Is 'war-time' housing a solution to Canada's crisis? | About That
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ธ.ค. 2023
- The federal government is reviving a war-time plan for pre-approved home designs to accelerate building across the country. Andrew Chang breaks down why it takes so long to build housing in Canada, and whether a new version of the plan could help.
#housing #costofliving
»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: bit.ly/1RreYWS
Connect with CBC News Online:
For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Follow CBC News on TikTok: bit.ly/3TnHioe
Follow CBC News on Twitter: bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: bit.ly/1WjDyks
Find CBC News on Facebook: bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Instagram: bit.ly/1Z0iE7O
Subscribe to CBC News on Snapchat: bit.ly/3leaWsr
Download the CBC News app for iOS: apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: bit.ly/1XxuozZ
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
For more than 80 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.
The red tape at the municipal level is insane and gone on way too long . I have experienced it first hand even with proper zoning the back and forth with building permits etc it's almost like some city departments see it as their job to slow or stop development instead of facilitate it. Without a heavy handed approach from federal and provincial levels nothing will change since municipalities are also subject to NIMBYs and are concerned to upset the apple cart. For the sake of the younger generation we need to override the Boomer/NIMBY pandering municipalities.
the big contractors and developers that fund civic campaigns don't have that problem
The big contractors / developers dont have that problem in the courts either. The use that to keep the entrepreneurs from surviving. Either influence the civic gov't or stop the smaller guys from getting in the game, staying in the game, late payments, and there ability to pay for the lawyers the biggest hoop, in the industry getting paid to do the work. @@captain34ca
I have experiences this first hand as well. Just a single 1200 sq foot dwelling and the level of government interference and costs easily added 3 years and tens of thousands of dollars to a basically simple build I did all on my own with the help of some contractors to over see my work to make sure everything was above code.
Where is the funding for water and sewer projects
Our planning department went home for Covid and never came back to work and their doors are stilllocked
@@SSingh-nr8qzWow! That's a great accomplishment. You likely have a number of insights you could share with people in power. If they were to care to learn I mean.
I grew up in a "wartime housing" home and had a great life. It is still standing in GOOD SHAPE after 70 years!
Thats the info I was looking for , do these houses stand the test of time :)
@@yashwantmineKexpert Yes, with proper and regular maintenance. No, if you disregard them.
Andrew is phenomenal. Even with a politically charged topic like housing he tackles the story with professionalism and attention to detail.
He’s pretty good.
He should do an video on another solution to the housing. Focused on decreasing demand. Start a civil war, get rid of Healthcare, stop funding public education. If less people want to live here prices will come down
About That should have its own channel, so i can turn on notifications for all new videos
I loathe much of the CBC but they do have some truly top notch journalists. Andrew and his team is certainly one of them. He tries to approach topics with little bias as possible.
@Maxmulham despite accusations to the contrary the CBC is one of the better most unbiased sources in this country....
Government loan guarantee's on these new cheaper homes, build a bunch of homes under or at 150,000 to 175,000 to purchase and limit the sale to just first time home buyers that only need 5 % down with a stable interest rate. You would solve the problem with in 5 years and stabilize the market by bringing all homes down to more reasonable prices for the rest of the people not first time home buying. The entry to home ownership when my wife and I bought our first home was 5% down and our home only cost 90,000 25 years ago. Most people we knew had little problem in finding homes at reasonable prices and interest rates that were sustainable. The key is to not let developers make the rules or your just going to get more 3000,000 condos.
In many major cities, land prices and construction costs are so expensive that $150,000 to $175,000 condos are infeasible (let alone single family homes). If you require private developers to do that then the units simply won't be built. The only way to make that happen is to have the government be in charge of the development, in which case the tax payer will be on the hook to subsidize such units (not arguing for or against this)
I think we should build a Mega-Moose Jaw on Vancouver Island barn-raising party style
We don't need agricultural land and environmentally important land going to single family homes.
Demand side for housing could be cut with laws, allowing life-long CANADIANS the ability to buy homes.
So more taxpayer dollars to sell homes at a fraction of what they cost to build while government gets bigger, is your solution?
@@gardencity3558Not any different from what happens now really, Bank of Canada sets the interest rates which have a direct impact on the entire supply chain, mortgages, loans as well as half a dozen other services the government funds directly.
Part of the reason we are in this situation is because after 2008 interest rates were kept artificially low allowing for huge amounts of lending by developers, banks and home buyers.
This means developers were incentivized to build bigger homes because buyers were able to take out larger mortgages with the banks thus further incentivizing them to build even more expensive homes.
If anything this would be a targeted approach for first time home buyers instead of all home buyers, top it off with incentives and mandates to developers to build those cheaper homes and you could fix an issue like this.
Ultimately the fewer people we have in homes the less likely you are to move up the economic ladder and the more existing homeowners will need to pay.
I knew an old truck driver who delivered these prefab houses during the war. When he started they could deliver a whole house with two five ton trucks. Later they added a trailer and delivered a whole house with one five ton truck. They were erected on narrow lots with a common driveway in between, in some areas, on larger lots in other areas. The ones around here are 1 1/2 storey with a living room, kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms upstairs. They were originally heated with an oil stove in the living room.
During the war they were rented to war workers, after the war they were sold off for $2500. Imagine buying a house and lot, even a small one for $2500.
There are lots of them around here 80 years later. All are nice neighborhoods, they are well maintained and improved, some with additions, all have new siding, roofs, heating systems etc added over the years by different owners.
I have often thought this project could be a model for new low cost housing.
Imagine buying a bungalow equal to 2 years McDs fry-boy wages. In the 1990s. (2000hrs X $5.44)x2years= $22000. Typical bungalow. ALSO $100,000 was mind blowing new 3 story luxury location in 1989, distinct memorys
Wealthy nimbys have destroyed middle class housing.
I framed new construction single family dwellings in the US for 10 years, right out of high school, and also was on the build crews for several multi-story apartment complexs. The strawberry box houses from 80 years ago are largely still "code compliant", largely due to their structural simplicity. For example, look at the roofline of modern homes; there's multiple pitches and angles, multiple peaks and valleys, etc, and each one is different, requiring engineering sign-offs for each individual project.
And that's just to sign-off on the load calculation for the roof design.
A layman could easily construct a wooden box with 2x6 walls and a trussed roof, that would easily pass inspection. The "engineering" requirements are negligible due to the simplicity.
Everyone is blaming concepts like NIMBY for the backlog, but there are many more insidious reasons for why new construction is being blocked; they want you to be renters. They want you to be locked in to a cradle-to-grave system of renting. They want to minimize the footprint that their population takes up, because a spread out population is harder to control, so they're insisting on multi-story, multi-family dwellings, packed as tightly together as possible. This means that they also aren't required to build roads and utilities to service a larger area; one road, one big parking lot, one big sewer pipe, one big gas pipe, and one big water pipe to service one big building. The city gets off cheap, and reaps all the financial benefits of zero investment, while one property owner who is incestuously involved with a city employee reaps the financial windfall and cashes all those sweet sweet rent checks.
