Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoNerd
What an absolutely misguided comment. I think you lack some knowledge on how cities function. You look at the city from a very small town/country point of view. Can I assume you aren't from the city?
1) "low quality high rises"? You do realize that modern high rises are built to high standards and inspected throughout construction. Meanwhile SFH are quickly thrown together using dated construction techniques, cheap low-end materials, and chainsaw precision. If anything is low quality it is the modern cookie cutter SFH.
2) Governments should 100% step in and regulate the housing market. The government will screw it up? Look what private business has done. We are in a national housing crisis. We shouldn't just be allowed to build whatever we want, wherever we want. Look at what that has done to some American cities that are sprawling out indefinitely.
3) Why do you equate living in a high rise with living in the "projects". You do realize wealthy people around the world live in high rises, even here in Ottawa. Your idea of living in a poorly built SFH outside of the city = wealth is very backwards. It seems you have drank the suburban-dream marketing koolaid.
4) We should be tolling highways and making urban transit free. We should not be awarding people from buying cheap suburban/exurban homes and commuting. If you want to live 50 miles outside the city and think of city living as "an urban prison" then maybe the city isn't for you. Perhaps you'd be better suited to a Cornwall, kingston, or Peterborough, where you can more easily live a country lifestyle.
It's well documented that the modern suburbs were the biggest misallocation of resources in world history. They have destroyed the prosperity cities across North America. If it wasn't for urban tax payers subsidizing your suburban/exurban lifestyle you would be paying astronomical property taxes. This is a trend that cannot continue and governments are finally beginning to come to this reality. If you think Ottawa is too urban now, just wait. It needs to get way more urban and strictly regulate suburban growth/SFH construction.
But this discussion has gotten way off topic.
|
We see everyday that housing affordability is in decline. So, what is the alternative for the growing numbers who cannot buy a home? It is cheap, second class rental housing or subsidized (government and taxpayer supported) housing. This is exactly what I am talking about. Not the elite that are on the sunshine list. So while the price of urban housing is going out of control, where will people go? We impose all kinds of controls within the city boundaries on housing, it is no wonder prices are going nuts and why people are looking elsewhere. It is fine to place controls on housing but the outcome is higher prices. But, we are free society so we should support choices people make. That is why I brought up housing in communist countries. Eliminate choice and this is what you get. I have toured Poland and the relief of not living in a such a regulated society was widespread.
Yes, SFH may be built cheaply, but what about condos? I have read about how condo fees also skyrocket after the infrastructure starts to age, especially modern, mostly glass buildings. Everything is built more cheaply compared to years ago despite the building code.
Our problem with urban, suburban, exurban design is based on the choices we have made since 1950. Almost everything has been focused on auto-dependence and auto-dependence is growing today despite what we have learned over the decades. We didn't need to go this route, but it was widespread throughout North America. It was the norm to build highways and boulevards, and shopping centres with massive parking lots and it is still the norm today. At the same time, we have de-emphasized public transit, and while we are paying lip service by spending billions on LRT, we still design everything for the automobile. So, this spending on LRT is going to be wasted to some degree because for most, it is not an attractive alternative. This is why I have spoken for years about a transit grid producing a better outcome over the hub and spoke model that we have adopted recently.
I am sorry but free urban transit is never going to be a solution, because your definition will no doubt benefit such a small portion of the population. Free transit means it is an entirely municipal expense and as we are now seeing, when expenses need to be cut, service will be cut. American cities are notorious for offering low fare transit but the outcome is uniformly poor service.
Your guess is wrong. I am an Ottawa native and my family has lived here for generations.
Threaded Mode