I would agree with all the suggestions in the original post except I'd take issue with this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
[*]Put minimum requirements in place for the proportion of 2 & 3+ bedroom units that all new developments of a certain size must have, to increase the stock of family-sized units (right now, 3-bedroom condos are so uncommon that they're often even more expensive than a house). And while we're at it, amend the provincial building code to stipulate that a "bedroom" must have a window to the exterior - I'm tired of dark closets with frosted glass doors passing for bedrooms.
|
Wouldn't putting more restrictions on the size and type of housing stock provided actually increase prices by giving developers less flexibility and few options for new buildings? For the larger units, if there was higher or equal demand for them they'd sell at an equal or higher cost per sq meter making it profitable to build more without developers being forced, and if not the restrictions would cause the cost per area to drop and thus act as a subsidy paid for by people buying the smaller units - making them less affordable. And for the window requirement, forcing developers to add amenities or features to units and forcing consumers to pay the embedded cost whether or not they'd be willing to forego them to reduce cost, seems more like an issue of quality rather than affordability.
One thing that i would say, is that it's somewhat natural for there to be price fluctuations when you have big discrepancies in terms of some regions attracting far more newcomers - and thus growth - than others. If it was just from domestic migration, it would balance itself out more, since the areas that were attracting people for economic or quality of life reasons will also generate a repelling force as prices rise and thus offset the economic benefits and reduce quality of life. This would eventually reach an equilibrium. But with foreign immigration, the lure of being near communities of people with whom you identify is an additional (and powerful) attractor in some regions allowing prices to get much higher before that equilibrium is reached.
However, to a large extent the high prices are the solution, rather than the problem. High prices means that the market springs into action providing huge volumes of supply - which is exactly what we've seen in the highest growth markets - and this supply is much harder to come by when prices are low since large volumes of new construction needs to be funded. And considering these costs, restricting foreign money from helping to finance the supply may also not be the best option.
The suggestions that I agreed with are mostly aimed at reducing the restrictions around increased supply, while the ones I take issue with would actually place restrictions or complications on supply. But overall, if we want significant growth - particularly from immigration - then we need to accept that there will be growing pains, which in this case include a (hopefully brief) period of elevated housing costs. Some will argue that immigration should be reduced, while others will argue that the long term costs of low population growth and an aging population would be higher than the short term pain involved in accommodating new residents. My guess is that the latter is probably true and that this isn't much different than many other things such as infrastructure investment that are worthwhile in the long term, but pricey in the shorter term. And just as with those many other things, you'll never get everyone to agree.
Prev
Linear Mode
