4 ms·

When more people show up, you should build more housing. Canada is a big place with a small population relative to its size — you have plenty of space. Your arg

When more people show up, you should build more housing. Canada is a big place with a small population relative to its size — you have plenty of space. Your argument might work if Canada was a small island like Singapore, but it is one of the largest countries by land area in the world. What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have? Zoning laws and nimbyism.

itsoktocry 5y ago
>What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have? There is plenty of cheap, available housing in the hinterlands of Canada. And yet, nobody wants to move there. Why do you think that is? Prime locations are scarce no matter how much land mass you have.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  Because people want to move where jobs are available. There is a decades-long trend of urbanization throughout the world, as economies continue their transitions towards services. Canada has a deep labor shortage in its urban areas, with plenty of pent-up demand for growth. It's certainly true that if we must perpetually conserve each and every single family home in an urban area, then we'll remain housing-constrained. If that's what everyone wants to do, that's their right, but it's necessarily going to result in lower income and living standards for the country.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  I thought Alberta has a ton of free space available. No?
- armagon 5y ago
  Honest question: where are these cheap, available houses? I thought I did live in the hinterlands, and there's nothing in that category here that doesn't need to be torn down. Since I work online, I might be able to move if the prices are right.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have?" That's the wrong way to look at the problem. Developers can already build in the hinterlands, but there's virtually no demand to do so because the economic activity is concentrated in the established cities. You also run into the Siberia problem where despite having massive tracts of "free/undeveloped" land in the taiga, actually inhabiting it is very expensive because of how brutal the weather can be. Unless you have something like a literal gold mine or oil well, the expense of heating the buildings and maintaining the equipment is not at all economically viable.
- seunosewa 5y ago
  What stops you from building more housing where there is demand?
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    We know the answer to that, but the GP was asking why we aren't building in "all that extra space you have" and that's what I was responding to.
- twblalock 5y ago
  You don't need to build in the hinterlands. Looking at a map I see space around many major Canadian cities. Vancouver may be the most constrained geographically but quite a lot of it looks suburban and could be built up if the political will existed. Or, Canadians could choose to build nothing but single-family homes, but if they make that choice, they should own it and admit it is the real reason rather than blaming foreigners.

itsoktocry 5y ago

>What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have? There is plenty of cheap, available housing in the hinterlands of Canada. And yet, nobody wants to move there. Why do you think that is? Prime locations are scarce no matter how much land mass you have.

jlmorton 5y ago
Because people want to move where jobs are available. There is a decades-long trend of urbanization throughout the world, as economies continue their transitions towards services. Canada has a deep labor shortage in its urban areas, with plenty of pent-up demand for growth. It's certainly true that if we must perpetually conserve each and every single family home in an urban area, then we'll remain housing-constrained. If that's what everyone wants to do, that's their right, but it's necessarily going to result in lower income and living standards for the country.
chaostheory 5y ago
I thought Alberta has a ton of free space available. No?
armagon 5y ago
Honest question: where are these cheap, available houses? I thought I did live in the hinterlands, and there's nothing in that category here that doesn't need to be torn down. Since I work online, I might be able to move if the prices are right.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

>"What prevents you from just building more housing in all that extra space you have?" That's the wrong way to look at the problem. Developers can already build in the hinterlands, but there's virtually no demand to do so because the economic activity is concentrated in the established cities. You also run into the Siberia problem where despite having massive tracts of "free/undeveloped" land in the taiga, actually inhabiting it is very expensive because of how brutal the weather can be. Unless you have something like a literal gold mine or oil well, the expense of heating the buildings and maintaining the equipment is not at all economically viable.

seunosewa 5y ago
What stops you from building more housing where there is demand?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  We know the answer to that, but the GP was asking why we aren't building in "all that extra space you have" and that's what I was responding to.
twblalock 5y ago
You don't need to build in the hinterlands. Looking at a map I see space around many major Canadian cities. Vancouver may be the most constrained geographically but quite a lot of it looks suburban and could be built up if the political will existed. Or, Canadians could choose to build nothing but single-family homes, but if they make that choice, they should own it and admit it is the real reason rather than blaming foreigners.