Many of the large municipalities in the states are also pushing to slow down, or outright stop new single family dwelling construction, and these strip-mall style housing complexs have metastasized everywhere.
Logistically i can understand why populations should be concentrated into densely packed cost efficient housing.
@@booguwu4540 "Everyone is blaming concepts like NIMBY for the backlog, but there are many more insidious reasons for why new construction is being blocked; they want you to be renters. They want you to be locked in to a cradle-to-grave system of renting. They want to minimize the footprint that their population takes up, because a spread out population is harder to control, so they're insisting on multi-story, multi-family dwellings, packed as tightly together as possible."
Well I wish they would do a better friggen job of implementing their nefarious plan. Right now in Toronto the by laws say they can't build resembling an apartment over almost the entire city. If the plan is to make us renters they ought to have figured out they need to build apartment buildings. They used to build loads of those but they practically stopped building those 50 years ago.
"This means that they also aren't required to build roads and utilities to service a larger area; one road, one big parking lot, one big sewer pipe, one big gas pipe, and one big water pipe to service one big building. The city gets off cheap, and reaps all the financial benefits of zero investment, while one property owner who is incestuously involved with a city employee reaps the financial windfall and cashes all those sweet sweet rent checks."
Keep in mind that 'The City' is us. The city gets that money from us. When the city saves money it means our taxes don't have to go up as much.
There is very good reason to try and keep things denser. Have you looked at any city tax maps? Those suburbs cost a fortune to maintain. The reality is that subdivision of 18 houses will eventually, in 30 years, need its roads basically rebuilt as well as the power, water and sewer systems. If you look at the cost of that its going to come out to $30-$60 million dollars. We see this in basically every city in Canada and the US. the inner city supplies the tax base to keep the suburbs running. In a fair number of cases in the US this ponszi scheme eventually collapses and the city goes bankrupt.
This would be wonderful. I would have had a small energy-efficient home built for myself a few years ago if I could have, but almost everywhere, it's illegal to build them. So instead of building a new home I had to buy an existing one, one that I didn't even really want because it was too big, too old and too inefficient. Can you imagine how many more homes there would be right now if building sensible housing were legal?
Irresponsible to convert prime agricultural land to single family homes esp.
@@jvssocialmedia2459 Fortunately, homes don't need to be built over agricultural land. Canada is ridiculously immense. And smaller homes take much less land.
SO TRUE, so much would be built if it were legal. I would convert my home to a duplex if it were feasible, but they make it so goddman complex, affordable housing has been OUTLAWED
Oh man, you had me grasping my head with this one! Oh the things I could build with a small piece of land, access to natural resources, and nobody saying "You can't do that"!
The idea of building a new home solely because of "energy efficiency" is counterintuitive because of the sunk carbon cost.
It is greener to keep an older car and maintain it in good mechanical order, than it is to scrap the old car and buy a new one. For example, the amount of carbon that is emitted to manufacture one EV is equivalent to 100,000 miles of driving your average sedan.
The same holds true for building a new home; the carbon to build an old house has already been generated. To bulldoze and replace it with a new home means you would have to live in the new home for a century before you would "break even".
My house is a large 125 year old brick house. I cannot fathom how many tons of carbon was generated to fire the bricks alone. But bulldozing a structurally sound building, just to replace it with another means that the replacement would have to be exponentially more efficient to justify not just the replacement cost, but the lifetime carbon generation cost.
And my solid brick house could stand for another century. These particle board and drywall houses are designed to be disposable, because our society worships the GDP God.
the solution is stop letting foreign investors buy up all the properties.
like i dont see how this is legal at all, housing isnt some sort of commodity, adequate shelter is a necessity and shouldnt be traded on the open market so some billionaire can expand his portfolio while residents go homeless
Also corporations. Market increases need to be controlled and those selling homes shouldn't be allowed to constantly push up prices which normalizes said prices.
Foreign investors are not huge contributors to the problem. Investors don't buy up homes en-masse and leave them empty as evidenced by the all time low vacancy rates in major cities. There's already a ban on foreign investors and that didn't even put a dent. There simply aren't enough houses for the population plus all of the incoming immigrants (not their fault, we just need to build more)
@@ColonelPassTheCheese I disagree
@@Ubernewb111 Sure, but unless you have a counter argument based on actual numbers your opinion here is just based on vibes
@@Ubernewb111 Also, if we're going to decommodify housing and have the government be in charge of allocating resources, all the boomer couples in Toronto and Vancouver would need to be told to move out of their 3 bedroom houses to make way for bigger families. After all, it's only fair since housing shouldn't be traded on a market like you said.
Tried to build a very small house on a piece of land I own for a family member 2 years ago (we also live in a rural area, not even a city).
Forget the permits... it took 8 months just to get a survey.
Fast forward another 8 months after that and the project was still being held up due to internal disputes regarding zoning laws (the municipality was having with itself)
After about a year and a half we just gave up due to the beurocratic nonsense and redtape.
Money talks, if you're rich enough a three storey mansion would have been built a year ago.
Disgusting…. Where was this?
@gordorr9259 Wealthy homeowners have basically set up a system to completely shut off missing middle housing and affordable housing for the middle and working class in Canada , is absolutely disgusting , pre WWII Canada had many housing options, nimbys have ruined housing.
@@MrTrda
Eastern Ontario.
@gordorr9259
You're probably not wrong.
We had the funding to build the small house (more realistically it was basically a cabin), for an aging member of the family.
We also knew their would be a nice amount of extra money-grabbing fees and whatnot.. which we were prepared for aswell.
We were in the process of getting all the drawings and having them submitted but it was month after month of pure nonsense.
More than one instance we were told "You can do this", so we would do what they told us... then 3 weeks later we were told conflicting information. So we would pivot, and make adjustments... just to be led back around the same circle over and over.
Funny enough everyone we consulted with at the municipality would never communicate via email... only phone calls. So, nothing was ever in writing.
Meanwhile developers nearby are throwing up houses no problem.
I lowkey suspect it's because our plans didn't "better the area" in terms of housing.
I used to live near veteran houses. I think they're great. They were expensive in Ottawa because they were rare. They've also lasted since WWII.
Many still up and well maintained out East.
Got a bunch in Aylmer area.
I lived near the ones off Carling Ave, near the Experimental Farm.
So it's Trudeau's fault?
@@elliotjordan2326 100%
this my 2nd video i watched from this guy,
smart, articulate and delivers the points effectively - i love this and we need more of him
I was listening to NEWSTALK 1010 a few days ago when they discussed this. A Toronto area architect called in and told John Moore that architects already have files of pre-approved designs, and that even for a large sized development, the cost of getting these designs from an architect are a tiny fraction of the overall costs to developers. He seemed pretty certain this is not what holds up the construction of housing.
