[peab]

The housing situation in Canada is insane and is so obviously due to not building enough housing and bringing too many people into the country via immigration. The fact that it costs 1200$/month for a room in a rural area is incredibly damning.

I went to college in Ottawa, and now I live in Austin Texas. It's similar in size, although Austin has been growing more lately. Curiously, they are also both capitols, college towns and they have a river flowing through them.

A major difference is that Austin has a new development with 200-400 unites on every block it seems. Cranes are everywhere downtown, and even in random neighborhoods they have huge new developments. Ottawa has no shortage of land, there's a huge amount of available land to develop in either direction, but they evidently aren't building nearly as much.

The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!

[Tiktaalik]

> bringing too many people into the country via immigration

The housing situation has clearly severely declined post pandemic at the same time that immigration was restarted and increased, but I gotta point out that Vancouver has had a severe homeless crisis my entire life, long, long before this recent government changed immigration rates or even came to power.

As far back as 2007 I was reading articles about how Vancouver was net losing the sort of affordable housing that those most at risk of homelessness depended on. Unsurprisingly the amount of homeless in Vancouver has continued to increase.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2007/07/10/SRO-Losses/print.html

But you're absolutely correct that the core of this problem is a severe lack of building. Both a lack of construction of market product and below market publicly owned housing. Building more homes is the solution to get our way out of this crisis and end homelessness.

If there is any real villain here to blame IMO it is Jean Chretien, who with the severe austerity budget of 1993 completely got the Federal government out of all social housing development and building of housing plunged to near nil for decades.

The chart from this article is remarkable. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/04/22/Why-Cant-We-Build-Lik...

[brailsafe]

True, on all points, but it wasn't just him, it's been a decades long process of multiple parts of the economy failing imo. One does wonder though how things would be if we simply cancelled zoning and other needlessly bureaucratic development restrictions in the 80s, and enabled automatically correcting policy that was outside the hands of both property owners and politicians. Every time I see an anti tower sign in east van it makes me want to throw a rock through that person's window, and the fact this tension exists on a local level is ridiculous.

[cyberax]

We have a natural experiment: Minneapolis vs. Madison.

Minneapolis abolished the single-family zoning and parking requirements in 2018. And it worked, developers swarmed the city like vultures attracted to carrion.

Madison did no such nonsense.

Can you guess the impact of these policies on housing costs?

The house price growth in Minneapolis _accelerated_, just like in the nearby Madison. Here are the price growth charts: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1COwL

[germinalphrase]

FWIW: as a Minneapolis resident, my experience is that there is active hostility and grassroots rejection of adding dense housing in neighborhoods that are traditionally single family homes. I would be curious to see how much dense housing has actually been built post-2018 relative to the historical norm, as the small number of apartment buildings I've seen go up along light rail and buss corridors have fought tooth and nail against certain demographics in the neighborhoods.

[cyberax]

It'll get worse: https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-park...

The usual misery pushers are already celebrating the win.

[brailsafe]

So... you want all new buildings to have parking minimums? First of all, pass, but secondly what about that article justifies your cynicism, and lastly what exactly is the root of your anger? Do you just love being isolated to the point that you think everyone else hates or should hate living somewhere where they don't need a car?

I'd be pretty annoyed about only being able to own something that had to have a dedicated parking space. What a waste.

[tacitusarc]

I defy the data [1].

There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost.

1. For clarity, this phrasing is from here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vrHRcEDMjZcx5Yfru/i-defy-the...

[cyberax]

> I defy the data.

Sorry. The reality doesn't care about your defiance.

Upzoning does not lead to lower housing prices. Even the most extreme urbanists admit that: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might...

> and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently

Ah, here it is. Have you considered that there, you know, might be "too much complexity" for "Economy 101" to fully explain the situation?

The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to BUILD MORE SUBURBS. Or even new cities entirely.

You don't have any other options. Sorry again.

Well, maybe one more: the Detroit route. Reduce the city population and the prices will go down.

