Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. 'We can no longer build what people can afford'

'We can no longer build what people can afford'

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
85 Posts 32 Posters 3.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • S showroom7561@lemmy.ca

    “I guess we’ll see what happens.”

    ~ Billionaire CEO who can support his family for the next 1,000 generations.

    C This user is from outside of this forum
    C This user is from outside of this forum
    canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
    wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
    #11

    Historically big business wealth only lasts a few, actually. Nepobabies spend big, and each can have several children of their own to which the wealth has to be divided.

    K 1 Reply Last reply
    11
    • C canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org

      Of course, who needs a house? /s

      T This user is from outside of this forum
      T This user is from outside of this forum
      StinkyFingerItchyBum
      wrote on last edited by thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca
      #12

      What a disingenuous rhetoric. Degrowth is centered on meeting people’s needs. No one needs a house. Everyone needs a home. Not everyone needs a home in Vancouver.

      One central tenet of degrowth is accepting that nearly everything, at some point, will have to stop growing. This includes Vancouver, and a reasonable person could conclude that this headline is an econonic signal that now is probably the time.

      Until absolute population declines, It’s a big country, medium density development in other areas can accomodate everyone more cost effectively than more unaffordable skytowers in earthquake vulnerable Vancouver.

      C 1 Reply Last reply
      4
      • S showroom7561@lemmy.ca

        Industry professionals say unbought condos could lead to big layoffs

        Everything is unaffordable, workers are all being laid off, AI is replacing people, minimum wage isn’t enough to support a living wage…

        What’s the capitalist end-game here? A world full of poor, unemployed, desperate people likely won’t make shareholders any richer, will it?

        K This user is from outside of this forum
        K This user is from outside of this forum
        kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        wrote on last edited by
        #13

        What’s the capitalist end-game here?

        That capitalists maximumize their wealth.

        And ultimately that there can be only one, and they all believe that it’ll be them

        1 Reply Last reply
        12
        • S snoons@lemmy.ca

          Warning for Vancouver real estate as 2,500 condos sit unsold

          So prices will go down, right?

          …Prices will go down, right?

          T This user is from outside of this forum
          T This user is from outside of this forum
          StinkyFingerItchyBum
          wrote on last edited by
          #14

          Economics is only a pseudo-science for the rich. For the poor, it’s always an ineffable mystery.

          K 1 Reply Last reply
          28
          • C canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org

            Nobody is at the wheel. Nobody ever was.

            T This user is from outside of this forum
            T This user is from outside of this forum
            StinkyFingerItchyBum
            wrote on last edited by
            #15

            Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.

            N C 2 Replies Last reply
            4
            • C canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org

              “The cost that is associated with policies at all three levels of government has made it that we can no longer build what people can afford,” she said.

              I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

              It’s not like they physically can’t build condos people can afford. With no regulations they could build South Korea-style coffin apartments. Nor are they making money from this situation.

              T This user is from outside of this forum
              T This user is from outside of this forum
              StinkyFingerItchyBum
              wrote on last edited by thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca
              #16

              What the developer is saying is that their private industry can’t function anymore and it needs to be nationalized and social housing made a right.

              Private industry where it can, social industry where it must.

              C 1 Reply Last reply
              12
              • S showroom7561@lemmy.ca

                Industry professionals say unbought condos could lead to big layoffs

                Everything is unaffordable, workers are all being laid off, AI is replacing people, minimum wage isn’t enough to support a living wage…

                What’s the capitalist end-game here? A world full of poor, unemployed, desperate people likely won’t make shareholders any richer, will it?

                softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
                softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
                softestsapphic@lemmy.world
                wrote on last edited by
                #17

                The capitalists’ game is to pivot their wealth and influence to becoming the dictators of countries. It’s world domination.

                I’m not kidding.

                O 1 Reply Last reply
                6
                • C canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org

                  “The cost that is associated with policies at all three levels of government has made it that we can no longer build what people can afford,” she said.

                  I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

                  It’s not like they physically can’t build condos people can afford. With no regulations they could build South Korea-style coffin apartments. Nor are they making money from this situation.

