2 ms·

Some of it is NIMBY. But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desir

by TimPC 4y ago

Some of it is NIMBY. But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. Building huge quantities of condos may help some with density and may drive prices down slightly but there is little that can be done to have new detached houses on the market. You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. There aren’t enough mansions in the city for this to really move the needle though. The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. Toronto is the lifeblood of Canada and many people want to be here for opportunities that are unavailable elsewhere. A large population that grew up here doesn’t want to leave friends and family behind to start a more affordable life elsewhere. As long as we create a society where there are a handful of great places to live those places will be prohibitively expensive. Being unable to create successful cities in Canada outside of Toronto and Vancouver has been the bigger political failing than NIMBY within those two cities. If Canada had five cities that were as successful as Toronto there would be more opportunity to go around and less pressure on Toronto. Disproportionate amount of both internal and external immigration is to the places with the best jobs and that drives up housing quickly.

boplicity 4y ago
> But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. That may be true, but the housing cost crisis extends beyond detached houses. We need more apartments, condos, townhouses, etc. Not just nice detached houses. Prices should get lower in all of those categories. Even condos in towers have grown much, much more expensive. > You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. Most of the land in Toronto is tied up with single family detached housing. Why not replace some of these with small apartment buildings, brownstones, and townhouses especially when near transit, or villages? I live in a large house that is a 10 minute walk to transit and two major strips of retail. This neighborhood is mostly detached houses and duplexes. Why not allow for double, triple, or quadruple the density with townhouses or small apartment buildings? If done at scale, across the city, this could absolutely make a huge difference, in terms of the availability of housing. In terms of mansions, why not spend a few hours walking around Forest Hill. You'll probably need more time, though, if you want to see them all. It's a beautiful neighborhood. And very large. > The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. There are other nice cities that are growing -- and the housing prices are growing exponentially there as well. (For example, Waterloo and Victoria.) Everywhere else is definitely not losing, though I agree that there should be more thriving cities in Canada, that is also a daunting task. Frankly, it's also a lot more daunting than changing the zoning to allow for medium density in single-family neighborhoods. The bottom line, though, is that you're right about what officials can't change. They can't change the amount of land available, but they certainly can and should change the amount of development that is allowed on it. The current plan is simply not working. Something needs to change. My proposal is to allow medium density development; I don't see a better alternative.

by TimPC 4y ago

boplicity 4y ago

> But the officials can’t change the fact that there is only so much land to go around and a disproportionate number of people strongly desire a detached house. That may be true, but the housing cost crisis extends beyond detached houses. We need more apartments, condos, townhouses, etc. Not just nice detached houses. Prices should get lower in all of those categories. Even condos in towers have grown much, much more expensive. > You could potentially tear down some mansions in rich neighborhoods to build two or three houses and that might help slightly at the margins. Most of the land in Toronto is tied up with single family detached housing. Why not replace some of these with small apartment buildings, brownstones, and townhouses especially when near transit, or villages? I live in a large house that is a 10 minute walk to transit and two major strips of retail. This neighborhood is mostly detached houses and duplexes. Why not allow for double, triple, or quadruple the density with townhouses or small apartment buildings? If done at scale, across the city, this could absolutely make a huge difference, in terms of the availability of housing. In terms of mansions, why not spend a few hours walking around Forest Hill. You'll probably need more time, though, if you want to see them all. It's a beautiful neighborhood. And very large. > The problem is a handful of cities are winners and everywhere else is losing. There are other nice cities that are growing -- and the housing prices are growing exponentially there as well. (For example, Waterloo and Victoria.) Everywhere else is definitely not losing, though I agree that there should be more thriving cities in Canada, that is also a daunting task. Frankly, it's also a lot more daunting than changing the zoning to allow for medium density in single-family neighborhoods. The bottom line, though, is that you're right about what officials can't change. They can't change the amount of land available, but they certainly can and should change the amount of development that is allowed on it. The current plan is simply not working. Something needs to change. My proposal is to allow medium density development; I don't see a better alternative.