways during the day, do you?

 

[Kirkhill]

If you asked Adolf an empty autobahn is a great thing. He could move his Panzers faster. Dual function civil/military infrastructure.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So people with a job in the city are going to need to find either a place in the city or on a rapid transit line, not a highway, for the commute.

Transit lines have maximum capacities. I've used the Vancouver area one at times when every car is stuffed and not every person waiting can get on, and I haven't seen anyone claim they are not already running the maximum number of trains/cars that can safely be run. I've also experienced what happens when an entire line has to be shut down during rush hour. Buses (thus roads) to the rescue.

It is always possible to add buses and to re-route buses and to take a bus out of service without shutting down an entire line. There is simply no comparison of flexibility between roads and rails, and roads can be used by all whereas a rail line is pretty much monopolized by whatever it was built for.

One of the "incentives" governments control is the insistence on building and promoting commercial and industry hubs like "tech parks" and "financial centres". The municipal governments that have these love them for the tax revenue, which they do not wish to share with suburbs. There's no real reason they have to be concentrated for the benefit of the relative handful of people who will truly have careers during which a change of job will simply mean moving across the road or down the block. Somewhat hidden by the noise of the office/home debate is the prospect of redistributing offices. I suspect that governments fear what will happen if downtown office vacancies get too high, too rapidly.

To struggle against the desires of the people who want to live in low density is about as fruitful as trying to command the tides. Instead of making the consolidation of people near workplaces the main effort (pretty much an unwinnable battle, and most clued in people know what should be done with unwinnable battles), the focus should be on moving more workplaces out to where people want to "sprawl". That includes DND installations, many of which the people living in high density don't want to be near in the first place.

 

[Furniture]

Transit lines have maximum capacities. I've used the Vancouver area one at times when every car is stuffed and not every person waiting can get on, and I haven't seen anyone claim they are not already running the maximum number of trains/cars that can safely be run. I've also experienced what happens when an entire line has to be shut down during rush hour. Buses (thus roads) to the rescue.

It is always possible to add buses and to re-route buses and to take a bus out of service without shutting down an entire line. There is simply no comparison of flexibility between roads and rails, and roads can be used by all whereas a rail line is pretty much monopolized by whatever it was built for.

One of the "incentives" governments control is the insistence on building and promoting commercial and industry hubs like "tech parks" and "financial centres". The municipal governments that have these love them for the tax revenue, which they do not wish to share with suburbs. There's no real reason they have to be concentrated for the benefit of the relative handful of people who will truly have careers during which a change of job will simply mean moving across the road or down the block. Somewhat hidden by the noise of the office/home debate is the prospect of redistributing offices. I suspect that governments fear what will happen if downtown office vacancies get too high, too rapidly.

To struggle against the desires of the people who want to live in low density is about as fruitful as trying to command the tides. Instead of making the consolidation of people near workplaces the main effort (pretty much an unwinnable battle, and most clued in people know what should be done with unwinnable battles), the focus should be on moving more workplaces out to where people want to "sprawl". That includes DND installations, many of which the people living in high density don't want to be near in the first place.

If you conveniently ignore that people are moving to cities faster than away that makes sense.

People move to cities because where there are more people and jobs, there are more opportunities. People are willing to forgo the personal space if it means they can have more access to entertainment, shopping, jobs, etc..

Canadian cities apart from Montreal and Toronto don't really have good rail transit, because everything has been so heavily biased toward cars. I'd wager that if places like New York*, Chicago, London, Tokyo, and Singapore have figured out rail transit, so places like Vancouver, Ottawa, Edmonton and Winnipeg can too.

*America has the same car culture as us, and yet they have figured out how to mix both cars and transit. Likely because their cities aren't pretending that they are small towns with a bit of a traffic problem.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Your 5 foreign examples of cities that have “figured out“ rail transport are all orders of magnitude more densely populated than any Canadian city. I would also wager that there is not a single rail transit system in the world that operates at a profit- they are all taxpayer subsidized. Which is fine: just be sure you understand what trade-offs you are prepared to make for limited tax dollars.