this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
59 points (96.8% liked)

Canada

9641 readers
843 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This can work in some places (mostly looking at the prairies), but will do close to zero in others (like eastern Canada+BC). The simple problem is that the land the house is built on is often worth something like 80% the cost of buying property. The cost of a new house can be zero, but that will do little to help people afford new homes. Only slightly better than the tax cuts PP is proposing, which will have just as weak of an effect helping those who don't already own six houses.

The solution is to use the land we already use for homes more efficiently, and the only way to do that is to build condos and apartments. Make them mixed use and you can add the rental fees of a grocery store and several other services to the mix to subsidize the cost even further. A single grocery store that'll take up half the ground floor paid something like a million in rent a year, and that was before COVID. Add a convenience store, a couple fast food restaurants, a bar, and a dentist or salon, and you've got a mini-mall that'll rake in several million in rent that has a captured clientele in those that live above and near them. And that number will be in the hundreds for a 30 story apartment in the space of half a city block, since there'd be more than ten units per floor, even if it only has two-four bedroom units.

Such buildings can't be built in a factory, even partially. Not if we want them to last more than ten years, since that's the problem with the quick condos China tried to build.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You might not be able to pre construct the whole building, but there's a lot of new technology out there that pre builds very large parts.

I've seen 15m pre fabricated concrete walls placed with cranes before.

There's a lot we could probably do like that which would speed up build times.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

If I remember right, that was basically what they did to make commie blocks.

If the building isn't too tall, maybe 5 stories or less, that is proven to work, though I don't know about the quality, at least it's durable. But I strongly doubt that it would work for skyscrapers. I don't think there's any way to get beyond single large support struts to go throughout the entire building, and concrete walls feel too heavy to be used. Maybe prefab concrete floors could work, but I don't work construction.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I had a friend do this. It's a great house and the process went very smoothly.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's a sensible way to do it. Modern prefab doesn't necessarily mean the house is entirely built offsite and then dropped in place. It just means that more of the assembly is done in a controlled, precision, effficient environment (a factory) and then assembled on site with less time and expense. It means more houses, faster and cheaper. Which is what we need.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sears company has prefab homes still standing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Modern_Homes

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The answer to this has always been no, everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Not quite true. Many homes in Canada literally were ordered from the Eaton catalogue. Truck arrives with all the components, you assemble it yourself. We used to do these things.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah. We actually already do prefab with roof trusses. They are precision manufactured in a factory, shipped to the site and then assembled. This is extending the same principle to other home components like wall assemblies.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, but it won’t fill the housing gap.

Those houses still have to be assembled somewhere.

The more likely solution is a big fibre optic rollout and getting all information workers out of the cities.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They would be assembled on site.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah; in most of the places where there are housing issues, the problem isn’t skilled labour to build houses or a lack of building materials (although those can become issues) — it’s the cost and availability and accessibility of land. There’s no “on site” to assemble them on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

the problem isn’t skilled labour to build houses

Can you provide any references for this? My naive web searches find that most sources say there is a significant skill labour shortage, so if you can provide sources which I can learn from that would be helpful.

it’s the cost and availability and accessibility of land

Housing shortage is a multi-dimensional problems with what you mention here included. One plank in the BCH platform that attempts to address this is the release federal lands for new housing. I suppose it will remain to be seen how that works out, if Carney is elected.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

We should give tax credit for wfh too perhaps.

Except our government doesn't actually want housing prices to fall, or for there to be less people in the city.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

More people should be living in the city so the wilderness can remain the wilderness. Build up, not out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm kind of on the fence with your opinion. Living in Montreal I've seen some old broken down neighbourhoods being turned into new condominium cities, but without enough city/social planning. (Griffintown) This caused incredible problems for the local infrastructure, commerce, and services. Sewers, aqueducts, electricity, roads, public transports, kindergartens, schools, medical clinics, etc. The concentration of people increased too much, too fast.

