News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 13K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.3K     0 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,034
Reaction score
4,105
I don't think people are willing to spend an extra $150k to have a home office. There is a reason why condos are small, they sell by the sqft and at high prices.
 

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
568
York Region council voted against hiking intensification of future development within urban boundaries, despite concerns from some residents about increasing urban sprawl.

Council voted 16 to 5 against a resolution by Newmarket Mayor John Taylor to increase the region's development targets to 60 per cent within urban boundaries up to 2051. Instead, the region is opting for a phased 50 to 55 per cent intensification rate, which will potentially open up 1,400 more hectares for development compared to Taylor's proposal.

Taylor said aiming for a higher intensification rate at 60 per cent would be a better move for the environment and help address resident concerns about sprawl. He said municipalities need to move away from sprawl toward intensified, transit-friendly communities.
York Region continuing with status quo, despite them declaring a climate crisis. Again, politicians patting themselves on the back with meaningless statements, but not actually addressing the issue.
 

xy3

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Messages
171
Reaction score
207
I don't think people are willing to spend an extra $150k to have a home office. There is a reason why condos are small, they sell by the sqft and at high prices.
I think the issue is one of artificial scarcity and whatever shady marketing practices developers can get away with . Around 2012, condo developers started a ridiculous trend of halving the size of kitchens, counter space etc. The shrinking of kitchens continues, and now you're seeing rediculous half size refrigerators are the norm. Publications that are largely funded by these developers ad dollars claimed these single-wall cubby holes were trendy "european style" kitchens. Meanwhile developers in Chicago or Buffalo still offer middle class consumers functional L-shape normal sized kitchens.

The corporate media then claims that "everyone is ordering from Uber Eats and dosent need a kitchen anymore"
 

Bojaxs

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
151
Reaction score
56

York Region continuing with status quo, despite them declaring a climate crisis. Again, politicians patting themselves on the back with meaningless statements, but not actually addressing the issue.
It's politics. Pander to your constituents, even if it means making the wrong decision. All so you can keep/ protect your job.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,343
Reaction score
13,857
City:
Toronto
Planning staff for the City of Hamilton continue to oppose the no urban boundary expansion option:




ube.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,611
Reaction score
35,490
Planning staff for the City of Hamilton continue to oppose the no urban boundary expansion option:




View attachment 360050

Summed up thusly: "We side with the entrenched interests of existing developers and speculators who have already assembled much of the agricultural land in question.

We are unwilling to be bold or creative in incentivizing and facilitating family-friendly multi-residential development.

The Ministry is providing a half-hearted, mealy-mouthed cover as a favour......."
 
Last edited:

wopchop

Building Toronto
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
568
On Oct. 28, York Regional Council — the political body that includes mayors and regional representatives of nine municipalities just north of Toronto, including Markham and Vaughan— voted 13 to 5 in favour of Regional Official Plan Amendment 7, which proposed to change the designation of 1,400 acres of Greenbelt lands from agricultural to rural.

The amendment to the region’s official development plan was initiated in June by TACC Developments, a Vaughan developer, which asked York Regional Council to redesignate parcels of protected land that surround two of its urban residential developments from agricultural to rural. These lands are known as “Greenbelt fingers” because of how they look on a map, as they follow the paths of important water systems and are adjacent to and surrounded by urban land.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,611
Reaction score
35,490

To add to the above: (staff were overruled)

1636222482242.png


TRCA also in opposition:

1636222535894.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,611
Reaction score
35,490
This doesn't override the province?

It has to be signed off on by the current Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So, its not a unilateral choice; except as a request to the Minister. But if the Minister signs off, then its done.

More or less.

There is some embedded wiggle room on 'interpretation' of certain regulations in the Greenbelt regulations.
 

xy3

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Messages
171
Reaction score
207
Either you have to open up more land to development to fight artificial land scarcity which is a big driver in inflated land prices . Or you have to cut immigration which is political suicide.

Buffalo's real estate is cheaper because there is no artificial land scarcity which Places to Grow has created. You don't see ridiculous crap like $900/month bedroom room-for-rents [with no ensuites! you have to share the freakin bathroom with a stranger roomate! ] listed there like I see on kijiji.

Im all for opening much more greenbelt land (while preserving greenspace around sensitive watersheds), in addition to greenlighting laneway homes in the 416 and dismissing NIMBYism. Not everyone can afford to shell out money for egregiously high condo fees.

