[manbackharry]

I'd argue the main cause of this is the REALTORs/real estate boards/MLS system that stonewalls any attempts at making real estate information publicly available precisely because the size of their paycheques relies on this information remaining hidden from the public. The conflict of interest beggars belief, but it's allowed to remain, among other reasons, since it also tends to benefit political parties courting votes from homeowners who see their home values continue to rise.

All of this though (ending blind bidding, making buy and sell data publicly available, etc.) is just using a bucket to bail out the Titanic since the system is designed to have prices continuously rise since Canadians are in house debt up to their eyeballs and have no idea how else to actually save for the long term and any party that actually changed this would likely never get voted into power again, if they even continued to exist.

[throwaway894345]

What's stopping Canada from increasing its housing stock? Surely Canada has plenty of space for its 30M citizens, right? (Yes, I understand that much of the territory is uninhabitable, but even still...).

[pseudo0]

38 million, with an annual immigration target of over 400k, plus foreign students, temporary visas, etc. New construction simply isn't keeping up with demand. Politicians have tried to solve this from the supply side for decades, but many of the issues like zoning are in provincial and municipal jurisdiction, where the incentive is to keep prices high and homeowners happy.

So the federal government refuses to address the demand side of the equation (very high immigration rate) while the the provinces and municipalities block increases in supply. The natural result? Runaway price increases, and the rest of Canada's economy becoming uncompetitive because employees can't find a house within a 2 hour commute for under $1MM in the GTA.

[alfor]

Regulations... Most land is off limits. Were I live the land is ’protected’ for agricultural use even though it is marginal at best and most farms doesn’t use the land.

In my case it killed my agribusiness project because the amount of work, the delays and the risks where too much to bear.

We can no longer build what we used to build in the 60’s and 70’s because of the regulations in spite of the technology being much better.

[olyjohn]

There were also literally half as many people back then.

[alex_sf]

There is plenty of housing for plenty of people in most parts of North America. The 'problem' is that what people _want_ is cheap housing in urban centers, a.k.a cool spots. Because that doesn't exist, we claim to have a housing shortage.

[waterlaw]

In Ontario it's not just urban centers. Prices are going up almost everywhere. Towns with a grocery store and Tim Hortons are seeing prices explode.

One problem in Canadian provinces is your taxes remain the same regardless of where you live, but if you need access to healthcare or education, then you have to live near a major city. Particularly if you want quality healthcare.

In fact the cost of living goes up if you're a rural inhabitant in most of Ontario. Electricity is more expensive, heating is expensive, etc.

[AYBABTME]

You portray it as being some capricious choice by entitled brats, but ignore that there's economic and efficiency advantages for society to have more centrally located workforce and services.

[hpkuarg]

As the current supply chain crisis evinces, efficiency shouldn't be the end-all, be-all of policy.

[AYBABTME]

Strange argument to switch to. If your day to day life is better because you live near where you eat and work and obtain healthcare and what not, isn't sort of hard to argue against? Where's the downside to this efficiency? It looks to me like an entirely win-win situation for the individual and society. Sometimes efficiency translates directly into resiliency. In your argument, proximity and density makes urban populations easier and cheaper to deliver to.

[ericmay]

I think that used to be the case and I would have argued as such as early as 2018 w.r.t NIMBY and San Francisco but I think it's becoming less true. Now sure you can buy a trailer in the middle of nowhere in the Nevada desert, but what were previously considered "cheap" houses in places like Des Moines are increasing substantially in price, and that's not just the cool spots either. You might say "Well just rent then" but rent is going up too.

With that being said, naturally homes near economic activity should be more expensive. It's more expensive and always will be to live near Google's HQ in Mountain View than it will be to live in Grand Rapids, Michigan or Toledo, Ohio. That's just economic physics. It's ok, normal, natural, acceptable, and economically good. And these homes are only going to get more expensive over time as energy costs increase (EVs won't save us), road maintenance costs increase (already far out of control), and people move to live in more walkable areas. But as these costs increase, people who were expecting that it would be cheap to live in the suburbs are surprised because energy costs and moving far away just won't save them anymore like it did in the past (oh I'll live here and just have a 40 mile commute) - hence it appears that we have a housing shortage when in reality the costs are more reflective of economic reality and were artificially cheap. New housing won't help here because even if we could build more faster we'd still be building it in an economically handicapped way and rely on traveling far distances in cars and on highways, which just will not work when we can't pump cheap oil out of the ground.