You’re probably right. It may help a little but when I bought my house 4 years ago the builder told me the bulk of the cost was land. So we’re talking about building houses faster but they’ll still cost a fortune if the bare patch of land is hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I live in a rural community not some big city. So what are we talking about, 500K prefab small homes?
He's right. All you gotta do is take a drive in the suburbs a see the streets full of repeating houses. And builders pay many of the contractors in piece work so they're banging out the same job over and over again as quickly as possible. I think they're just tying the phrase and past success of "wartime housing" to yet another empty action.
@@mustardbackpack Excellent point. We already live in cookie cutter houses. Hard to believe additional cookie cutter designs will solve a problem…
@@mustardbackpack Remember that the war-time houses were all concrete block and wood frame with wood siding (not brick). Some had basements and some without. I'm sure they would not meet Toronto's building code standards today. A mindset change needs to happen to allow this type of home to be built again.
Years ago we looked at beautifully designed Viceroy Cedar Homes that could be built in cottage country, but the City of Toronto would not allow them to be constructed here.
@@josephsmith594 Something doesn't seem right. An acre or two of land doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
there's also the problem of many many homes and apartments presently vacant, but 'reserved' for high-paying tourists and speculators.
Pre-pandemic it was said that Toronto had more cranes in the sky than any other North American city. They were all building condominium apartments.
@@chrisgraham2904
Thanks to zoning restrictions and NIMBY's, condos were the only high-density housing legally allowed to be built within city limits.
BINGO !!!! at least 5 years of building supply is parked vacant ( nationally) while speculative owners "wait for a better price"
The Building Code is the Building Code... As someone who does CUSTOM homes for a living, the permitting delays come from Zoning (i.e. By-law interpretation). The big developers already have many designs that have been pre-approved; the Government is not helping in this regard. Once approved, the next problem for the Builders is securing materials and finding the tradespeople capable of constructing the building. The larger the project, the bigger the issue.
And on another note... The Provinces are in charge... Each have their respective and regulated Architectural, Engineering, Designer professions that can certainly solve the design and permitting processes provided the municipalities speed things up... Who wants cookie-cutter designed by the Government on unique sites? The Developers do the bare minimum as it is (no disrespect to Developers).
@@jeremythebeer8609 The feds creating their own red tape, to override another layer of government's red tape. Problem solved?
What is the trade that is in most demand and lacking the people? I am just looking for some advice on which trade to enter. Looking at electrical.
@@shoutatthesky trades are low paid. i just left electrical. go union or bust
Tradesmen is not the problem. The wages they want to pay tradesmen is the problem. They pay their prostitutes more...
One thing that’s left out is the NIMBY effect. The level home owners go to retain every drop of equity is insane and many have borrowed against most of the homes value. Not only will they not want to look at these homes but will directly oppose them.
That’s not to dump on the idea as a potential solution but is definitely a major hurdle.
Idk, have u seen what new developments look like? I'd rather these homes in my neighbourhood than the sardine can townhouses with no backyards that the build now
@@JOIHIINIthese homes are most likely smaller than most modern townhomes and they’re insanely space inefficient for in terms of housing as well as the public infrastructure to support. Decent sized townhomes are the most efficient form of housing when it comes to utilizing space and common resources
@usernameryan5982 why would they be cheaper for public infrastructure? First off they can't have aerial hydro because they are linked, secondly when it comes to drainage and water lines as well as gas lines they each require seperate trenching to the front of each house whereas with standard detached homes they trench in between the green space between the houses and Mount the utilities on the side if each house using the same trench. Also from planning perspectives they need to conform to fire separations whereas unlinked dwellings do not. I'd say it's less about efficiency and more about profits. They require slightly more land to build them but you can't have a pre approved cookie cutter design for a townhouse complex whereas you can for a detached dwelling. When you're talking about space inefficient are you referring to the land they sit on or the actual floor plan? Because if we're talking land yes detached dwellings will use about 20% more. But since when is having a small backyard space inefficient? That used to just be a necessity.
@@JOIHIINI the fact you admitted they are more profitable is proof they are more efficient. And to your point on land, no that’s not the case at all. Why do you think where townhomes are legal you can routinely see single family homes torn down and 3 or more townhomes put up on the exact same lot? And these are average sized lots. Why do you think most traditional development would be traditional row houses? It’s because they were incredibly cheap to build because they were basically the same design, they required significantly less land, less road infrastructure for the city to maintain, less utilities overall. Most single family home lots don’t even bring in enough property tax to maintain the infrastructure to support them, they require subsidies from either tax dollars generated from new development or revenues from more space efficient areas that have a positive tax balance. Either way, just let the market build what it needs to and legalize all forms of housing. We’ve gone through enough time of people forcing nothing but single family homes in most areas and it’s helped create the huge shortages we have today.
@@usernameryan5982 I'm confused are you referring to townhouses as mdus? They are still single family homes. You also know that property tax is calculated based on frontage right? So the less the frontage the less the tax. If they wanted to generate more tax revenue going by the existing system it would be to build wide shallow houses rather than narrow deep ones. I'm not saying they're cheaper I'm saying that they're not that much cheaper, unless the sacrifice is made on something like a backyard. Also the single family homes you see getting torn down to build rowhouses aren't wartime houses. They're often large ranch bungalows on wide lots. In old toronto for example you will have detached houses on 20 foot wide lots. They built them tall and deep, and a townhouse vs a detached house on one of those lots makes very little difference infrastructure wise. But if a detached house on that street was done using pre approved plan it would streamline the process to approval a lot quicker then 2 linked dwellings. But we're not talking about single family vs multi family were talking about detached vs attached. I agree there should be purpose built multi family as well never said I didn't.
Nobody wants those construction jobs because they dont pay enough anymore lol Why sacrifice your body doing hard labor when you can make the same or more working from home at some entry-level sales job
I have worked in construction, mostly industrial and commercial, all my life. Now I'm 56 and need new knees, and my wages have been cut by 30% as my skill level has increased and the workplace safety levels have decreased while safety expenses have shifted from employer to employee. I vehemently exhort my sons to not follow my career path, and I did far better than most of my colleagues. My main trade is electrical.
@@captain34cayour wage decreased?
Real wages have been decreasing for 30 + years. Not just his wages, all wages. This is in the professional part of the industry too. More hours more responsibility, more liability and more wasted time / unpaid consulting / intellectual property theft ! 20 years I have been in the professional side, started on the ground with a shovel,in the the trades. Its not a lack of labour its a lack of willingness. No skills have been retained because of non pmt, Good, fast or cheap you can only have 2. All that is left is cheap. Then you have cave ins and collapsing. 3 incidents in the last year in BC. Do you want to work in that hole ? @@Chris-fg7se
Or Social Services!