Instead, I think we need to increase density slowly, but spread it out over the city. Not everyone needs to live in 300 sq ft closets downtown. Having smaller apartment buildings with 4/5 storeys replacing old duplexes and triplexes in adjacent neighborhoods, with units that are better adapted to family life with several rooms and enough space to move around could be even more beneficial. And include social housing mixed in with regular housing would have a positive impact as well. But, that's a pretty Montreal-specific scenario. I know in Toronto it's very different and their needs are different, for example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Frankly housing should be a right and everyone should have the same space for the same sized families and you can move as your family changes into different sized units.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The law of rent dictates the price of a house, there is no equitable way to give people housing. Its naive to think that there is, some problems are extremely complex and take much more nuance related to second order effects.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't block, but just know I am never going to have an actual conversation with you so I would suggest you quit wasting your time and mine spouting nonsense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Absolutely. The way housing is treated as a financial investment vehicle instead of a basic human right is disgusting. Unless it turns a profit, there are no incentives to build social housing in this system. Or to build larger units, if instead you can build and sell more smaller ones.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is the only thing that's going to fix the housing crisis actually reducing the cost of homes? And nobody actually wants that to happen.. so...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Nobody who owns a home wants that to happen*

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

My home price has doubled since Covid, but so have all the others around me. The gains are fake. The only benefit is to the real estate agent, and my ego.

Drive the prices into the ground.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Because the entire economic system inherently benefits entrenched Capital.

This game of Monopoly was decided before we were born.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Even moreso, those who own other people's homes.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

The Vancouver special was made illegal in the late 80s for seemingly no reason. Every municipal has tons of bureaucracy on what can be built, likely in order to stifle new development and to raise home values.

This will succeed only in so much as the Liberals through Brookfield will take a chunk of profits. Which is fine, if it took a bit of corruption to wipe out municipal bureaucracy then its still a win for the poor.

I was also in favor of Doug ford getting kickbacks for opening up greenbelt, I don't see how we do 4% annual population growth without actions like that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I was also in favor of Doug ford getting kickbacks for opening up greenbelt, I don’t see how we do 4% annual population growth without actions like that.

Going to assume this was awkwardly worded because why would you ever think that politicians getting kickbacks is in your best interests?? That's pants-on-head.

What in the world does the greenbelt have to do with housing? Do you think lack of space to build is anywhere on the roster of issues standing in our way??

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

I think land values are extremely high due to a lack of available land relative to demand. Exacerbated by sprawled zoning that nimbys have fought tooth and nail against.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Honest request: Explain to me how Brookfield is involved

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

They are heavily invested in prefab homes. Which will help us bypass municipal laws, and build architectural style to maximize floor space with relatively cheap construction costs, like the Vancouver special used to be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

They are heavily invested in prefab homes

That could have been because they believe prefab homes are a good industry to invest in because they saw the potential to solve the affordable housing crisis that afflicts populations around the world. That doesn't make it nefarious.

Which will help us bypass municipal laws

Do you have any facts to share about this? I would expect any new, modern, prefab homes to be built in Canada to the local building codes. Municipalities have as much at stake and to gain in solving our local housing shortages.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The greenbelt doesn't even need development. The province's own report said we just need to make better use of our land. In too much of Ontario for too long, zoning has restricted most homes to be inefficient single family housing and suburban sprawl far from peoples' jobs. We need missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and greater density.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ford won't do like Eby because his voters will revolt. Opening greenbelt is the only way to get houses built sadly, though I agree that is the logical thing to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Opening greenbelt is the only way to get houses built

How can you possibly think this??

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The green belt is an important wildlife corridor and it helps to protect surface water and ground water recharge areas. The benefits of a few mcmansions built in a desireable area are not worth the long term consequences of destroying the greenbelt.

Lets stop kicking the can down the road and finally address the factors that caused this crisis like sprawl and zoning.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

If it could be done I agree. But voters won't allow it, unlike BC they aren't progressive, they vote Ford.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Weird take.

load more comments
view more: next ›