[tacitusarc]

Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built.

From your linked blog post:

> Freemark finds extremely mixed and uncertain evidence for the effects of upzoning, and one of several reasons he identifies is that the link between upzoning and actual housing production is tenuous. In other words, “Are they allowed to build it?” is a different question from, “Are they building it?”

Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply.

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. This is the contention of the comment I responded to, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that zoning changes fail to increase supply.

[verall]

What about Austin, where they have aggressively upzoned and built, and now housing prices are down?

[tiahura]

The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to BUILD MORE SUBURBS. Or even new cities entirely.

Preach brother. Might I also add the possibility of encouraging migration from Metropolises to regional 100k - 200kish cities?

[tacitusarc]

*increasing supply to meet demand

[waveBidder]

Those abolishments are way less intense than you're thinking. There's still a ton of restrictions that make building even the triplexes that they technically legalized actually get built. Things like floor/area ratios and setbacks, which make building dwellings that people want difficult.

https://streets.mn/2023/10/24/mapping-minneapolis-duplexes-a...

[cyberax]

The abolishments actually fundamentally changed Minneapolis: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...

Most of the new units are in massive multi-apartment buildings. And these buildings have a huge disproportionate impact on the quality of life.

It's now going to be sliding into shittier and shittier conditions. More crime, more congestion, higher housing prices.

[germinalphrase]

You live near one of these developments? Your reaction may be correct, but my experience has been that the density has brought amenities. A brewery, a cafe, and a good restaurant moved into vacant/underutilized spaces. My street hasn’t been had issues with long-term parkers. Crime’s no issue. IDK. My experience doesn’t align with your certainty.

[waveBidder]

I don't think you read and understood the article you just linked. That is talking about a very broad set of reforms, not the single family home zoning abolishment.

> higher housing prices

Have you ever heard of a market?

[Qwertious]

>and bringing too many people into the country via immigration.

In a functioning economy, more immigration will just result in more housing being built, as long as the immigrants are working. Especially since the cost of housing construction is largely the cost of labor. Immigration is a distraction from the core inability to build more housing.

[mrkstu]

"In a functioning economy" is doing a lot of work here. Here in reality the parent comment is 100% correct.

[Qwertious]

My point is that immigration is a distraction from the nonfunctioning economy.

[Tiktaalik]

Exactly.

Can I create a small company of a half a dozen new immigrant trades, buy single family homes, tear them down and build new fourplexes? Nope this is largely banned (though ever so slowly changing in some areas).

The severe regulation has distorted the market and created a housing shortage that is legally prevented from being addressed no matter what available new immigrant talent is at hand.

[cudgy]

And yet the non-functioning economy might be a result of the excessive immigration. Which one is easiest to address?

[Qwertious]

>And yet the non-functioning economy might be a result of the excessive immigration.

It's not. If you have a narrative for how immigration could explain why there's record-high home prices and yet there isn't a corresponding spike in construction, then please post it. Because this is pretty obviously a problem of suppressed supply.

[cudgy]

I’m not implying that immigration is the only reason for higher housing prices. My opinion is that 0% interest rates and loose credit are the primary reason.

However, simple supply/demand would suggest that immigration AND 0% interest rates both affect demand quickly while supply requires securing land, building homes and getting approval to build homes takes significant time. Migrations are happening at a faster rate than housing can be built so it definitely has an impact on prices.

[brailsafe]

Yep. One might ask what happens if you don't have a functioning economy? Well, this kind of state. A massive failure for anyone but those who don't have theirs.

[oezi]

Housing is an inelastic commodity. Increased demand will take considerable time to lead to additional supply.

Over-supply is even harder to reduce because housing is amortized over 20 or more years.

Developers are well aware of the cyclic nature of the housing market and thus reluctant to invest in many cases.

[dghlsakjg]

What's funny is that I would bet money that immigrants to Canada have a higher employment rate than Canadian citizens as a whole.