@@captain34ca And what about all those roofers, who replace shingles on roofs after 15 years?? They risk falling off a roof, their knees are shot. Who would want to do that for a living? For all those homes which will require shingle replacement, where will the future workers be? Do you pay for your own Workmen's Compensation coverage?
Lots of great ideas in the comments. I think that innovation and thinking outside the box is sorely needed to solve this problem. How about setting up co-ops, or getting architecture schools involved with contests to propose the most efficient designs? and so on...
Excellent suggestions. More co-ops for sure!
Kind of surprised pre-approved designs don't already exist, given most of the designs they look at have to be almost identical. How many different ways can you layout a house? What the heck are shadow studies for, sounds like bs. All the concerns should be one day on the ground work and a month long feedback process from the community to see if they have any reasonable concerns to add. Finally there is not a shortage of construction workers, unless it takes like 5 years to be trained up to do the job at a basic skill level. Only real job shortages are structural shortages where it will take 4+ years to train up somebody to simply start the job. The rest is neglect to pay enough to survive, lack of benefits, and lack of motivation to treat workers as human.
🎯
Architects have cabinets filled with home designs that are pre-approved for every municipality in Ontario and I'm sure architects in other provinces have the same. All government has to do is pick the designs that they will support for a particular development.
Great idea! Too bad it took them this long to figure it out. But stop with the single detached!!! Multi-unit should be the first and most numerous built. And large apartment buildings with 2-3 bedrooms.
No way. Single detached is the most healthy psychologically. Stop looking at houses as a way to make money and think about how to actually make the best one.
I live in the former East Berlin now and while most haven’t aged well, the Platenbau buildings that were pioneered here in the 60s-80s might be a good solution. The Modular concrete design is so innovative, and I’m sure it could be modernized and adapted to the Canadian market.
Homes will never be affordable again in this nation. Previous generations, current mortgage debtors, homeowners, everyone involved in real estate and gov at all levels don't want homes to be affordable because they all benefit from higher prices. Previous generations who are homeowners, current mortgage debtors, investors, banks and everyone involved in the real estate industry all benefit from higher homes by living off cheap credit and built up equity and gov of all levels benefit from the higher tax and permit revenues it generates from higher prices. So all of the parties mentioned there is no incentive for lower home prices. They do not care about the prosperity of future generations. They do not care about anyone but themselves in all honesty. The parties mentioned just see young people and immigrants as p€@$@n+$ & $!@v€$ to pay for pensions and gov spending. You can't start a stable family renting or you will eventually lose your family. There's no point in paying taxes in a nation you'll never be able to afford a home in. The best thing young people can do is save up and leave the nation.
Or we change the status of the problem or our nation will fail. We will together solve this crisis.
lol your solution is "Hey kids leave now!" where will they go? When they arrive and make prices go up then where? What happens after the kids leave? Seem poorly thought out.
We got a boomer problem sadly
It's lenders and Interest rates stalling the buying of homes, mortgages were given to young people with just 5% down and reasonable interest rates. Governments can't tell banks what to do and the biggest hurdle to most people is down payment, sustainable rates and the cost of the homes.
TRUE TO EVERY WORD ❤
In less than a year you could have some video conferencing between experts like architects, draughtspeople, engineers, construction companies, municipalities and hammer out a set of best practices. Standard dwellings of different sizes and configurations could be drawn up for quick approval process. Also set up for modular construction. That de skills the construction process by breaking it down in an assembly line approach
I think it is a great idea, even as a retired person looking to downsize from an 1900 sq ft home, all I could get was a 2 bedroom 2.5 bathroom townhouse....I would have been happy for have a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom....a single person does not need 2.5 bathrooms....impossible to find something smaller......every young person deserves to have a home and to plan for a family....what has happened to Canadian values? All the new housing near my development is huge million dollar homes for foreigners. My next door neighbours, a nice young couple, had to move out because of their greedy landlord raising their rent up to $2900, come on......this has to stop....bring back rental caps...
Rental caps are band-aid solution, and counter productive to solving the big picture. The reason rents are increasing so much need to be addressed - inflation and the inability for supply to meet demand. If you wan't cheap rent there needs to be an abundance of rental units.
Developers won't bother making the investment of building rental units - with 1-3 years of delays and variable costs of labour and materials the risk to the return on investment is already too high. When you add in rental caps that limit you from recouping your potential and unknown future losses - why bother? In a high interest environment like this you may as well throw your investment into a savings bond and get some guaranteed risk free returns. You'd be crazy to develop anything with this government in charge.
I don't see this going over very well in Ontario. Ford and his developer buddies are not going to like the cut into their profits
The last GOOD journalist at CBC, you're all they got tackling ACTUAL ISSUES!
Andrew, I just want to say how much i love "About That." I hope you're able to keep producing these videos. I truly appreciate the work that goes into these. Well done!
Ive been say here in the usa we dont need spqce force we need home force ....or home and land security not the other.....😢
I owned a wartime house, it was a great little house. Wish I still had it actually. I did need a bit more storage, a garage would have been nice. Our house was built on a double lot too so we had a nice size yard.
So to build more houses, you have to pay the builders enough for their own houses, which is too expensive. The only solution is to reduce demand.
Not at all they’d be building homes 2-3x faster because of a standardized design and small size thus reducing complexity so while the per unit price of a home would go down their total production volume would go up.
Instead of building 2 homes worth 400k each you build 5 or 6 homes worth 150-200k each.
@@BigHeadClanit's impossible to build a house for 200k today. Material has more than triple.
@@hexxlaxx2992 Again I pointed out how they could save on production costs which also included just building smaller homes to drive costs down. Smaller homes mean far less building materials required.
As for pricing that's factually incorrect, manufacturing costs went up by around 45-50% and only for specific materials like Concrete and Steel.
Smaller homes mean less of both for the foundation and structural components and they can be augmented with other materials or the Goverment can spin up a national manufacturer for both to massively increase output to drive down costs.
Not saying this will be an easy or quick to fix but they are the type of large changes we need to make if we actually want to fix the problem.
@@BigHeadClan it cost between $400 to $450 dollars a square feet to build today so a 800sq ft house is about $320000 without land and permits a 500 sq ft house will be around $200000 plus land and permits .
A roll of copper wire commonly used 14/2 was $50 a roll before COVID it's now $194 dollars. I agree with mini homes you can save but it's still very unaffordable.
@@hexxlaxx2992 Canadian average varies a fair bit but per square foot right now is $180/sq-ft. There are outliers like Vancouver or Toronto but most big cities don’t crest $300 as of 2023 reporting.
And that is at current rates, all of the things I suggested would help drive down time to construct(labor cost) and help standardize materials meaning they can be produced faster and in large quantities further lowering costs.
