Build something cheaper.

Okay, sure. If you mean townhouses or something, lower density by urban standards, mid density when you consider the countryside exists too. I really, really don’t see how the sustainability of anything benefits from that. You need more roads, more cars, more land and more building materials to house the same number.

If you just mean building the same kind of apartments somewhere else, like in Kamloops or something, you haven’t actually changed anything except more roads and traffic again, because everyone is further from everyone else.

If you read the article, these are tiny Vancouver apartments already. It sounds like going even smaller and shittier would be illegal currently, which is what’s causing the problem.

Maybe for a bit as those companies go out of business. Then they go way up because there’s no new houses. Or we could solve whatever the underlying problems are.

Ahhh, so they’re just charging outrageous prices for already cheap housing.

Unfortunately some municipalities have used development fees incorporated into their normal budget, whether directly or indirectly, rather than solely using them to account for the increased costs in maintenance, which is what they should be for. Often times I’ve worked on capital projects (repair ones) where the funding has come directly from development.

For example, one municipality I work closely with has the salaries for all their development staff and the salaries for their capital design staff paid by development fees, plus some allocations for expansion of other services to account for more citizens.

Edit for clarity: Municipalities can also skirt this use by doing things like the following: a long stretch of road from a highway is in poor condition and needs to be repaired in the next 2 years. But a development is going in on the road, and they can force the developer to pay for the reconstruction of the road, despite the fact that it is in poor xondition and needs to be redone anyway. Ditto for sewer, or water main replacement.

Mid density is mid density. No need to confuse thinking by averaging rural into the equation. We could average out across the universe and be at effective zero home per km2. It’s a ridiculous argument, so why bother.

By mid density, I like most urban planners include everything from townhouse and multiplexes all the way up to low rise appt buildings under 5 stories. It’s dense enough to enable urban transit and walkable neighbourhoods but efficient enough to not need elevators and supplementary water pumps to get water up to the top floor.

High rises have nice views when another one isn’t in front of you, but man is it crippled when the power goes out.

Lol they definitely did not take better care of infrastructure. They were freaking cowboys and a ton of municipalities got burnt on it. I work on lots of capital jobs that involve fixing problems that have been around since then.

So now they have much more stringent standards, which in turn means projects are more expensive. Add onto that the growing complexity - installing a water main down a street in 1980 when you have overhead hydro lines and no other utilities to work around is much easier than installation in a crowded right-of-way with buried gas, hydro, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and existing water main that needs to continue to service residents.

As for how they were originally funded, idk. Don’t think they ever really asked residents what they wanted back then. Now there’s much more accountability, which is good but has drawbacks and costs.

In Canadian municipalities specifically, or in general, like for climate reasons?

I mean climate, but not specifically global warming, just the fact were a planet with finite resources.

Negotiate harder with your suppliers?

Exactly. These condos are over $1000/sq ft. Completely out of reach unless you or your parents are already rich. I don’t get how this surprises anyone there.

And still not making a profit, apparently.

Oleg Galyuk, real estate agent with Royal Pacific Realty, said in his experience older condos tend to sell better than pre-sale condos.

“The new inventory tends to sit on the market,” he said.

He said the layouts of some of the new homes are one reason for lack of buyer interest, as well as a lack of parking spaces that are harder to sell and rent.

Galyuk said developers are throwing out a variety of incentives to get people to buy built units.

“They’re throwing in parking stalls. They’re throwing in storage lockers. They’re giving cash-back on completion.”

He said he thinks some developers have put too many eggs into the “investor basket.”

“Right now, a lot of condos [are] coming online that people don’t really want to live in.”

Says it all really

AirBnBs are a drop in the supply bucket. It’s nice to hate on them, but when you look at the actual numbers they’re a negligible impact.

What’s the yeast’s end-game here?

The reason older condos/townhouses sell is because they were built when there were inspectors actually doing their jobs. Step-daughter moved into a new teeny-tiny condo, and shower door fell off after 4 months. Gaps developing in the “luxury” vinyl plank flooring. Cupboard doors coming off because screws aren’t long enough. They’re garbage homes.

Another reason why this may be the case is that there are a lot of new condos in sprawl-y suburbs. Not everyone wants to live on the outskirts of a city and need to rely on driving for everything.

There’s no way around that particular issue, though. As it is high rises are already the best way to develop urban areas in a way that’s eco and micro mobility friendly.

Dumbing down the population. Remove critical thinking. Reinstate the harshest of religious beliefs. Feudalism.

I have nothing against high rises. My city is trying to increase density by changing zoning laws around bus routes, clearing some properties for hi rise development.

When I was looking for places to live, I would rule out places that were too far from where I work/where my friends live because I travel by bicycle.

Enough profit* ftfy