Someone Explain This So Called Housing Crisis?

[terrapin]

You agree with his take there? You don't think homeowners should be allowed to build accessory dwelling units on their own property?

Yes I believe when there's low supply in the market you should be allowed to build more supply, shocking I know.

Since you're obsessed with the idea of only allowing SFH let's talk about that. In Japan there are many neighborhoods that are generally SFH but they can acheive more density because they lack setback and parking requirements and have lower minimum lot size requirements.


Would you be okay with this? Or is this also "living in the pod"?

No I do think homeowner should be able to put rentals on there property and I personally have one and I'm actually even benefiting from that since I have half an acre in a very dense city. My daughter is going to a high quality private school and I use that rental to pay her tuition and am grateful for it.

But building a bunch of rental properties seems terribly short-sided and cruel and can't really be a long-term answer to housing ownership which I think ought to be the real goal.

I haven't given this more than 10 minutes thought so I just want to preface that before I state what I think. But I think zoning laws do need to be changed and duplexes triplexes and small condos... all that kind of thing ought to be allowed within normal neighborhoods. I would much prefer condos over apartments and I think that legislators have to write laws that allow people to own things instead of just rent them. And I also think that tiny homes should be allowed on tiny plots so that we can use up less space. And I also think construction styles like aircreet should be allowed through zoning because you can build a home for a fraction of the cost of a normal home that way and make housing more affordable for the poor.

It's just that when people say we should just allow people to rent on their property and then I go out to every new development in my city and it's the exact same kind of housing development as we've always seen it sounds like b******* to me.

 

[Andy Capp]

Most cities in America were simply not designed to handle adding enough of those numerous capacities to compensate for high housing costs. Many sewer systems, electrical systems, etc. were built 100+ years ago. And even if you could build and provide every single one of those capacities, the houses will have to compete with the additional massive land, resource and building cost requirements that those would take to build, which would only raise their prices.

Cities are leaps and bounds more expensive than rural areas. Also suburban/rural areas are experiencing faster growth than cities as a result of COVID-19 pandemic and remote work availability, so the same effect of migration is occurring, it's just domestic migration versus international.

lol yeah those domestic immigrants, what a scourge.

 

[Rob Battisti]

This started out because you misrepresented the opposing position, you realize that right?

Now, how about the point I made in regards to Japanese style SFHs? Is that also "living in the pod"?

I made an off handed comment in the Mayberry about how people argued the solution to the issue was living in people’s backyards. Is that a misrepresentation?

 

[rikibobby]

It's a shit sandwich also because no one can afford to build either. My parents want to downsize and they met with a designer last week and were told to build a modest 1,200 square foot house with detached garage will cost $600,000 - $650,000 in our rural northern ontario town. Who can afford that? It would sell for less than that including the lot it would go on that they already own.

Canada has a major housing bubble and it's gonna pop. Right now the only developements are multi-unit residential with all the units renting for over $2,000/month. The Canadian dream has been reduced to simply existing and putting food on the table. The next generation is so fucked.

 

[Andy Capp]

No I do think homeowner should be able to put rentals on there property and I personally have one and I'm actually even benefiting from that since I have half an acre in a very dense city. My daughter is going to a high quality private school and I use that rental to pay her tuition and am grateful for it.

But building a bunch of rental properties seems terribly short-sided and cruel and can't really be a long-term answer to housing ownership which I think ought to be the real goal.

I haven't given this more than 10 minutes thought so I just want to preface that before I state what I think. But I think zoning laws do need to be changed and duplexes triplexes and small condos... all that kind of thing ought to be allowed within normal neighborhoods. I would much prefer condos over apartments and I think that legislators have to write laws that allow people to own things instead of just rent them. And I also think that tiny homes should be allowed on tiny plots so that we can use up less space. And I also think construction styles like aircreet should be allowed through zoning because you can build a home before a fraction of the cost of a normal home that way and make housing more affordable for the poor.

It's just that when people say we should just allow people to rent on their property and then I go out to every new development in my city and it's the exact same kind of housing development as we've always seen it sounds like b******* to me.

I was with you until the last paragraph, given the bold text.

There are lots and lots of people who are not in the market for a house for lots and lots of reason but still need an affordable place to live.

 

[PeterGriffin]

It's my understanding that (locally), immigrants are not even allowed to buy until they have been here for 5 years (I think). So until that time passes, they are forced to rent even if they have the money to buy, which even further reduces the amount of rentals available. Landlords are more likely to give them shelter as their housing is essentially more guaranteed.