I say that as a member of both groups.

[lostlogin]

The continual drive for growth is a problem though. By definition it isn’t sustainable, yet we keep adding, consuming, growing.

[brailsafe]

Why is a drive for growth bad? Seems like the double-speak of saying growth is bad while happily profiting off of and simultaneously restricting it is whats bad.

Growing up in a prairie city I heard this sentiment from people who simply don't like other people constantly, and I'm like "When did you try growing, you stagnant deteriorated shithole!?", and sprawl doesn't count. They hate ambition, they hate people, they hate taxes, and have no interesting ideas. They hate traffic, but refuse to do anything but drive. Their healthcare system and infrastructure is failing, there is no new economic activity happening; get busy growing or get busy dying. It doesn't work though if you stop for 70 years and then try to catch up.

[lostlogin]

A lot of what you say here I agree with. I'm not sure that I'd define maintenance of infrastructure as growth though, and I too hate sprawl. Growing the economy is great, but only if done in such a way that it's sustainable. Growth or death is too simplistic, perfectly captured by the grandparent comment. Bringing in immigrants to generate growth when you can't house the current population seems crazy. Things don't have to get bigger to be successful. You could make a business and have zero employees and make a living. Does it need to be a massive company that's growing? There is always a limit, and something will eventually prevent growth, so why does it have to be an external force?

Where I am we are trashing the waterways and the land in pursuit of money. You can't swim in most our rivers anymore - the recent numbers look good though, as the government redefined 'swimmable' and now it's 'safe', despite the contaminants. https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/explainer-new-swimmable-water-...

[epistasis]

Trying to house the people we have is in no way a "drive for growth".

[lostlogin]

The context was that immigration was being encouraged, while not having enough housing. Immigration being used to fuel growth.

Housing the people is great, but encouraging immigration while being unable to house the current population is not.

[epistasis]

That's at best a less-than-complete view of immigration.

For immigrants themselves, it is usually an issue of self-determination and freedom.

I can't say I'm fully privy to the immigration debate in Canada, but framing it as an issue of "growth" could not be a complete view of the advocates of immigration. Especially with the level of acceptance of refugees in Canada.

The not enough housing aspect is completely incidental to immigration. In my city, the overriding reason that we have not built enough housing for even our own children is that people show up to block any environmentally friendly housing proposal, largely arguing against growth. In other words, using the framework you are right now! And it's a rather twisted version of the "we can't have growth" framework because it ignores the underlying reason for not allowing growth: environmental sustainability. So instead, the only housing that gets built is the most environmentally disastrous type of housing: sprawl far away from the locations where people need to be for their jobs and everyday life, causing massive environmental destruction.

I would argue that there are few more counterproductive ways to talk about the environment than to bring up a "need for growth." First of all almost nobody actually cares that much about growth in 2025 and secondly it has disastrous consequences when the rubber meets the road.

[lostlogin]

Are we both arguing against the growth we see at this time?

[throw5959]

Everybody cares about growth. The world will end the minute we finally stop growing. The entire economic system and society will unravel

[summeroflove20]

"as long as the immigrants are working"

And their family members, and the money they work for stays in-country and is not sent overseas.

Not commenting on your stance of the costs of construction, that's ridiculous to be left there on its own.

Get more out, to get a reality check.

[brailsafe]

Cost of housing is influenced by much more than labor and raw material.

[thereisnospork]

In our current, over-regulated market: yes absolutely. In a healthy market, cost of low-end housing should approach the cost of labor + raw material (plus necessary overhead for e.g. inspections, plus a reasonable risk-adjusted return on construction). Cost of materials/labor simply slides/scales with additional stories / more difficult terrain.

Land/space, while not an infinite resource, is hardly limited on the scale necessary to house people outside of extremely small niches. Views of central park are always going to be expensive, but there are a lot of square miles <45minutes to times square where someone would very profitably build and run (e.g.) an SRO if they were allowed to.