                  S This user is from outside of this forum
                  S This user is from outside of this forum
                  sbv@sh.itjust.works
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #18

                  I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

                  Development fees are one example. When a new apartment building is constructed, it needs water and sewer connections. The municipality typically charges the builder a development fee (on the order of 100k) to build that stuff. That immediately means the developer needs to charge buyers the development fee to recoup their costs.

                  Every level of government is going to add restrictions and requirements. Some may be non-negotiable: building codes to ensure the building is up to safety standards. We may want to revisit others.

                  H C 2 Replies Last reply
                  3
                  • W worstdriver@lemmy.world
                    This post did not contain any content.
                    Link Preview Image
                    As around 2,500 condos sit unsold in Metro Vancouver, experts warn of 'potential storm coming' for real estate | CBC News

                    The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says there’s about 2,500 condos sitting unsold and empty in Metro Vancouver. The local real estate industry is concerned about layoffs and hopes for housing policy changes.

                    favicon

                    CBC (www.cbc.ca)

                    magister@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
                    magister@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
                    magister@lemmy.world
                    wrote on last edited by magister@lemmy.world
                    #19

                    You can replace Vancouver for Montreal and you’d have the same thing.

                    In Montreal we laughed for years at the 1M$ shack or mansions in Vancouver, but now in Montreal an average house is also 1M, it was like 500k 5 years ago. There is something like 3000 empties condos too in Montreal, maybe 10000-12000 airbnb too, and 25-34yo people especially those with spouse/children are leaving Montreal en masse.

                    It is completely fucked up right now. Rent also doubled. People on minimum wage are making ~2k$/month, an average rent is 2k$/month.

                    Let’s not talk about an average new car at 65k$ and an average used car at 36k$

                    S 1 Reply Last reply
                    14
                    • S sbv@sh.itjust.works

                      I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

                      Development fees are one example. When a new apartment building is constructed, it needs water and sewer connections. The municipality typically charges the builder a development fee (on the order of 100k) to build that stuff. That immediately means the developer needs to charge buyers the development fee to recoup their costs.

                      Every level of government is going to add restrictions and requirements. Some may be non-negotiable: building codes to ensure the building is up to safety standards. We may want to revisit others.

                      H This user is from outside of this forum
                      H This user is from outside of this forum
                      healthetank@lemmy.ca
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #20

                      Note - I work in Ontario, and this is my experience as an engineering consultant working with dozens of municipalities.

                      We’re finally at the end of infrastructure lifespan point for a good chunk of the province. That means Water/Wastewater plants, as well as the hundreds of kilometers of pipes required to transmit those liquids are at the end of their life for the first time since being installed (50-70 years).

                      The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees. However those fees have not actually set aside the money required in many places, which means that municipalities have been propping up their old infrastructure costs by charging large development fees. Doug Ford, as much as I hate him, slashed development fees allowed, which forced property tax rates to rise. This more accurately reflects the ACTUAL cost of owning a home with services by the municipality. Given that I believe growth stagnation is required, this is the direction we need to head. We can’t keep running this ponzi scheme of funding old infrastructure with new infrastructure fees. Its unfair to new buyers and subsidizing older homeowners.

                      We also likely need to take a look at the actual fees and costs associated with maintaining our infrastructure. Stormwater ponds, seen typically in subdivisions, are HORRIBLY under-serviced, with a recent investigation in our area revealing 75% of them had never been cleaned out since being put into service ~30-50 years ago. They typically have a service life of 10-20 years, and have been leaking pollutants into our creeks and waterways since. The primary reason - you guessed it, budget. At 1+Mil/cleanout, they’re expensive.

                      We’ve skated by up till now by externalizing these costs and letting the damages build up for tomorrow’s solutions. We can’t keep putting off those costs.

                      C S 2 Replies Last reply
                      5
                      • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                        Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.

                        N This user is from outside of this forum
                        N This user is from outside of this forum
                        nyan@lemmy.cafe
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #21

                        You can decide to make a left turn without knowing whether you’re going to end up in Kamloops or Kapuskasing by doing so. That’s the level of steering that’s going on: no one is looking past, at most, the next couple of intersections, and the GPS is on the fritz.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        3
                        • S sbv@sh.itjust.works

                          I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

                          Development fees are one example. When a new apartment building is constructed, it needs water and sewer connections. The municipality typically charges the builder a development fee (on the order of 100k) to build that stuff. That immediately means the developer needs to charge buyers the development fee to recoup their costs.