You have two options. The first option is dense skyscrapers. But those aren't going to be efficient enough in places unconstrained by geography. They also have maintenance issues and it'll be too expensive to keep them going in the future with much higher energy costs. The second option is medium-density mixed-use development. Think the beautiful streets with brick single family homes next to townhouses and 2 story apartments with a cafe or an office at the bottom, bikes, walking, and street cars or other similar efficient transit. These you can repair yourself and the maintenance is much lower on the long-run and they don't rely on cheap oil to be livable.

But we'll keep building skyscrapers and suburbs (I didn't mention these as an option because they aren't) and the prices will just keep going up.

[throwaway894345]

> as energy costs increase (EVs won't save us)

I don't really disagree with your larger point, but I can't help but explore this nit because it seems interesting. I don't think anyone is arguing that EVs will markedly reduce energy prices; however, there is an argument that renewables will decrease energy prices by virtue of being cheaper per unit power. Of course, it will take at least a decade before renewable energy isn't supply-constrained, so I don't think anyone is expecting this to happen soon, and moreover I've heard counter-arguments that the figures associated with renewable energy aren't including the storage costs which would be required to make renewable energy suitable for base load generation or the costs to decommission/recycle hazardous solar panels and fiberglass wind turbine blades--maybe there will be a ~10 year window during which the supply of renewable energy meets/exceeds demand but before the recycling/decommissioning costs kick in en force? :)

[ericmay]

Oh yea I definitely think EVs are the future and to the extent that we have vehicles, in the majority of cases they should be EV. I guess what I'd say here is that even at a reduced cost (which is arguable) for a "commute" (self-driving, etc.) you aren't going to get EVs cheap enough to offset b/c the very act of driving 10, 20, 40, miles to a job or driving a mile down the road to the grocery store is just incomparable to just better design. If your grocery store is within a half mile and you can walk or bike there, EVs could never compete. So it's kind of like we're improving the technology of something we shouldn't be doing, versus just not doing that thing.

If I had to completely armchair it here, if you looked at total impact to society, the environment, car accidents, you name it something like a gallon of gas in the US should really be about $20-$30/gallon but it feels like it's expensive at $5 b/c we're so used to the low prices. We are probably experiencing these costs through inflation and things like housing prices.

Renewables (should) drop overall energy costs by virtue of capturing natural movements (I'd throw nuclear in renewable as well IMO but I understand why you wouldn't) but people are going to focus on kWh being expensive because they're used to extremely cheap gasoline. I guess in other words renewables on paper will be more expensive "at the pump" but externality cost to society will be lower. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future as more EVs come online that energy costs to charge even at home are approximate to gasoline.

[throwaway894345]

> If I had to completely armchair it here, if you looked at total impact to society, the environment, car accidents, you name it something like a gallon of gas in the US should really be about $20-$30/gallon but it feels like it's expensive at $5 b/c we're so used to the low prices

Price per gallon is probably the wrong unit. You probably want $/mile. Car accidents get priced in via insurance. Environment isn't priced in at all in the US, though a carbon tax could change that if there was any political appetite for it. EVs already significantly reduce fuel and maintenance costs even though ICE cars enjoy a "carbon subsidy" (i.e., pollution isn't priced into the cost of gas).

> people are going to focus on kWh being expensive because they're used to extremely cheap gasoline

Electricity is already much less expensive than gasoline. The current US-average gas price is $4.10/gallon and a 30mpg car will cost over $0.13/mile. The current US-average electricity price is $0.14/kwh--with ballpark 85% charge efficiency (not all energy drawn from the grid makes it into the battery) and 300wh/mile, an EV will cost less than $0.05/mile. EV fuel costs are just over a third of those of ICE vehicles.

[bobthepanda]

It is worth noting that unlike some other energy sectors, unit costs of storage and renewable continue to trend down aggressively.

It’s still not quite so cheap that recycling it makes no economic sense, so if it is possible a way will be figured out sooner or later. (Metal is recyclable because recycling it requires so much less energy than producing it; plastic is super cheap and so is basically never recycled.)

[random314]

Imagine people wanting to live close to work, instead of 2 hours away.

[na85]

We do in fact have an affordability crisis in Canada. I bought a home in a small town outside Toronto (too far to be a commuter town) in 2017 for $425000, and sold it in 2020.

We're friends with the people that bought it from us and on the same street in that same small town in Ontario, houses are going for $1M+ now. This is not entitled millenials wanting to live in Vancouver. This is the place where things are supposed to be affordable. This is exactly the sort of place where Boomers love to tell us to go live if we can't afford the city.

