afransen
Senior Member
I don't think people are willing to spend an extra $150k to have a home office. There is a reason why condos are small, they sell by the sqft and at high prices.
|
|
|
Planned Sprawl in the GTA
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
wopchop
Building Toronto
York Region council rejects Newmarket mayor's bid to increase development intensification
Aiming for a higher intensification rate of 60% within urban boundaries would be a better move for the environment and help address resident concerns about urban sprawl, John Taylor says
www.newmarkettoday.ca
York Region continuing with status quo, despite them declaring a climate crisis. Again, politicians patting themselves on the back with meaningless statements, but not actually addressing the issue.
xy3
Active Member
I think the issue is one of artificial scarcity and whatever shady marketing practices developers can get away with . Around 2012, condo developers started a ridiculous trend of halving the size of kitchens, counter space etc. The shrinking of kitchens continues, and now you're seeing rediculous half size refrigerators are the norm. Publications that are largely funded by these developers ad dollars claimed these single-wall cubby holes were trendy "european style" kitchens. Meanwhile developers in Chicago or Buffalo still offer middle class consumers functional L-shape normal sized kitchens.
The corporate media then claims that "everyone is ordering from Uber Eats and dosent need a kitchen anymore"
Bojaxs
Senior Member
It's politics. Pander to your constituents, even if it means making the wrong decision. All so you can keep/ protect your job.York Region council rejects Newmarket mayor's bid to increase development intensification
Aiming for a higher intensification rate of 60% within urban boundaries would be a better move for the environment and help address resident concerns about urban sprawl, John Taylor says
York Region continuing with status quo, despite them declaring a climate crisis. Again, politicians patting themselves on the back with meaningless statements, but not actually addressing the issue.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Planning staff for the City of Hamilton continue to oppose the no urban boundary expansion option:
Northern Light
Superstar
Summed up thusly: "We side with the entrenched interests of existing developers and speculators who have already assembled much of the agricultural land in question.
We are unwilling to be bold or creative in incentivizing and facilitating family-friendly multi-residential development.
The Ministry is providing a half-hearted, mealy-mouthed cover as a favour......."
Last edited:
wopchop
Building Toronto
York Region votes to open 1,400 acres of Ontario Greenbelt to development | The Narwhal
York Regional Council approves request from developers with ties to Doug Ford’s PC party asking for protected Ontario Greenbelt land to be opened up
thenarwhal.ca
Northern Light
Superstar
York Region votes to open 1,400 acres of Ontario Greenbelt to development | The Narwhal
York Regional Council approves request from developers with ties to Doug Ford’s PC party asking for protected Ontario Greenbelt land to be opened up
To add to the above: (staff were overruled)
TRCA also in opposition:
TRONto
Active Member
This doesn't override the province?
Northern Light
Superstar
It has to be signed off on by the current Minister of Municipal Affairs.
So, its not a unilateral choice; except as a request to the Minister. But if the Minister signs off, then its done.
More or less.
There is some embedded wiggle room on 'interpretation' of certain regulations in the Greenbelt regulations.
xy3
Active Member
Either you have to open up more land to development to fight artificial land scarcity which is a big driver in inflated land prices . Or you have to cut immigration which is political suicide.
Buffalo's real estate is cheaper because there is no artificial land scarcity which Places to Grow has created. You don't see ridiculous crap like $900/month bedroom room-for-rents [with no ensuites! you have to share the freakin bathroom with a stranger roomate! ] listed there like I see on kijiji.
Im all for opening much more greenbelt land (while preserving greenspace around sensitive watersheds), in addition to greenlighting laneway homes in the 416 and dismissing NIMBYism. Not everyone can afford to shell out money for egregiously high condo fees.
Taxing the capital gains on principal residences would also be a sensible move to discourage small-fries flipping which also drives up housing costs
(EDIT: The only "flipping" that may be beneficial is the creation of secondary units; but I wouldnt consider this to be "flipping" in the conventional sense"
Buffalo's real estate is cheaper because there is no artificial land scarcity which Places to Grow has created. You don't see ridiculous crap like $900/month bedroom room-for-rents [with no ensuites! you have to share the freakin bathroom with a stranger roomate! ] listed there like I see on kijiji.
Im all for opening much more greenbelt land (while preserving greenspace around sensitive watersheds), in addition to greenlighting laneway homes in the 416 and dismissing NIMBYism. Not everyone can afford to shell out money for egregiously high condo fees.
Taxing the capital gains on principal residences would also be a sensible move to discourage small-fries flipping which also drives up housing costs
(EDIT: The only "flipping" that may be beneficial is the creation of secondary units; but I wouldnt consider this to be "flipping" in the conventional sense"
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Reducing immigration, yes, a taboo, but absolutely should be on the table.
But the elephant in the room is the low interest rate. That factor, more than anything else, has turned housing into an investment.
Frankly, no amount of supply will fix this issue when 50-70% of pre-con condos are purchased by investors to rent out. It is kind of an artificial shortage in that there's too much demand for housing. Kind of like the microchip "shortage" when it's just a few large players hoarding all the chips and buying out years worth of production in advance.
It's also interesting that housing activists/urbanists always advocate for a supply side solution even when they're all about the demand side in other situations. For example, it's widely known that adding more traffic lanes doesn't address congestion. Instead, the solution to congestion is cutting lanes or tolling roads to force people into other modes and drive less. I.E. choking off demand. So why is housing different? Building more supply will just induce more demand from investors. The real solution is choking off the speculative/exaggerated demand.
Buffalo's a bad comparison because it doesn't have the population and employment size+growth as Toronto.
xy3
Active Member
I agree, as a renter and lower income minimalist/saver, I detest low interest rates.
If it were the 90s, even with with my current income , Id be much more financially secure because id move a lot of my risky investments and savings into GICS that would yield enough interest to pay off over half of my rent!
If it were the 90s, even with with my current income , Id be much more financially secure because id move a lot of my risky investments and savings into GICS that would yield enough interest to pay off over half of my rent!
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
One avenue on the immigration side is the foreign student question.
We have seen explosive growth in the number of foreign students in the GTA, to well over 50,000 in any given year.
If that number were cut back to a more historical norm..........say, 20,000..............that's 30,000 people and at least 15,000 units/rooms freed up.
You don't dishonour anyone's deal who we've already permitted to come to study, you simply cut back new entrants until you get to the lower number in ~4 years; that's one of the politically easier ways.
There is a cost in terms of replacing some of that revenue from the foreign students; a but a good deal of that is soaked up now by all the additional campus capacity we're building........which could also
be cut back with lower student totals in the near to medium term. If you assume each student represents 15k in net revenues for a college/uni; you have to find 450M in new revenue for the post-secondary sector.
Not nothing; but not that much in the context of a province with a 160B+ budget, ~0.25% of annual expenditures. Its also way cheaper than building the equivalent in housing supply; where else are you getting units at 15k per year, or 300k over 20 years in the GTA?