Taxing the capital gains on principal residences would also be a sensible move to discourage small-fries flipping which also drives up housing costs

(EDIT: The only "flipping" that may be beneficial is the creation of secondary units; but I wouldnt consider this to be "flipping" in the conventional sense"
 
Last edited:

Undead

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2020
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
4,192
Either you have to open up more land to development to fight artificial land scarcity which is a big driver in inflated land prices . Or you have to cut immigration which is political suicide.

Buffalo's real estate is cheaper because there is no artificial land scarcity which Places to Grow has created. You don't see ridiculous crap like $900/month bedroom room-for-rents [with no ensuites! you have to share the freakin bathroom with a stranger roomate! ] listed there like I see on kijiji.

Im all for opening much more greenbelt land (while preserving greenspace around sensitive watersheds), in addition to greenlighting laneway homes in the 416 and dismissing NIMBYism. Not everyone can afford to shell out money for egregiously high condo fees.

Taxing the capital gains on principal residences would also be a sensible move to discourage small-fries flipping which also drives up housing costs
Reducing immigration, yes, a taboo, but absolutely should be on the table.

But the elephant in the room is the low interest rate. That factor, more than anything else, has turned housing into an investment.

Frankly, no amount of supply will fix this issue when 50-70% of pre-con condos are purchased by investors to rent out. It is kind of an artificial shortage in that there's too much demand for housing. Kind of like the microchip "shortage" when it's just a few large players hoarding all the chips and buying out years worth of production in advance.

It's also interesting that housing activists/urbanists always advocate for a supply side solution even when they're all about the demand side in other situations. For example, it's widely known that adding more traffic lanes doesn't address congestion. Instead, the solution to congestion is cutting lanes or tolling roads to force people into other modes and drive less. I.E. choking off demand. So why is housing different? Building more supply will just induce more demand from investors. The real solution is choking off the speculative/exaggerated demand.

Buffalo's a bad comparison because it doesn't have the population and employment size+growth as Toronto.
 

xy3

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 5, 2021
Messages
171
Reaction score
207
I agree, as a renter and lower income minimalist/saver, I detest low interest rates.

If it were the 90s, even with with my current income , Id be much more financially secure because id move a lot of my risky investments and savings into GICS that would yield enough interest to pay off over half of my rent!
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,611
Reaction score
35,490
Reducing immigration, yes, a taboo, but absolutely should be on the table.

But the elephant in the room is the low interest rate. That factor, more than anything else, has turned housing into an investment.

Frankly, no amount of supply will fix this issue when 50-70% of pre-con condos are purchased by investors to rent out. It is kind of an artificial shortage in that there's too much demand for housing. Kind of like the microchip "shortage" when it's just a few large players hoarding all the chips and buying out years worth of production in advance.

It's also interesting that housing activists/urbanists always advocate for a supply side solution even when they're all about the demand side in other situations. For example, it's widely known that adding more traffic lanes doesn't address congestion. Instead, the solution to congestion is cutting lanes or tolling roads to force people into other modes and drive less. I.E. choking off demand. So why is housing different? Building more supply will just induce more demand from investors. The real solution is choking off the speculative/exaggerated demand.

Buffalo's a bad comparison because it doesn't have the population and employment size+growth as Toronto.

One avenue on the immigration side is the foreign student question.

We have seen explosive growth in the number of foreign students in the GTA, to well over 50,000 in any given year.

If that number were cut back to a more historical norm..........say, 20,000..............that's 30,000 people and at least 15,000 units/rooms freed up.
You don't dishonour anyone's deal who we've already permitted to come to study, you simply cut back new entrants until you get to the lower number in ~4 years; that's one of the politically easier ways.

There is a cost in terms of replacing some of that revenue from the foreign students; a but a good deal of that is soaked up now by all the additional campus capacity we're building........which could also
be cut back with lower student totals in the near to medium term. If you assume each student represents 15k in net revenues for a college/uni; you have to find 450M in new revenue for the post-secondary sector.
Not nothing; but not that much in the context of a province with a 160B+ budget, ~0.25% of annual expenditures. Its also way cheaper than building the equivalent in housing supply; where else are you getting units at 15k per year, or 300k over 20 years in the GTA?
 

Top