4 ms·

> If we want to address the many environmental crises that we’re in right now, housing is one of the best ways to do that—to stand up and say that housing is a

> If we want to address the many environmental crises that we’re in right now, housing is one of the best ways to do that—to stand up and say that housing is a human right and that empty properties shouldn’t be investment properties. All the things that make a community run should be accessible within walking distance, biking distance, transit distance. That's nice I guess. Zero mention of zoning or any structural forces. Let's just make housing a human right and that'll do it.

CalRobert 2y ago
I wonder if making it a human right would allow court challenges to zoning, parking minimums, draconian architectural rules, etc.
- wincy 2y ago
  I want to invoke my human right to live in a place with the population density of the late great Kowloon Walled City. Less glibly, just by cutting regulations I’m sure you could get affordable housing in a place like Toronto, but wow the people who think housing is a human right would howl and scream about 10m^2 apartment high rises. I got the 10m^2 number from the size of some Tokyo apartments. The average apartment size in Toronto, by contrast is ~60m^2.
  - appreciatorBus 2y ago
    “Cutting regulations” implies the current rules are intended to produce good outcomes, for instance, abundant large apartments for all. If that were true, I would agree with your skepticism, but I would urge you to consider that they might not be. The history of land use suggests that they were explicitly designed to exclude, and designed to raise housing costs. Early boosters in the 1920’s were not shy about saying that increasing housing costs was the goal. We should celebrate ridding ourselves of such “regulations”
  - eschaton 2y ago
    Achieving this by cutting regulation would get you the other aspects of Kowloon Walled City too, the more horrifying ones.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    2-3 tatami mats (95 sqf, < 9 sqm) sized apartments would be a great idea for kids who just need housing. Most people in the USA would still demand heat and bathroom in the apartment, or maybe just in the same building. There are apartments in Tokyo that lack heat and a shower in the same building, shared toilet, you go to the local bath house if you want to take a shower. This kind of housing could prevent lots of single people from falling into homelessness and probably drugs (but they can't keep a dog or cohabitate, and it doesn't really work for families).
- eschaton 2y ago
  That’s exactly what’s meant by “make housing a human right”—the law, at all levels, would need to comport with its protection.
- darioush 2y ago
  It doesn't need to be a human right, we just need to regulate housing to be owned by individuals and mandate a limit for how many residences one has. This is because due to the scarcity of homes and that they cannot be manipulated or printed out of thin air and lent short on a computer, they have become tools of speculation, so the regulation is justified.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> Let's just make housing a human right and that'll do it. How would that right read? Maybe “Every Canadian has the right to housing in the desirable neighborhoods of Toronto”? I’m not sure if that is really feasible.
- dpbriggs 2y ago
  "Dignity for minimum wage" may be a more realistic tagline. It's not particularly good faith to say it's a detached house in Toronto. We're sliding towards workhouses of the 1800s. Policy should lean towards a one bedroom apartment being achievable for all of the working class.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  OP is a little ambiguous, but I think they're being sarcastic.
- appreciatorBus 2y ago
  It’s a two parter: “Every Canadian has a right to negotiate to rent or buy housing in any neighbourhood in Canada” “Every Canadian has the right to build as much housing as they want in any neighborhood in Canada.” More pithily, if we want housing to be a human right, then building housing also has to be a human right, one that cannot be vetoed away because your neighbours don’t like it. Ofc not everyone gets what they want, and not everyone can live in Shaughnessy or Mount Royal. But it does not follow from this that it makes sense to ban all forms of buildings except houses, like we do now, on most land in all cities in North America.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    How do they build as much housing as they want without land and utilities to support that? Are you suggesting some sort of libertarian slum that grows without support from the government? More density is great, I’m not against that. Making the government support that is also a good idea (via transit and utility build out). But after it’s done, Toronto will probably only be as affordable as Hong Kong where that’s already done, where even a substandard cafe will set you back. Or maybe Tokyo, which is more sane (you can get a 2 tatami unheated room for $500/month, FYI I would love to live in Tokyo).
Panzer04 2y ago
"housing a human right" epitomises a feel good do nothing platitude that won't fix the problem. Fixing the problem involves building more so supply isn't an issue and accepting tha tin some areas housing is unfortunately just going to be pricier. Wish economic literacy was more widespread :/
- hooverd 2y ago
  I agree. I don't think my sarcasm carrier over text.