Housing is cheaper if you are willing to relocate to e.g. Swift Current, Saskatchewan where a 2-bedroom home with 900 square feet will cost you $175000, but of course there are very few jobs in a small town of 15000 people that's 3 hours away from the nearest big city and the unemployment rate is among the highest in the province.

[raydev]

Just to add to this, we live in a town of ~50k people about 2 hours out of Toronto, and house prices are up 20% yearly since before COVID. 2-3 bedroom houses, are brushing up against $1million this year.

Not as bad as other parts of Canada to be sure, but most people living here have manufacturing jobs or are in the military. I don't see how this is sustainable, since there's nothing for rich people to do here.

[wizee]

Very ordinary detached family homes in decent shape pretty much anywhere in Ontario are near a million dollars or more. If people could buy a family home for vaguely affordable prices in even the most remote parts of the province, people would flock there. There's plenty of land, but getting permission to build anything in much of Canada is a difficult and slow process, even in remote areas.

[amanaplanacanal]

People also want to live where the jobs are, which is increasingly in cities. I expect most small towns are going to die over the next few decades.

[bobthepanda]

I don’t know that people want to live where the jobs are necessarily (although it helps for ease of switching jobs). Personally I think the move to remote work was very overhyped during the pandemic, but it is having an impact on the housing market of smaller areas.

People want to live where the amenities are, and all other things being equal more population can support more diverse sets of amenities. E.g. you need enough gay people in a town to support a regularly open gay bar, and generally speaking people want to have a choice of bars for going out.

[bcrl]

I live in a rural area with a small local town about an hour outside of Ottawa. Lots of rural houses are going up, as the hour drive is okay for the occasional commute. Nothing is being built in the town (which currently has about 350 dwellings). The problem? There is no local water / sewage system, and quite a few of the wells in town get contaminated with e-coli on a regular basis. Nobody wants to build a new subdivision in the town because it doesn't have the basic infrastructure need to support development.

The worst part of this is that the town has the money in the bank to build the water and sewage system. There's upwards of $8 million earmarked for the project. However, each homeowner is going to be responsible for $30k in hookup costs, and the town will have to shell out $500,000 per year to operate the new water system. Since it's a low income area, the >50% property tax increase needed to run the system won't fly, and neither will the hook-up costs. Instead, all the new builds are focused in rural areas where there is no infrastructure needed or in the larger towns / cities where costs are significantly higher but deemed to be an acceptable risk by developers.

[kbelder]

The trend in the last couple years has been the reverse of that, but it'll be interesting to see if that continues now that the most of the pandemic restrictions are over.

[vkou]

People don't want to live in cool spots, people want to live in spots where there is work.

Since agriculture industrialized, rural Canada has no work.

[howinteresting]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_agglomeration

[ep103]

I'm not in Canada, but I am in the NYC region, and your comment is absurd. Assuming you want to live in a safe area, but not live inside the 5 city boros, you're looking at 1MM for a house, and an hour+ commute.

But yeah, "cool spots". /s

[tnel77]

There’s certainly an element of ignorance in their comment, but there’s also some truth.

I am originally from a rural area in the Midwest USA. I know a statistically significant number of people from high school and college who purposely moved to bigger cities because of “the culture” or “there’s so much more to do.” They are right. I live in a much bigger city now for those exact reasons, but the demand justifiably has resulted in wildly more expensive houses. I could buy a modest house in my hometown for $85k right now. That same house where I currently live would easily be selling for $300-350k. You make more money here, but not by much.

We need to work on improving our housing density issues, but there’s an undeniable element of “I don’t want to live there” going on.

[leshow]

The average house price in Canada is over 800k now. In a city like Toronto I would expect that to be higher.

[vkou]

The fact that half of those 30M people have 80% of their wealth tied in keeping housing unaffordable.

Between them and the banks that own all of those 30 year mortgages, that's all the political pressure you need.

[Pet_Ant]

Sorry, but if we want to address climate change and protect the environment, then we need to do this without sprawling outwards.

[la6472]

Nothing is better than sprawling outwards. Most of the white collar jobs can be done remotely , so commute is not needed. Most of groceries and other stuff can be delivered. A truck doing 100 deliveries is surely less traffic than everyone going to the supermarkets. And most importantly with sprawling outwards citizens can enjoy the outdoors and take care of their health. And even more importantly high density of population leads to increased crime , encourage homelessness and provide all sorts of administrative nightmares.I would say we have reached a technological inflection point where we at at last free to spread out and yet stay connected. Let us embrace it. This is the future. This is the way.

[trylfthsk]

Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society. The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market.