As for the cost of copper its always fluctuated heavily, I’m not sure what length you consider a “roll” for 14/2?? I’m seeing 75m at around $120 and $200 for 150m. But that’s box store price not wholesale pricing that developers and contractors would pay.
But hey if we want to throw on some windfall taxes to punish greedflation from Covid I’m all for it.
I’m also fine with the government spinning up a crown corporation to drive down costs or approve a new copper mine so long as there is a mandate that said metals must be used for Canadian products.
There are a lot of levers the government has to address home prices, they just actually need to use them.
The City of Toronto numbers from their development pipeline report cited here are a bit misleading. They refer to a project with *any* approval as "approved." This doesn't mean that a project is fully approved and can start building. A project might receive a zoning approval, but not have site plan approval, for example. Just below the 29,726 number that you see in this video, the development pipeline gives the number of applications with "final approval," meaning that they have the Notice of Approval Conditions that would let them go apply for a Building Permit. That number is 22,823.
It's still a challenge to get shovels in the ground and I expect that will get worse with current interest rates, but Toronto's weird definition of what an "approved" unit is makes things even more confusing.
There needs to be attn to affordable single person housing, as well, not just family homes! As a retired single person, I count myself very lucky to afford a small bachelor apartment in a building that's in a safe area, but not everyone can. Additionally, the supply of bachelors is severely limited.
Agreed....little to no attention is paid to this.
75% of apartments are studios or 1 bedrooms in Vancouver...
@@lenadahling plethora of expensive 1 bdrms but def not studios here in Ottawa, i.e. in my building ONLY 1/4 are studios & no 2 bdrms. If I were living on disability benefits I could not afford even the studio. It would take my entire income plus. With the scarcity of 2bdrms, not even possible to share.
@@KanadianRaven So it's the cost, not the number. That's across the board.
@@lenadahling greater supply brings down cost. Good old supply & demand economics.
there's also corruption, and it seems like no one is talking about it especially at the city level bureaucracy
The neighbourhood I grew up in had I believe 4 standard homes. Hundreds of houses that many people today would turn their nose up because there was one bathroom, no den, small closets and often 3 small bedrooms. They were safe, serviceable, reasonably affordable, and possibly didn't provide huge returns to the developers.
Government built, possibly. However, there are thousands of young families renting those homes now, making do because they can't afford better.
@@maryanneslater9675doesn't your reply illustrate the problem isn't inherently with the system, but that the demands people are making aren't realistic?
Affordable houses *are* small houses. Yes, property values are inflated, but even accounting for this, the sqft cost is unavoidable. Those big closets and kitchens aren't free.
People really have to temper their expectations if they want an "affordable" home.
Lastly, if you are going to build, remember it is cheaper to go down, than it is to go up. The cost to put in a poured concrete basement with 8" thick walls and a 9' ceiling is cheaper than it is to build a house with a 2nd floor.
@@booguwu4540 Sadly this does not feel like a solution to the problem we are currently facing. A small cheap house is fine and all except that there is nowhere really to build this. Cheap homes far from where these middle and lower class people need to work is useless (and if you are willing to live in Timmins housing is already cheap) and most of the land within 2 hours of any major city is already developed. What is really needed is a bunch of much larger buildings or conversions of smaller places into duplexes and triplexes.
I agree
I was just talking about this a couple weeks back! glad to see it here! Nationalize these builds, the developers dont want to take on the work, someone else will do it and will eventually drop pricing on their overpriced Mc Mansion builds.
Didn't you watch the video? Before the government got involved there were lots of cheap houses built. It is government red tape at all levels that has slowed building and multiplied costs. To give the government even more control would be insane, and guarantee that the problem is never solved.
There will be houses built same way everyone now has $10 a day daycare spot😂😂😂😂
@@mrdanforth3744 Didn't you watch the video? There was a massive housing shortage comparable to what we are seeing today, BEFORE government got involved. When government did get involved the crisis was then averted. The issue is less to do with big bad feds and more to do with the actual citizens. Home owners are the largest voting block, and the red tape your describing was put in place so as to not offend their eyes looking at some bothersome structure across the way, as well as to secure the standing investment on their house.
These rules didn't appear because governments wanted to inconvenience you personally, it was to protect the people who had already made the purchase because they were the ones usually with the time, money, connections, etc to convince local elected officials to put them in place. And if they didn't, they would just be replaced in the next election by someone who would.
@@Alex-qo7ke We are talking about 2 different things. There was a housing shortage in WW2 because of the depression when very few houses were built. That is why they needed to quickly supply housing to war workers in new factories.
After the war there was a building boom, many new subdivisions were built across the country, there was no housing shortage until the 1970s when various levels of government decided they could improve things with a welter of new regulations. Since then the cost of vacant lots and building have skyrocketed, while it now takes 10 years to get permission to build something that used to take 1 year or less.
@@mrdanforth3744 The government started "getting involved" in 1941, with the implementation of the Building Code in Canada. War housing was built, by the government, between 1941 and 1947 (46,000 units). They were offered as rental units, but with strong encouragement to buy, which most people did. With the advent of the Building Code, you could no longer build unsafe homes. It ensured, and still does, a MINIMUM building practice with MINIMUM materials. You need to look at the practices of developers and builders if you really want to see where the money goes. It sure as he11 ain't in permits.
I think another type of standardized home also needs to be considered. Prefab homes where most of the work is done at scale in a factory. Habitat 67 was one the first attempts at this. Being the first it did not have scale but it did introduce the idea.
Highrise apartments are cheaper, and easier to service with utilities. Governments around the world build big cheap highrise condominiums. . Cheap houses are a disproven pipe dream and double the carbon footprint. It's just political nonsense.
@@steviev.5822I agree. Habitat 67 is prefab apartments. Although high rises are cheap they are not appropriate for everywhere. Tokyo achieves very high density with large amounts of low-rise(6 floors or lower) apartments.
This does still get done in large subdivisions. Mattamy Homes in Milton Ontario built a house 'factory' in one corner of the huge subdivision lot and the entire house (except for the foundation) was completed inside this huge warehouse type building. Once the house was complete, it would get transported to the foundation that was already completed and set down on top.
Currently RTB law is more stand for tenant side. Some bad tenant use a loop hole to take advantage of the landlord such as unpaid rent, unpaid water bill, damaging properties. Also, some cities' water department request the landlord to pay the tenant's outstanding water bill. The 1/2 month security deposit not enough for compensating the loss. It forces the landlord increase the rent or unwilling to rent the unit out. RTB law should be changed particularly in the housing crisis.
This is a HUGE issue
Sears had a program like this it was a catalog house. And you could get a roof on one and layout on another. Also flip tge design or turn it to make the frount door face on level and the back door into a hillside with stairs. Also you could put on top of a basement. All were less tgan 1,000 sq ft. And under
$1,000 we call them war houses locally. Tgeir is still over 300 houses that were built. ( guy would come out and check foundation was in and it shipped out onthe railroad. Took less than a week from leaving factory to move in.