It seems most immigrants land in Toronto, then are ferreted out elsewhere (not sure if that is by choice or not). 95% of our local immigrants are East Indians, and as much as I hate saying it, they really are not cut out for physical labour. Make no mistake about it, I carry no grudges over that because they almost always end up doing jobs that the locals won't do anyways. Given a choice between slinging drywall or burgers, I'm a drywall kind of guy. They just aren't, or at least not what I have seen around here locally.

Our city puts them up in landing hotels (The Atlantica here in Halifax, not sure if there are others), and they stay there until they secure their own housing. The hotel makes a fortune off of contracts like this, mainly off the food services as the rooms do not have kitchenettes.

In HRM, developers get around the zoning bylaws and red tape by building mixed-use (residential and commercial units). Trying to build one type or the other ends up in red-tape parades. But after one year of having a "mixed-use" designation, they can scuttle the commercial units and rebuild them as residential. Peninsular Halifax has become a nightmare travelling around on the best of days, and there has been a lot of gentrification going on.

We do have a real housing crisis here locally, tent cities popping up everywhere, and it's so broken, I don't even know how you start to fix it. All the politicians are looking out for themselves instead of the ones they were elected to represent... it's fucked here. I get that without immigration countries don't really experience population growth, but holy fuck this is a nightmare.

 

[Rob Battisti]

But building a bunch of rental properties seems terribly short-sided and cruel and can't really be a long-term answer to housing ownership which I think ought to be the real goal.

Careful, that’s where they like to gang up on me and tell me I’m wrong.

 

[terrapin]

I was with you until the last paragraph, given the bold text.

There are lots and lots of people who are not in the market for a house for lots and lots of reason but still need an affordable place to live.

I don't think those two are in conflict with one another honestly. I think the zowning laws in my city if you really look at them are designed to create a permanent renters class. Instead of apartments they could be selling condos and instead of holding onto antiquated zoning laws and construction laws we could be building aircreet and tiny homes

I happen to know a lot of people and my workplace puts me in contact with a ton of people. I never hear someone saying they can't find an apartment. What I hear people saying is they can't afford a home and they wish they could and it's not even close man. That's what people really want.

 

[terrapin]

Careful, that’s where they like to gang up on me and tell me I’m wrong.

In my city people are looking for a home to buy. There isn't a short of a rental properties. Those are going up everywhere but instead of rental properties those ought to be condos that you can buy like it's the same footprint for a large apartment complex or large condo complex and yet it's always apartment complexes and not condos.

Meanwhile, they keep pushing everyone to build rentals on their property if possible, but then that's just more rentals and I just don't meet very many people who would rather be renting a property than buying one.. What I meet are people who can't afford a home .

 

[Rob Battisti]

In my city people are looking for a home to buy. There isn't a short of a rental properties. Those are going up everywhere but instead of rental properties those ought to be condos that you can buy like it's the same footprint for a large apartment complex or large condo complex and yet it's always apartment complexes and not condos.

Meanwhile, they keep pushing everyone to build rentals on their property if possible, but then that's just more rentals and I just don't meet very many people who would rather be renting a property than buying one.. What I meet are people who can't afford a home .

Exactly. The people pushing for this want renters not owners.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No I do think homeowner should be able to put rentals on there property and I personally have one and I'm actually even benefiting from that since I have half an acre in a very dense city. My daughter is going to a high quality private school and I use that rental to pay her tuition and am grateful for it.

But building a bunch of rental properties seems terribly short-sided and cruel and can't really be a long-term answer to housing ownership which I think ought to be the real goal.

I haven't given this more than 10 minutes thought so I just want to preface that before I state what I think. But I think zoning laws do need to be changed and duplexes triplexes and small condos... all that kind of thing ought to be allowed within normal neighborhoods. I would much prefer condos over apartments and I think that legislators have to write laws that allow people to own things instead of just rent them. And I also think that tiny homes should be allowed on tiny plots so that we can use up less space. And I also think construction styles like aircreet should be allowed through zoning because you can build a home before a fraction of the cost of a normal home that way and make housing more affordable for the poor.

Ah so we're generally in agreement here. The only slight disagreement is that I don't think we should make it such a priority to encourage home ownership. People will always want to own homes because its an attractive proposition in and of itself even without government incentives. At the same time I see some folks in my generation are happy with renting indefinitely because it allows them to live in the core of the city which would be unfeasible if they had to own their home and it comes with fewer responsibilities for maintenance.