[throwaway894345]

> Service availability decreases with population density, and relying on subsidized last mile delivery for the economic elite is not a sustainable model for an entire society.

I don't think this is strictly true. I don't like the model, but big box stores seem pretty sustainable (everyone drives to a distribution center for their goods). An actual last mile distribution system (a la Amazon) also appears to work pretty well. Neither of these are exclusively available to the economic elite.

> The road network alone is a funding quagmire, to say nothing of hiding the infrastructure burdens of servicing sprawl into the eldritch horror that is the municipal bond market.

I don't doubt that infrastructure costs decrease with density, but density doesn't keep urban municipalities from building infrastructure that they can't afford to maintain any more than other places. Quality of governance and density are almost certainly independent variables.

[la6472]

Service availability decreasing with population density is still old school thought. Rapid advances in technology over the years enable stretching infrastructure outwards. Who knows someday we may be extending our infrastructures to cover the whole globe and even to outer space. It is not subsidized and it is certainly not for the elite only. It is more about human aspiration. As a species we can look towards piling on top of each other or we can choose to expand and live a quality life according to one’s own aspiration. Look at the big picture.

[arrosenberg]

> A truck doing 100 deliveries is surely less traffic than everyone going to the supermarkets. And most importantly with sprawling outwards citizens can enjoy the outdoors and take care of their health.

No, the lowest traffic solution is having the smallest number of trucks that are needed to serve local markets that a relatively high volume of people can access via walking, biking or mass transit. All that walking, very healthy.

Further, why should city dwellers subsidize this expansion? Surely these far flung communities won't have sufficient revenue to support the infrastructure needed to make all that work.

[la6472]

City dwellers are not subsidizing anybody. In fact there are certain things the government does for the common good. Like protecting border or extending healthcare. It is the kind of civic planning that determines if a community will be able to support ordinary human aspirations like living a comfortable life in a spread out space or a community is going to pile like ants on top of each other. Of course certain people in the top (elite?) may actually love the second option and would love to see people stuffed in small apartments and live life like mechanical robots so that they can enjoy their life in Malibu beach houses.

[arrosenberg]

The government pays for those things with money generated in the cities. We need rural communities to grow food, but most rural and suburban communities in the US do not generate enough revenue through taxes to support themselves without federal assistance. Sometimes it is worth doing, but the cities make the money that pay for it. So again, why should we subsidize lower density that requires more subsidy and more energy to support? Our existing cities could be redesigned to be more human friendly and higher capacity - if we are going to spend federal dollars, thats where they need to go.

[shkkmo]

> City dwellers are not subsidizing anybody.

City dwellers already subsidize rural living through taxes. On the federal level, more rural states are subsidized by more urban ones, paying more per capita and receiving less per capita. Similar things happen at the state level, but the numbers are a bit harder to track down.

[be200]

The decreased density of sprawl causes the maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, electricity and water to often need to be essentially subsidized by higher density areas. For example, in suburbs with culs-de-sac, taxpayers fund the streets (in perpetuity as they must be maintained) but the vast majority get no utility from them. To your example of a truck doing deliveries, if it did those same deliveries in a more dense area it would obviously travel a smaller distance. IMO sprawl also makes life more difficult and more dangerous for those without cars.

[zekrioca]

I cannot imagine ordering fruits and vegetables online: how do you assure its quality without actually looking at them? I always prefer picking these myself, so yes, maybe it is a good idea to offer better transportation means to those who prefer to do in person grocery.

[la6472]

Just grow as much as you can yourself. After all that is the perks of living in the suburbs.

[MrMan]

this is objectively wrong. it may be the future but its not the way

[stazz1]

I too wonder about the sustainability of the Mexico City paradigm. When land becomes precious, we re-pave and re-evaluate. In Japan (On the island of Japan), space is precious, if you are going to build it, it better last, and it better make sense to keep around. Until we reach a limit on land area, it seems that slime-mold-esque endless sprawl is somewhat inevitable. I do wish the opposite, that we would heed the lesson before driving off the proverbial cliff.

[xedrac]

Supply and demand isn't going to change. You can build up instead of out, but I think the point was there's insufficient supply.

[Pet_Ant]

Yes, I was suggesting infill over sprawl. Multi family dwellings do not displace more nature than a single family does

[throwaway894345]

Increasing housing stock doesn't imply sprawling outwards (e.g., replace a detached house with an apartment/condo complex), and anyway housing stock is probably a negligible contributor to climate change and habitat destruction (presumably forestry, agriculture, heavy industry, fossil fuel energy, etc are far larger culprits).