[Ekaros]

Also in healthy market bottom end should be housing build decades ago and already fully paid for. Now it would mean large mid-rises. But still, entirely reasonable standard of living when you are not been brainwashed into needing expensive wasteful single family buildings.

[cyberax]

In a functioning economy, people won't be feeling pressure to move into a handful of population centers.

Canada has PLENTY of free space for construction, and modern construction is pretty cheap and efficient. But economic forces are concentrating the growth in a few areas. Well-intentioned efforts to force "affordable housing" and "walkable neighborhoods" make these forces even worse.

The root cause fix is to stop the economic forces that pack people into ever smaller areas.

[amanaplanacanal]

People have been moving from rural areas to cities since the beginning of the industrial revolution. People want to improve their economic lot, and that is the most likely way to do it. I didn't know of it is even possible to stop that in a capitalist society.

[BlueTemplar]

And even before, but cities used to be much more deadly.

[Rendello]

> Ottawa has no shortage of land

Relatedly, post-amalgamation Ottawa is very big:

https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/fb3tzy/the_size_of...

This is also an interesting (if less relevant) Ottawa size comparison:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Suburbanhell/comments/ov59fv/round_...

[brailsafe]

Fantastic links. The same thing has come to mind when thinking about my home town. They amalgamated all the suburbs back in the 70s, and they're just these sprawling desolate rural towns still, which almost certainly cost the overall city an unsustainable multiple of what they contribute, and they're still building new cul-de-sac laden hellscapes, that sometimes don't even have sidewalks, and who's only supply of services are provided by the largest big box stores you see everywhere. It's brutal.

I have the sense that if these suburbs had to figure out they're own shorter term scaling strategy, especially without being able to infinitely kick the infrastructure can down the road, things would be required to change a bit more rapidly. What they have instead are these miserable little cabin-esque bungalows with deer running about, concrete that is literally crumbling to gravel, and a very weird thread of prejudice against apartments of any kind.

[svnt]

Peak confirmation bias.

The market is correcting from that thing that was in full swing three years ago (the pandemic) and drove prices way up for a number of factors, basically none having to do with construction:

https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1grxqur/the_austin_t...

The same thing is happening in many cities that do not have the same policies as Travis County.

[wasabi991011]

> The fact that it costs 1200$/month for a room in a rural area

Does it really? In a about a week of searching, I was able to find a number of rooms in downtown Toronto for less than 1500 including utilities.

I know this is just my experience, so I could be way off, or not filling a criteria you expect. (I'm a student, so my standards are low.)

Can you say more about these 1200 $/month rooms in rural Canada?

I always find it hard

[epistasis]

There is a concerted disinformation campaign out there to prop up homeowner and landlord property values by denying the housing shortage. Not just in Canada, but throughout the Anglosphere.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

>>> there's a huge amount of available land to develop in either direction

You are missing the point. Its not how much land there is, or there isn't. Its what regulations will prevent you from building anything.

Contrast what's happened in the last 2 decades in Austin, TX vs Boise, ID for example. Both cities with huge amounts of land available. Both cities attracted major migration. Yet, only one of the 2 has very little building code preventing things from being built. Boise rents for a single family house (2 bed 2 bath) went from $500 per month in 1995 to ~$3100 in 2022, for example.

[wasabi991011]

The fact that it costs 1200$/month for a room in a rural area is incredibly damning.

[blktiger]

At least some of the difference is that building codes can be a lot more lax in Texas as compared to Canada. It rarely gets as cold, and certainly not for as long.

[cyberax]

> The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!

That's not a result of new construction. It's a result of the Austin population declining in absolute numbers: 978,763 in 2019, 975,418 in 2022. It bounced back a bit to 979,882 in 2023.

Travis County grew a little bit, but all the growth is in the suburban areas.

[simoncion]

Honey, you can't math.

That 2023 number is roughly a thousand larger than that 2019 number. The changes to all of the numbers you're quoting are in the noise as far as considering changes to the cost of housing.