Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[Acitta]

And your alternative solution is… try nothing?

The whole idea of the film is to look at alternative solutions. There will be a panel discussion afterwords. Maybe commenters here would like to attend and comment on the ideas presented.

[creative]

It used to work really well in the past. Home ownership was affordable to many and renting as an alternative to ownership was also affordable. House prices and rents pretty much rose at the rate of inflation. The concept of real estate as an investment ruined this. I came up during a time when your house was not an investment but a place to live. You were also able to save for retirement in safe places that paid a decent return on those investments.

[danbrotherston]

It used to work really well in the past. Home ownership was affordable to many and renting as an alternative to ownership was also affordable. House prices and rents pretty much rose at the rate of inflation. The concept of real estate as an investment ruined this. I came up during a time when your house was not an investment but a place to live. You were also able to save for retirement in safe places that paid a decent return on those investments.

I think you can argue the reverse. Houses (realestate) being treated as an investment is not the cause of the problems we have...it is the result of the problems we have (and not just in the realestate market). If you limit the ability for large investors to invest in housing without solving the underlying issues, you don't solve the housing crisis.

[bravado]

It used to work really well in the past. Home ownership was affordable to many and renting as an alternative to ownership was also affordable. House prices and rents pretty much rose at the rate of inflation. The concept of real estate as an investment ruined this. I came up during a time when your house was not an investment but a place to live. You were also able to save for retirement in safe places that paid a decent return on those investments.

I think there’s a compelling case that owning was only affordable in the past because it was subsidized by offloading all its infrastructure costs onto the future via debt.

(And because we basically created the idea of an accessible and affordable mortgage after the Great Depression, owning property before that point was very unusual)

I don’t see how ownership can ever become ”cheap” again, unless we are willing to sacrifice a LOT more rural land for land prices well below what they are today.

I feel like North America has finally caught up to most of the rest of the world and has run out of cheap land. When land is expensive, renting is normal. I don’t see how it could ever be cheap again in Canada + the US. It’s a finite commodity…

The problem is now we have a significant portion of people (myself included) who own an asset that future generations simply can’t own in the same way. How do we possibly get past that inequity and resentment generator? I think it’s a major mistake to look at the 50s, 60s, and 70s and say that this is some sort of default we need to “get back” to. What if it was just an unusual historical blip that can never be repeated because it was never sustainable?

[danbrotherston]

It used to work really well in the past. Home ownership was affordable to many and renting as an alternative to ownership was also affordable. House prices and rents pretty much rose at the rate of inflation. The concept of real estate as an investment ruined this. I came up during a time when your house was not an investment but a place to live. You were also able to save for retirement in safe places that paid a decent return on those investments.

I think there’s a compelling case that owning was only affordable in the past because it was subsidized by offloading all its infrastructure costs onto the future via debt.

(And because we basically created the idea of an accessible and affordable mortgage after the Great Depression, owning property before that point was very unusual)

I don’t see how ownership can ever become ”cheap” again, unless we are willing to sacrifice a LOT more rural land for land prices well below what they are today.

I feel like North America has finally caught up to most of the rest of the world and has run out of cheap land. When land is expensive, renting is normal. I don’t see how it could ever be cheap again in Canada + the US. It’s a finite commodity…

The problem is now we have a significant portion of people (myself included) who own an asset that future generations simply can’t own in the same way. How do we possibly get past that inequity and resentment generator? I think it’s a major mistake to look at the 50s, 60s, and 70s and say that this is some sort of default we need to “get back” to. What if it was just an unusual historical blip that can never be repeated because it was never sustainable?

I don't think this is true. The Netherlands does not have cheap land (never has) but owning is quite common here. I don't think financialisation and ownership are the same thing.

[bravado]

I wonder what North Americans would think of Dutch housing. I think if that was offered here for the same prices as today, people would not be happy.

“How come my parents got a 5br suburban house and all I get is a “European shoebox”?!?”

I do think financialization and ownership are the same on this issue. The average person has never owned their own land/roof for all of human history - until after the war. I wonder if it’s an impossible standard to try and continue.

[tomh009]

If we build public or co-op housing, the next conservative government will sell it off to their friends. No amount of legal protection is enough: just days past we watched Ford et al. launch trial balloons about weakening tenant protections to see what they can get away with.