CalRobert 2y ago

I wonder if making it a human right would allow court challenges to zoning, parking minimums, draconian architectural rules, etc.

wincy 2y ago
I want to invoke my human right to live in a place with the population density of the late great Kowloon Walled City. Less glibly, just by cutting regulations I’m sure you could get affordable housing in a place like Toronto, but wow the people who think housing is a human right would howl and scream about 10m^2 apartment high rises. I got the 10m^2 number from the size of some Tokyo apartments. The average apartment size in Toronto, by contrast is ~60m^2.
- appreciatorBus 2y ago
  “Cutting regulations” implies the current rules are intended to produce good outcomes, for instance, abundant large apartments for all. If that were true, I would agree with your skepticism, but I would urge you to consider that they might not be. The history of land use suggests that they were explicitly designed to exclude, and designed to raise housing costs. Early boosters in the 1920’s were not shy about saying that increasing housing costs was the goal. We should celebrate ridding ourselves of such “regulations”
- eschaton 2y ago
  Achieving this by cutting regulation would get you the other aspects of Kowloon Walled City too, the more horrifying ones.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  2-3 tatami mats (95 sqf, < 9 sqm) sized apartments would be a great idea for kids who just need housing. Most people in the USA would still demand heat and bathroom in the apartment, or maybe just in the same building. There are apartments in Tokyo that lack heat and a shower in the same building, shared toilet, you go to the local bath house if you want to take a shower. This kind of housing could prevent lots of single people from falling into homelessness and probably drugs (but they can't keep a dog or cohabitate, and it doesn't really work for families).
eschaton 2y ago
That’s exactly what’s meant by “make housing a human right”—the law, at all levels, would need to comport with its protection.
darioush 2y ago
It doesn't need to be a human right, we just need to regulate housing to be owned by individuals and mandate a limit for how many residences one has. This is because due to the scarcity of homes and that they cannot be manipulated or printed out of thin air and lent short on a computer, they have become tools of speculation, so the regulation is justified.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

> Let's just make housing a human right and that'll do it. How would that right read? Maybe “Every Canadian has the right to housing in the desirable neighborhoods of Toronto”? I’m not sure if that is really feasible.

dpbriggs 2y ago
"Dignity for minimum wage" may be a more realistic tagline. It's not particularly good faith to say it's a detached house in Toronto. We're sliding towards workhouses of the 1800s. Policy should lean towards a one bedroom apartment being achievable for all of the working class.
Panzer04 2y ago
OP is a little ambiguous, but I think they're being sarcastic.
appreciatorBus 2y ago
It’s a two parter: “Every Canadian has a right to negotiate to rent or buy housing in any neighbourhood in Canada” “Every Canadian has the right to build as much housing as they want in any neighborhood in Canada.” More pithily, if we want housing to be a human right, then building housing also has to be a human right, one that cannot be vetoed away because your neighbours don’t like it. Ofc not everyone gets what they want, and not everyone can live in Shaughnessy or Mount Royal. But it does not follow from this that it makes sense to ban all forms of buildings except houses, like we do now, on most land in all cities in North America.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  How do they build as much housing as they want without land and utilities to support that? Are you suggesting some sort of libertarian slum that grows without support from the government? More density is great, I’m not against that. Making the government support that is also a good idea (via transit and utility build out). But after it’s done, Toronto will probably only be as affordable as Hong Kong where that’s already done, where even a substandard cafe will set you back. Or maybe Tokyo, which is more sane (you can get a 2 tatami unheated room for $500/month, FYI I would love to live in Tokyo).

Panzer04 2y ago

"housing a human right" epitomises a feel good do nothing platitude that won't fix the problem. Fixing the problem involves building more so supply isn't an issue and accepting tha tin some areas housing is unfortunately just going to be pricier. Wish economic literacy was more widespread :/

hooverd 2y ago
I agree. I don't think my sarcasm carrier over text.