BUILT TO CODE . And anyone with a full time job could get a loan. VA offered their own loans.
try to get a permit to renovate a house in Edmonton's inner city. It just doesn't happen ever. a bigger contractor will get a demolition permit once the family gives up on owning their own home and sells to move into rental housing and a pair of skinny houses will go up that no one who lives in the neighborhood can afford.
Construction is bad these days, they ask what time you going to be done before you even start working, working conditions are bad, pay is bad, your body is broken by the time you are 45
Its the cold and humid that destroys u, i been in this 15 years , now I rather work factories for less pay.
The reason this won’t work is you cannot intensify existing cities with one size fits all plans.
All of the sites you are working on are different dimensions. Sure you could plop something in that fills 60% of the site - but that would leave off tens, if not hundreds of units.
With the cost of land being so expensive- no developer is going to bite. They’ll do a plan designed for the site that maximizes the number of units.
I’m an architect- I’ve worked with developers. They need to squeeze in as many units as humanly possible to make the finances work. Thinking they’re going to drop hundreds of units is not realistic.
This will only work in places that are not already developed - largely places that don’t have supply shortages as it stands. It’s just an incredibly ineffective solution for the challenge at hand - intensifying cities like Toronto and Vancouver, where you need to develop every last square inch of space.
Also, while you can pop up a 4 walled house in a day - you’re not gong to do that with a mid-rise development.
this won't bring down prices... these measures are for developers and builders to make more money...
New home starts have decreased by 39%, builders don’t want to build at the present internet rate, if they do will have to add more costs for interest
Truely mobile housing might solve both housing & labour shortages at the same time, especially involving single adult workers who can move their housing to the jobs.
@DavidGS66: Are you talking about RVs? Or mobile homes on permanent foundations? What do you plan to do about sanitary, water and electrical hookups? Garbage pickup? Mail? Permanent address?
@@karenburrows9184 That can be set up in any parking lot rather quickly. A person living in an RV adds security to businesses outside of normal business hours also.
@@karenburrows9184
I was thinking the exact same thing. If government or any credited engineering authority could release building plans for houses, or in the governments case, funding, how could mobile housing be supported with pre-built approved plans for zoning, sewage treatment and pottable water? Like making it easier for rv and trailer parks to be zoned and approved? Seems impossible. impossible
@@kinger557 I hear you. From what I remember of the codes, RVs and mobiles are not considered permanent dwellings....
Personally, I would prefer a mobile home on a temporary foundation.
Those post WW2 houses were built very poorly.
Ask anyone who has renovated an original example.
KUDOS to the CBC for tackling this....this is the issue of our lifetime
Suggestion: One of the big challenges is the cost of materials. This can vary wildly across the nation and by adding the fact that purchasing power also affects who gets the goods faster and at better cost, it is no surprise that many developers are having difficulties meeting both ends. For this program to work, we need to reduce as many variables as possible. For example, to ensure that all developers would be able to normalize their material costs, it would make sense to maybe create a federal crown corporation that would provide all the main building materials at a standardized price across the nation together with pre-established interest rates for builders. These materials would be only available for these "war-time" style construction projects and proof of project completion would be required to be approved for further projects. I would also go as far as saying that any company that has a less than at least good rating with BBB would not be allowed access to these projects. Unfortunately, this type of program has a tendency to attract a lot of roaches. Investors should not be allowed to purchase these houses. You buy it, you live in it for at least one year and only actual residents can purchase them for the "lifetime" of each of these houses.
Everything you say seems logical, but this government has proven time, and time, and time again, that anything that they set up and funnel funding into, ends up being some form of a scam. Personally, after the antics of this current government, I fear that this program would devolve into the same outcome as all of the rest. But completely agree that something must be done and it must be carried out properly so that the homeowner actually benefits.
Interesting that Calgary is not listed on this chart. Am I right to assume that the quick permitting time was so fast it embarrasses the rest of Canada
Also, NEVER forget that in this video they said it takes 36 hours to build a house, and MONTHS to get the government to give you permission to build it on your own land!
I live in a small town outside Ottawa where a variable of different "war-time homes" were mass produced. They still stand today, the only real maintenance they needed were new roofs. They vary in size and design from mediocre to stunning 3 story homes
good thing in bc we are overriding the municipal red tape. instead of complaining about all the extra work and infrastructure required, now they can hire the employees required.
Great idea, perhaps the government could step in again with a crown corporation in place of the developers to see they get built.
My grandfather was one of the architects for the wartime housing. Many neighbourhoods of these houses still exist. Initially these houses were designed to last 5 years. My grandfather said any house designed to last 5 years can last 50 years.
The problem is that anything the government touches seem to cost 5 times more after the fact. Getting ride of the bureaucracy and red tape is the issue here.
This is fantastic video. As a consultant to developers the second part of this video is most true. The developers are extremely strategic in the timing and funding of their developments. Many will hold off construction until it will be most profitable. We need to stop putting the whole blame on the municipalities they are doing the best they can with minimal resources to ensure the city they live has QUALITY housing and that should take time.
I moved into a house last year. There is a property behind me that they have been fighting to put housing into. They had been fighting to get it approved for over a year before I moved in, and are still fighting, so over 2 years. It's pretty insane, but I don't think that they have got anywhere. The city, and local people are still trying to stop them.
I’ve been enjoying the “About That” series a lot, and especially appreciate Chang’s balanced breakdown of topics. A “war-time” approach that cuts red tape but also combines the beauty of the old “Sears Modern Homes” blueprints (with some 21st century updates of course) would be welcome. Smaller municipalities outside of the GTA should take note in bid to attract young families.
A house in 3 yrs.? Here in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Canada our 275 bed Hospital was built in 2yrs. Go Figure. Money Talks.
Or these contractors just be greedy and lazy
I have seen and lived near MANY exceptionally well maintained WW2 housing. In just about every province in small cities and towns from East to West there are hundreds if not thousands of these rapid 1 plan builds all houses still in existence, so whatever worked at the end of WW2 to house the thousands of returning Vets and their BOOMING families seems like a pretty damn good idea to me GET IT DONE!
We don't need all the current red tape we have now. Or the Mcmansions. We need 3-4br 1-2 bath rancher style homes like from the mid 1900s. These homes were, and if taken care of still are perfectly adequate. We have excellent technology and knowledge as well now in the areas of efficiency and safety. Asbestos, lead etc are all out of the picture. Back in the day people could build thier own homes with enough knowledge and help. People built on thier own, and had a place to live. The excess red tape is a large part of the problem. Not that long ago, a cabin with heat was good enough. People haven't changed that much.
Re-establish the Affordable Housing Commission that was shut down for no apparent reason in 1991 by Chretien. How's that for a solution? Why was it shut down in the first place? A great question for Trudeau and the Lieberals.