It's just that when people say we should just allow people to rent on their property and then I go out to every new development in my city and it's the exact same kind of housing development as we've always seen it sounds like b******* to me.

A part of that is even if you allow people to build things like multiplexes and ADUs, neighbors will use environmental review laws to stall out the process which creates a lag between planning the development and finishing it. Only the traditional developers can endure that lag.

I made an off handed comment in the Mayberry about how people argued the solution to the issue was living in people’s backyards. Is that a misrepresentation?

When you frame it as "living in people’s backyards in shacks" then I'd say yes that's a misrepresentation.

How about the point I made in regards to Japanese style SFHs? Is that also "living in the pod" as you like to say?

 

[Andy Capp]

You agree with his take there? You don't think homeowners should be allowed to build accessory dwelling units on their own property?

Yes I believe when there's low supply in the market you should be allowed to build more supply, shocking I know.

Since you're obsessed with the idea of only allowing SFH let's talk about that. In Japan there are many neighborhoods that are generally SFH but they can acheive more density because they lack setback and parking requirements and have lower minimum lot size requirements.


Would you be okay with this? Or is this also "living in the pod"?

By the way, I have been in a couple of these houses. The description is entirely accurate. At the family home of this one friend of my wife's, there's a strip about a yard wide between their house and the fence that divides their lot from the adjacent one, with the same narrow strip on the other side of the fence. When you gotta do whatcha gotta do to make enough room....

 

[Rob Battisti]

Ah so we're generally in agreement here. The only slight disagreement is that I don't think we should make it such a priority to encourage home ownership. People will always want to own homes because its an attractive proposition in and of itself even without government incentives. At the same time I see some folks in my generation are happy with renting indefinitely because it allows them to live in the core of the city which would be unfeasible if they had to own their home and it comes with fewer responsibilities for maintenance.

A part of that is even if you allow people to build things like multiplexes and ADUs, neighbors will use environmental review laws to stall out the process which creates a lag between planning the development and finishing it. Only the traditional developers can endure that lag.

When you frame it as "living in people’s backyards in shacks" then I'd say yes that's a misrepresentation.

How about the point I made in regards to Japanese style SFHs? Is that also "living in the pod" as you like to say?

That is what it is. You talk in ideals. I live in an area that PASSED this law. It’s RVs and shacks in backyards.

I believe you can create high density allotments, condos, more housing without moving in this direction.

 

[terrapin]

Ah so we're generally in agreement here. The only slight disagreement is that I don't think we should make it such a priority to encourage home ownership. People will always want to own homes because its an attractive proposition in and of itself even without government incentives. At the same time I see some folks in my generation are happy with renting indefinitely because it allows them to live in the core of the city which would be unfeasible if they had to own their home and it comes with fewer responsibilities for maintenance.

A part of that is even if you allow people to build things like multiplexes and ADUs, neighbors will use environmental review laws to stall out the process which creates a lag between planning the development and finishing it. Only the traditional developers can endure that lag.



When you frame it as "living in people’s backyards in shacks" then I'd say yes that's a misrepresentation.

How about the point I made in regards to Japanese style SFHs? Is that also "living in the pod" as you like to say?

Looks like we are mostly in agreement. I think the state and city need to craft laws that make it impossible for special interests to get in the way of different kinds of developments I really doubt that there are not back room deals going on between massive developers and officials though making that impossible.

I mean the problem is big enough that they're asking us to build rentals in our backyard, but not big enough to make sure that all of the new housing developments that go up are population dense. Instead we see just more and more mid to high-end homes going up all over the city while they cram renters into all the other older developments.

And again, I know there is a small subset of people that don't want to own a home, but I really meet way way more people that want to own a home. Even if you're only in the city for a few years, you're going to make money and let's not forget that now that the scammers and grifters in realtors have lost their ridiculous fees, it's going to be more and more profitable to own a home, even for a short period of time until you move to another city.

 

[Romulas]

1. Expanding world population
2. Most developed nations taking in more immigrants than building housing units
3. Massive over spending (printing money) during covid and beyond causing unnecessarily high interest rates
4. Hedgefunds & private equity buying single family homes and turning them into rentals
5. Chinese and foreign money being parked in real-estate for stability or to buy citizenship
6. Corrupt local governments and zoning restrictions making development not worth it for small developers.

 

[Wrath of Foamy]

This will be the norm in the future.

The only properties being owned and sold will be hand-me-downs from deceased parents to siblings, and the vast majority of "homes" will be rentals owned by major companies who will squeeze everything that the tenants have out of them.