                          Every level of government is going to add restrictions and requirements. Some may be non-negotiable: building codes to ensure the building is up to safety standards. We may want to revisit others.

                          C This user is from outside of this forum
                          C This user is from outside of this forum
                          canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                          wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                          #22

                          Yeah, but development fees of that kind seem like they should only vary so much. Probably not to the degree of scuttling condos in Vancouver while they get made like sausages in Calgary.

                          Fire-prone slum construction isn’t the answer, that’s true. Regulations tend to wander into catering to nimby sensibilities in the West, though. Or into trying to externalise costs the government really should bear, like I’m kind of suspecting with the non-market housing mentioned.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                            What the developer is saying is that their private industry can’t function anymore and it needs to be nationalized and social housing made a right.

                            Private industry where it can, social industry where it must.

                            C This user is from outside of this forum
                            C This user is from outside of this forum
                            canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                            wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                            #23

                            It wouldn’t be any cheaper for the government, and the government itself has a limited amount of funding. (And that would be true regardless of the tax rate)

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                              Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.

                              C This user is from outside of this forum
                              C This user is from outside of this forum
                              canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                              wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                              #24

                              Deliberately, definitely not. Like OP said, why would anyone want this?

                              There’s leaders, but there’s a lot of leaders, they have interests at odds with each other, and none of them have a position that can’t be lost one way or the other (even dictators fear a coup). In the end, they end up part of the system, not controlling it.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              3
                              • T StinkyFingerItchyBum

                                What a disingenuous rhetoric. Degrowth is centered on meeting people’s needs. No one needs a house. Everyone needs a home. Not everyone needs a home in Vancouver.

                                One central tenet of degrowth is accepting that nearly everything, at some point, will have to stop growing. This includes Vancouver, and a reasonable person could conclude that this headline is an econonic signal that now is probably the time.

                                Until absolute population declines, It’s a big country, medium density development in other areas can accomodate everyone more cost effectively than more unaffordable skytowers in earthquake vulnerable Vancouver.

                                C This user is from outside of this forum
                                C This user is from outside of this forum
                                canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                                wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                                #25

                                So you’re thinking everyone in low-density suburbs would be better for the climate? (Degrowth is usually a climate thing)

                                T 1 Reply Last reply
                                2
                                • H healthetank@lemmy.ca

                                  Note - I work in Ontario, and this is my experience as an engineering consultant working with dozens of municipalities.

                                  We’re finally at the end of infrastructure lifespan point for a good chunk of the province. That means Water/Wastewater plants, as well as the hundreds of kilometers of pipes required to transmit those liquids are at the end of their life for the first time since being installed (50-70 years).

                                  The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees. However those fees have not actually set aside the money required in many places, which means that municipalities have been propping up their old infrastructure costs by charging large development fees. Doug Ford, as much as I hate him, slashed development fees allowed, which forced property tax rates to rise. This more accurately reflects the ACTUAL cost of owning a home with services by the municipality. Given that I believe growth stagnation is required, this is the direction we need to head. We can’t keep running this ponzi scheme of funding old infrastructure with new infrastructure fees. Its unfair to new buyers and subsidizing older homeowners.

                                  We also likely need to take a look at the actual fees and costs associated with maintaining our infrastructure. Stormwater ponds, seen typically in subdivisions, are HORRIBLY under-serviced, with a recent investigation in our area revealing 75% of them had never been cleaned out since being put into service ~30-50 years ago. They typically have a service life of 10-20 years, and have been leaking pollutants into our creeks and waterways since. The primary reason - you guessed it, budget. At 1+Mil/cleanout, they’re expensive.

                                  We’ve skated by up till now by externalizing these costs and letting the damages build up for tomorrow’s solutions. We can’t keep putting off those costs.