The mentality in Canada is take a small mosquito and turn it into a elephant . No wonder way it take so long to build a simple house.. .. There are "DOME HOMES" that would be nice as a house..
The "rectangle house people" don't want no damn "Dome Houses" in their neighbourhood. lol
The longer it takes to build a house so much the better..
Thank you Andrew and the team at CBC for these educational videos 🙏💯
I think there is another massive hurdle in the production and completion of more housing, and it's something too many municipalities have let deteriorate by not investing in updating or capacity .. and that's around servicing infrastructure, especially for waste/ water management capacity and an already strained electrical grid
I think there is real value and opportunity in incentivizing fully "off grid" housing systems/neighbourhoods that can be self sufficient, while being connected to the larger grid and utilized during system demands or power outages (that make the community revenues for emergency usage)
What people need to have access to a small catalog of 'pre-approved' house plans, where they can simply submit their plan to build one of those designs, and within 1 week their plan is approved since it is on the government's own approved list. And these plans should include tiny homes in size from 200 to 400 square feet as this is what apartment dwellers could afford to build considering the extremely high land costs in Canada.
These quickly built houses sound a lot like the Levittown homes built after WW2 in the states (NY and PA). Same idea - build basic homes quickly & cheaply for the US veterans. I grew up in one. Many are still around, although there have been extensive renovations over the decades. A good idea if our politicians and city planners would think and act "outside the box".
Reviving an idea that worked 70 or 80 years ago is well inside the box.I recall that a 3 bedroom 1 bath house in Levittown cost $7000 brand new in the fifties.
Some of those modest WW2 homes were built on huge lots. In the inner parts of cities today, their value is tied to the land. However, to mass build these onn city outskirts would create urban sprawl, increase the costs of new infrastructure. That is why cities promote building up in central areas, along transit lines.
@@mrdanforth3744 To quote Ann Murray's song: "everything old is new again" 😁 Even with price increases, these new homes would likely be affordable for many folks!
As a new homeowner, I'd argue the majority of people not being able to afford homes is a much bigger crisis building intricacies. Regardless, excellent content as always.
As a homeowner as well, the problem isn't that people can't afford a home, but that they can't afford the home they believe they deserve.
The video is referencing strawberry box houses. These were like 1,000 sqft. The bedrooms were small, the closets were small, the kitchens were small, and there was one bathroom.
Most people would balk at the idea of their kids sharing a bedroom.
So here we are, having a housing crisis, that is largely self-inflicted, because people want a 3 bed, 3 bath, with a finished basement, for the cost of a home that is the equivalent of a garden shed.
@@booguwu4540you're so out of touch it's not funny
@@smoothbraindetainer wow, great counter argument. I'm thoroughly convinced that you are correct.
@@booguwu4540 no point arguing with a rock
This is definitely a positive step, but I really wish we would think more about why there is this problem in the first place.
Lol by the time people ask why, it's far too late
Not those exact designs but there are still a lot of 40's era small homes like that in the town where I live. They've stood up quite well.
Unless you're part of the solution, there's real money to be made in prolonging the problem.
In this age, you can pre fab units and stack them on each other that auto lock into electricity water, air etc.. There are many countries and companies doing this that cut down the costs and manpower of contruction incredibly. You can stack as demand increases and they can be in single units for single people or large family sized units. It's a thing, look it up.
I have seen a lot of old shipping containers being used to build beautiful homes all over the world.
This could be another Way to Go too?
And “Tiny” Homes and Communities too.
No one needs a Monster Home these days because the owners can’t afford all the monthly and yearly cost of owning it?
Then they have to start “Renting” it out to just stay afloat and then these neighbourhood start to look like hell because
these owners really don’t Care about other that have to live in the same locations as they do.
Our 3 levels of Governments need to start to figure out something or just “STOP” bring or allowing in so many new people into our
Country on a yearly basis.
First of all where is our all 3 levels of Governments going to find the land to build anything in Ontario or anywhere else in Canada?
Maybe they should be looking at all the older school that were built in the early 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and the land they’re sitting on?
I know of a older public school that’s in my area that’s only used for English as a second language school for new comers to our
country and it near Bathurst and Finch Avenue area.
And it was once called Kenton Public School Back years ago?
Because I went there in the 70’s.
The big question that no one is asking... supposing everything goes smooth and magically solved the restriction issue, would it ultimately bring the housing price down? There is too much money in RE that don't want those prices to fall, given many has too much equity in it.
As long as there is steady high demand fueled by immigration, I don't see prices coming down. The US taxes principal residences (along with investment properties) dispositions with a capital gains tax. Adopting something similar in Canada might be a disincentive to home ownership, Nevertheless today home ownership is your RRSP....if pensions and savings are inadequate, just tap into your home equity.
Big families lived in those houses back then too. Going smaller is the best!
No, government is never the solution to a problem created by government overregulation .... Attempting to micro manage the Canadian housing market from a desk in Ottawa, is insane.
About that seriously needs its own channel. It's a fantastic segment and I'd like to see more of it.
99% of all housing in Canada is built by the private sector. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize housing. Until that changes we are stuck with this problem
Address the problem for those who actually have the skill and work in the housing industry give them some certainty and rewards. Most are subcontracted, (Professionals and Tradespersons) whom have no guarantee to get paid, not guaranteed hours, there is no labour shortage, a willingness to work in such dangerous precarious conditions is the problem. All safety liability, skill learning liability (like other jobs) is passed on to those least able to afford it. Those with the ability to pay throw up there hands and ask the government, for a hand out, more money to schools to pay for their work force. Those with ability to pay should take more liability to get things moving. Those who own the land and the capital. Not the disenfranchised. This is not new its just coming to roost after the years since 2008, when developers learned better how to pay less, or at ..l , sub traded, no employment rights. Dangerous precarious gig work is systemic, no ROI on going to work.
Trades subcontractors set up as a numbered company for a specific job, the company is wound down after the job is completed. No follow up service, they do not assume any liability if work is substandard.
There are a lot of unoccupied or vacant houses, apartments, the only problem is the price.
and unoccupied land in Vancouver. Near Queen Elizabeth park for example.
About that is a great program, entertaining and informative.
I made a FB post about this 2 yrs ago....I live in a war time house, and at the time when they were built, they built A LOT very fast to house a LOT of troops coming home from overseas.
But no, these days, everyone wants a McMansion to live in and builders aren't building small homes because they wanna max out dollar wise on the lot. Wartime homes = more backyard. My lot is huge and was great when my daughter was little so her and her friends had a big area to play in.
Everyone loves to blame Trudeau for the housing crisis. But it’s much more complicated than that. I love the idea of war-time housing plans. That’s exactly what we need to do.
