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

THEY’RE GONNA TURN US INTO MEAD AND DRINK US???

To pay back creditors, sure.

Nobody has a magic money printer. Developers aren’t part of a conspiracy just holding back the good stuff from us, if that’s what you’re implying. Because I know that’s the jerk.

I think there was a movie about this

They’re also usually cheaper per unit than lowrises, where they’re built. The location is just great, and the savings on transport adds up to more than building upwards costs, which is why it’s economical for residents to buy them, even when there’s no view. (Once you looks at supertall and maybe superthin buildings that changes, though)

If disaster resilience is your concern, that’s fair, although it’s not really a degrowth thing.

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.

That could be. I mean, it was a democracy, but post-WWII it was much more about prominent members of the community who commanded the trust of whatever faith or industry group. Before then there was some upheaval, and I’m less clear on the zeitgeist.

Then again, people definitely wanted handouts in a way that’s passe now. In Alberta there was “purple gas”, which was artificially cheap but only farmers were allowed to burn it, and that’s how they got the agricultural vote. Invisible public works projects wouldn’t have helped with that.

Low taxes are like a religion here. I kind of feel like if we were starting over, we’d stick with outhouses forever because nobody wants to raise the tax rate for silly things like “sanitation”.

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.

That makes me wonder how things will look in another century or whatever. If we’re paying for debt accrued by the original designers, are we subsidising the future by building neat and well-though-out infrastructure now?

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

I’m arguing with a degrowther elsewhere here, but you’ve clearly thought through all the details. On a planet with a growing population, is less architecture really how that should look? When I think degrowth, I think forcing people to be poorer, basically, but they’ll still need a place to live. In the long term, I expect housing prices will start to collapse as population goes into decline, and a lot of our more outlying settlements will become ghost towns, but work will continue in core areas.