We might build huge blocks of public flats, we might tinker superficially with taxes or funding for public or co-op housing, we might even give people free rent money. None of it will work in the long run if the money itself has, at the deepest, most obscure levels, leaks in value. Leaks that don't isolate people who want to profit and people who don't from one another.

Arguably that isolation is achievable. Many European countries have massive stocks of public housing, could be from 30% to more than 50% of the rental housing stock. (Singapore and Hong Kong are even higher.) These were mostly government-built originally, but many have been transferred to non-profit housing providers. However, the concept has survived for 100+ years through countless different governments.

Closer to home, Kitchener Housing provides a significant amount of affordable housing today. Providing funding to such organizations could significantly help the current situation, even if it will not solve it on its own.

[Kodra24]

I’ve read your post several times and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Fair enough.

Building public or co-op housing will always be an uphill battle because the "rules"--at the deepest, most obscure levels--are slanted in favour of private, for-profit, speculative, share capital practices.

If we build public or co-op housing, the next conservative government will sell it off to their friends. No amount of legal protection is enough: just days past we watched Ford et al. launch trial balloons about weakening tenant protections to see what they can get away with.

We might build huge blocks of public flats, we might tinker superficially with taxes or funding for public or co-op housing, we might even give people free rent money. None of it will work in the long run if the money itself has, at the deepest, most obscure levels, leaks in value. Leaks that don't isolate people who want to profit and people who don't from one another.

The media does not call renters "losers", but it doesn't have to when it amplifies renters' vulnerability.

I haven't read a more dangerous viewpoint since I joined this forum - free rent money, UBI (from a previous post), tinkering with taxes - I am not sure you are aware of what makes for a thriving country and what sets it on a path to self-destruction, which is kinda of where we are headed to now

Let me ask you - as capital flees Canada in record numbers, who will pay for these programs? As businesses leave and others simply avoid coming here in the first place where will you work?

[danbrotherston]

I wonder what North Americans would think of Dutch housing. I think if that was offered here for the same prices as today, people would not be happy.

“How come my parents got a 5br suburban house and all I get is a “European shoebox”?!?”

I do think financialization and ownership are the same on this issue. The average person has never owned their own land/roof for all of human history - until after the war. I wonder if it’s an impossible standard to try and continue.

I think a lot of Canadians would scoff at the numbers for Dutch housing (I live in a 1000 sq ft house for example), but if they instead of doing that, lived in such housing, they'd be quite a bit happier.

You can get a 5 bedroom suburban house here, but it is in the 1500-2000 sq ft range instead of the 3000-4000 sq ft range. The space here is used far more efficiently. Like, part of it is not needing a 3 car garage and 3 car driveway in front. But there's also just differences in the layout. Windows are bigger. Stairs are smaller. Toilets are separate from bathrooms. Wardrobes are used instead of closets. Attics are livable. Backyards are developed and used. There are just so many smart decisions made WRT space. Using bikes and trains for transportation is just the tip of the iceberg.

As for financialisation vs. ownership, I strongly feel that you are wrong, but I also lack any sort of data to prove it (even just being specific about the terms involved is a challenge--financialisation is obviously vague but even ownership is not as cut and dry as the law suggests), so this is mostly vibes.

[tomh009]

Marc Morin (ex PixStream and Sandvine) is pushing to make factory-built housing at scale:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...39e4c.html

[Momo26]

https://youtu.be/yuUx5KKEvGk?si=VYrCKGjvES77bhQw

[Momo26]

I could not find the right thread for above link

[tomh009]

I  could not find the right thread for above link

They have renamed the project to "Weber Yards":
https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...hp?tid=539

[panamaniac]

I  could not find the right thread for above link

They have renamed the project to "Weber Yards":
https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...hp?tid=539

Are they trying to reduce the taint, or are they planning to convert the remain towers to rental, I wonder?

[ZEBuilder]

They have renamed the project to "Weber Yards":
https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/...hp?tid=539

Are they trying to reduce the taint, or are they planning to convert the remain towers to rental, I wonder?

It will be condos. They have the above grade permits issued for both Tower B and C. ELM was one of the companies providing funding for the project, as such they are fairly motivated to build, including on spec if they don't sell just to recoup some of the money.