An old builder told me many years ago those storey and a half war time houses cost $1000 to build and sold for $2000
Over 2-million homes steady approved for construction in Ontario alone yet none are being built so that is the real issue the approval should have a clause that if your not building within 12-months the approval is cancelled and you need to go back to the drawing board when your ready and if re-approved for the same project the new approval is only given if the project starts with 3-months.
Great explanation as usual on this show. I think we need a community builder simulator to plan future development, so we could leverage the collective intelligence of our nation…and we should set the basic foundation as ENSURED safe housing, clean water, healthy food, quality education, and full health care for EVERYONE, without raising taxes or further top down government control.
Bravo!
This is the trap they expect you to fall into of thinking it’s all caused by low supply… NO! NO! NO! If supply doubles overnight, guess what, you see the same price next day! You will always have more investors than supply in this funny country where house flippers are respected and admired and needed to keep this government running.
💯💯💯
Cities already have spec approved designs for homes.
This government is absurd.
Prefab houses that are winter ready cost 65-100k USD IN... the USA. I just saw some on Zillow!
It worked beforeee because they were for single family homess. This is aimed towards the 15 min city. The government doesn't want
people to own their own homes. They only want to build apartment buildings etc.
Yes because there's no more space in cities for single family detached homes. We've already developed all the land around cities. Canada's population has increased by 400% since 1940, the only solution is to build upwards and with more density around the cities.
If you don't have an urban planning or engineering background, dont speak on concepts you have no knowledge of . Pre wwll Canada was not suburbia, density and compact communities with a variety of housing was what made housing affordable. Suburbanites have ruined the Canadian dream with their utopian idea of detach American housing.
It worked because they built suburbs, ruining their own cities futures.
A one time trade, of land for housing.
Now that we have the suburbs, it's extremely difficult to fix.
I've been watching the housing market closely, Prices have been skyrocketing for years. It's going to be tough for first-time buyers to enter the market." how can one diversify $280k reserve .
I agree, It's not just the prices, but also the increasing interest rates that are making it more difficult for people to afford homes. With a good FA you can make up your portfolio.
Excellent reporting and a big thanks. 😊
It's almost as if the municipal governments don't want to build anything. Talk about a huge failure of basic responsibilities.
This is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it’s 8 years too late. This problem was growing apparent when Trudeau took office. I grew up in North Vancouver. If you didn’t see this problem growing, you were probably benefitting from it. The Liberals have needed to be much more proactive on substantive issues, instead of fighting the climate change phantom, legislating speech laws, and driving up immigration FAR beyond what we can facilitate. They are only now addressing this problem because the polls are reflecting Canadians dissatisfaction. It’s too late now. They won’t have a sufficient housing supply completed by election season and they will lose by the largest margin we have ever witnessed. People can’t live in houses that aren’t built and Canadians are eager to see what a different administration will do, because this one has fallen short on the most essential issues while they viciously attack periphery issues.
Well said!
This is a great idea build houses quicker so foreign investors can buy it all up and leave Canadians still out on the street but it's okay though weed it's cheaper than food
This program would have to be off limits to foreign investors or anyone without Canadian citizenship. Landed immigrants, refugees and temporary residents would continue to have access to the regular sales market and the rental market. As citizens move up to houses, rental apartment supply will increase and lower in cost.
We have similar issues in NZ. We can build the same house on the same sort of land and still have to go through the full permitting for every house. Whats more despite being accepted by one inspector the exact same house will require more work from another inspector.
Flooring installer here. I remember a time like 15-20 years ago when we would start a house on a street, once done we would grab our tools and walk next door and do that one, then the next and the next. The entire year we would work down one side of the street, cross the street and work back up the other side. Now no one is building subdivisions like that. It's all apartment buildings. The apartments are $1500-$1800 or more per month and supposed to be low income? We rarely see new house construction. And if we do it's some 3000sqft or more, custom designed monster that's probably $500,000 or more to build. No one is building little simple bungalows anymore, and to me its what we need now more than ever. Personally I would rather have a little house with yard instead of a apartment in a building.
Immigration & Student Visas bring in 1.5 Million incremental residents per year. No country/Government/builder/Developer out there, can possibly build an proportionate amount of houses to meet that demand.
Tackle the demand issue, not the supply issue.
A local, not a global, solution. Won't last.
@@lafeeshmeisterokay Klaus
Immigration isn't going to end. For one thing, the climate crisis is going to create at least another million refugees a year. And the number of people fleeing fascism is going to increase too.
What about both?
The houses on my street in Vancouver have an average price of about 1.5 million. They are usually on the market for about 3 weeks then sold. I don't think immigrants are buying them.
The issue is that governments at all levels are being greedy on behalf of the consumer. The consumer cannot afford to purchase a home that meets all the requirements of the government(s).
Municipalities insist on single-family homes as the only legal housing that can be built because they generate the largest tax revenues. Those revenues are used to pay high civil service, police and fire department salaries, plus pensions and benefits. While paying people well isn't a bad thing in and of itself, high tax revenues also tend to promote wasteful spending on pet projects from mayors, city councillors, and city planners that do little to enhance the actual quality of life for taxpayers.
Where I live, the city government is looking at giving a $38 million subsidy to a profitable private sector corporation so it can renovate the city-owned hockey arena that it operates. $38 million would build 380 affordable housing units, assuming the unit cost is $100K. Ask yourself: what is more important? Affordable housing when it is desperately, desperately needed, or hockey games in the downtown core?
@@stevestruthers6180 you didn't factor the biggest fee, the cost of property, in your equation.
Logistic issues aside, this is the first real idea to tackle the housing crisis. Props to that.
Canada has to end the forgotten Canadian...too many homeless people wandering around with no government programs to help them, they're unidentified, broke, sick, lonely and sad, if the government cared about these people they would have a care center that would help them survive until they found a place to live, it doesn't have to be much, just a contact center that gives a damn.
Same problem in Sweden, but unemployment in the construction busines is increasing sharply right now. Time to scale back the cost of labour and produce houses that customers can afford.
SO who will be living in these homes? More migrants?
There is not a lot of arable land in Canada, You cannot build new house without removing arable land in the southern part of Canada. There not enought land anymore. There is too much immigrant. Sorry
Then give people an incentive to move north to places where there is lots of land but it's not arable. Problem solved.
@@stevestruthers6180 The canadian shield is mountainous and is difficult to devellop. Canada will never be like the USA
Let's not forget about the corporations that are planning on buying up 10's of thousands of house over the next few years and nothing to stop them from doing it
More homes faster YES! please. Unfortunately selfish A-holes will complain more homes will lower their property value. The lack of home inventory and greed is why home ownership and rent is too expensive. Especially in Vancouver/BC lowermainland area.
Hire the immigrants to help build their own houses.
We did that tought them to build them gave them the land dept Ag gave the materials loan after 40 years they pay 5times the loan amount ......welcome to America were everyone offering help uses you for gain!Called Capitalism eh!