2 ms·

Sure, but you dramatically change the character of a city or neighbourhood when you upzone with that intensity. Real estate prices and rents would also come bac

Sure, but you dramatically change the character of a city or neighbourhood when you upzone with that intensity. Real estate prices and rents would also come back to reality if rates go up meaningfully and foreign investment is banned without easy loopholes. But since BC (and Canada at large) have built their flywheel for growth on a giant RE ponzi scheme, we’re stuck debating supply side solutions to a fundamental demand problem.

cameronpm 5y ago
This is a great point about trying to fix Demand side problems with a Supply solution. This is a recent paper talking about this todo with nutrition (Does access to healthy food actually make people healthier?): https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/134/4/1793/5492274?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/134/4/1793/549... Here is another example with calorie labels (Do calorie labels actually reduce calorie intake?): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209007/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209007/
- ceeplusplus 5y ago
  Calling it a demand side problem implies you don't want more people living in desirable areas (I'm guessing you live in one of these areas?). That is blatant NIMBYism mixed with some xenophobia. When you reduce demand people are priced out by high interest rates and have to move to less desirable locations. That has real impacts. People have to commute further to their jobs. People can't get their ideal jobs, not because they're not qualified, but because they can't afford housing. That is not an ideal outcome compared to just building more supply. Contrasting calorie consumption with the housing market is just disingenuous. One is clearly not a market and the other one clearly is. People like you are just going to have to understand that as population in North America grows cities are going to have to get denser and your lifestyle is no longer a viable one because it comes at the cost of millions of peoples' lives.

cameronpm 5y ago

This is a great point about trying to fix Demand side problems with a Supply solution. This is a recent paper talking about this todo with nutrition (Does access to healthy food actually make people healthier?): https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/134/4/1793/5492274?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/134/4/1793/549... Here is another example with calorie labels (Do calorie labels actually reduce calorie intake?): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209007/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209007/

ceeplusplus 5y ago
Calling it a demand side problem implies you don't want more people living in desirable areas (I'm guessing you live in one of these areas?). That is blatant NIMBYism mixed with some xenophobia. When you reduce demand people are priced out by high interest rates and have to move to less desirable locations. That has real impacts. People have to commute further to their jobs. People can't get their ideal jobs, not because they're not qualified, but because they can't afford housing. That is not an ideal outcome compared to just building more supply. Contrasting calorie consumption with the housing market is just disingenuous. One is clearly not a market and the other one clearly is. People like you are just going to have to understand that as population in North America grows cities are going to have to get denser and your lifestyle is no longer a viable one because it comes at the cost of millions of peoples' lives.