Only the elite will be able to purchase. The days of the everyman owning a home will be long gone.

Work, home, eat, sleep, survive. That will be it for most.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That is what it is. You talk in ideals. I live in an area that PASSED this law. It’s RVs and shacks in backyards.

That's what happens when these things are unregulated. If you set standards, have good enforcement, and allow the market to work itself out you will get sufficient quality with more density.

I believe you can create high density allotments, condos, more housing without moving in this direction.

But you're flat out wrong though, in most major metro areas there is increasingly less land zoned for multifamily residential units which requires suburban sprawl outwards which destroys farmland. I am seeing this all around me as I live in a semi-rural area. Allowing existing SFH suburbs to become more dense makes it easier to preserve farmland and natural areas while adding more units.

I noticed you continue to dodge my question about Japanese style SFHs. If we're only going to allow SFHs on most of the residential area can't we at least reduce setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and parking requirements? Or is that also "living in the pod"?

Looks like we are mostly in agreement. I think the state and city need to craft laws that make it impossible for special interests to get in the way of different kinds of developments I really doubt that there are not back room deals going on between massive developers and officials though making that impossible.

I mean the problem is big enough that they're asking us to build rentals in our backyard, but not big enough to make sure that all of the new housing developments that go up are population dense. Instead we see just more and more mid to high-end homes going up all over the city while they cram renters into all the other older developments.

And again, I know there is a small subset of people that don't want to own a home, but I really meet way way more people that want to own a home. Even if you're only in the city for a few years, you're going to make money and let's not forget that now that the scammers and grifters in realtors have lost their ridiculous fees, it's going to be more and more profitable to own a home, even for a short period of time until you move to another city.

I'm not for that either, in general I'm against developments that only have SFHs and don't allow more density. I see some of that where I live too which is annoying. I do see townhouse developments as well but what's annoying is that there are missed opportunities there too. There's one new one near me that is right across from a bus stop and yet there's no good pedestrian infrastructure between them, instead there's a three lane road with no clear crossing.

Japan has suburbs that are mostly SFHs but as I mentioned earlier because they have no parking requirements, small setbacks, and smaller minimum lot sizes combined with good transit access they can achieve solid density because they don't waste tons of space on parking and roads.

 

[Andy Capp]

I don't think those two are in conflict with one another honestly. I think the zowning laws in my city if you really look at them are designed to create a permanent renters class. Instead of apartments they could be selling condos and instead of holding onto antiquated zoning laws and construction laws were how you build a home. We could be building aircreer and tiny homes

I happen to know a lot of people and my workplace is me in contact with a ton of people. I never hear someone saying they can't find an apartment. What I hear people saying is they can't afford a home and they wish they could and it's not even close man. That's what people really want.

You live in a bubble and you said yourself you've not given the topic 10 minutes' thought.

There are a million adults in this country enrolled as students in college/university. They rent.

Over half a million people received temporary foreign worker permits in 2023. They rent.

In 2022 over 18 million people in this country were counted as single. The population of Canada is only ~40 million. And what percentage of single people are in the market for a house, do you suppose?

Try putting some more thought into something before you decide it's bullshit.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I have literally no idea how mortgages or rates or house payments work. Housing in Canada is crazy pricey right now. I thought everything would be at a fixed rate and can only be increased annually to a certain percent? Is it like this all over?

My cousin has a bad gambling problem and she spent all of her money on that, and giving money to help out her kids and grandkids. Then She ended up having to live in a trailer after money ran out. Even places like Hamilton, Ontario which imo IS pretty shitty is crazy pricey it seems. What gives?

I spend a good chunk of time investing -- when I think of diversification, Canada is an area I decided I would stay now away from if looking for growth. They've had some of the most ridiculous real estate appreciation, perhaps the highest of the G7 over the past few decades. Combination of high immigration, not enough new formations, corporate purchases (you hear it's always some small percent, but people tend to frame it in terms of overall market, not vacant market), high money laundering, and a lot of unoccupied investment properties. This turns the pricing for homes toward the monopolistic side. And it seems like there's plenty of plans for massive immigration into Canada for years and years. You take real estate out of the Canadian economy, I am not sure they are even positive in terms of growth. Horrible tech sector, about a decade ago their biggest pharmaceutical company turned out to be a fraudulent bust. Not a robust economy - financials, oil and gas, and real estate is pretty much everything. A crazy high percentage of new jobs from government instead of private sector.

Edit: Chart below is real estate price growth.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Houses in small towns are still very affordable. The issue is simple supply and demand in the cities.