                                  C This user is from outside of this forum
                                  C This user is from outside of this forum
                                  canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                                  wrote on last edited by canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org
                                  #26

                                  So 50-70 years ago, did they take better care of infrastructure? I’ve seen these kinds of problems make appearances in Alberta, as well, and I always wonder how whatever unsexy bit of infrastructure was funded in the first place, given that it’s so politically costly to do.

                                  Given that I believe growth stagnation is required

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

                                  H 1 Reply Last reply
                                  1
                                  • H healthetank@lemmy.ca

                                    Note - I work in Ontario, and this is my experience as an engineering consultant working with dozens of municipalities.

                                    We’re finally at the end of infrastructure lifespan point for a good chunk of the province. That means Water/Wastewater plants, as well as the hundreds of kilometers of pipes required to transmit those liquids are at the end of their life for the first time since being installed (50-70 years).

                                    The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees. However those fees have not actually set aside the money required in many places, which means that municipalities have been propping up their old infrastructure costs by charging large development fees. Doug Ford, as much as I hate him, slashed development fees allowed, which forced property tax rates to rise. This more accurately reflects the ACTUAL cost of owning a home with services by the municipality. Given that I believe growth stagnation is required, this is the direction we need to head. We can’t keep running this ponzi scheme of funding old infrastructure with new infrastructure fees. Its unfair to new buyers and subsidizing older homeowners.

                                    We also likely need to take a look at the actual fees and costs associated with maintaining our infrastructure. Stormwater ponds, seen typically in subdivisions, are HORRIBLY under-serviced, with a recent investigation in our area revealing 75% of them had never been cleaned out since being put into service ~30-50 years ago. They typically have a service life of 10-20 years, and have been leaking pollutants into our creeks and waterways since. The primary reason - you guessed it, budget. At 1+Mil/cleanout, they’re expensive.

                                    We’ve skated by up till now by externalizing these costs and letting the damages build up for tomorrow’s solutions. We can’t keep putting off those costs.

                                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                                    S This user is from outside of this forum
                                    sbv@sh.itjust.works
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #27

                                    The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees.

                                    Agreed. I’m not sure those are usually covered by development fees. But it sounds like you know more about it than I do.

                                    H 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • magister@lemmy.worldM magister@lemmy.world

                                      You can replace Vancouver for Montreal and you’d have the same thing.

                                      In Montreal we laughed for years at the 1M$ shack or mansions in Vancouver, but now in Montreal an average house is also 1M, it was like 500k 5 years ago. There is something like 3000 empties condos too in Montreal, maybe 10000-12000 airbnb too, and 25-34yo people especially those with spouse/children are leaving Montreal en masse.

                                      It is completely fucked up right now. Rent also doubled. People on minimum wage are making ~2k$/month, an average rent is 2k$/month.

                                      Let’s not talk about an average new car at 65k$ and an average used car at 36k$

                                      S This user is from outside of this forum
                                      S This user is from outside of this forum
                                      sbv@sh.itjust.works
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #28

                                      Has the province started shutting down those Airbnbs? I thought there was a bunch of media noise about that recently.

                                      A 1 Reply Last reply
                                      3
                                      • C canadaplus@lemmy.sdf.org

                                        So you’re thinking everyone in low-density suburbs would be better for the climate? (Degrowth is usually a climate thing)

                                        T This user is from outside of this forum
                                        T This user is from outside of this forum
                                        StinkyFingerItchyBum
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #29

                                        Are you misconstruing my comments on purpose? I said mid density. Also degrowth is not just a climate thing, it’s a sustainable everything thing.

                                        C 1 Reply Last reply
                                        1
                                        • W worstdriver@lemmy.world
                                          This post did not contain any content.
                                          Link Preview Image
                                          As around 2,500 condos sit unsold in Metro Vancouver, experts warn of 'potential storm coming' for real estate | CBC News

                                          The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says there’s about 2,500 condos sitting unsold and empty in Metro Vancouver. The local real estate industry is concerned about layoffs and hopes for housing policy changes.

                                          favicon

                                          CBC (www.cbc.ca)

                                          Z This user is from outside of this forum
                                          Z This user is from outside of this forum
                                          zorque@lemmy.world
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #30

                                          Build something cheaper.

                                          C 1 Reply Last reply
                                          3

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post