Canada’s housing crisis poised to worsen without major reforms, RBC report says. Here's what needs to happen.

[CdnFox]

https://archive.ph/tOGVP

The country needs to complete roughly 320,000 housing units annually from now until 2030, simply to meet the new demand that will arise over that period, according to RBC estimates. This would amount to an increase of nearly 50 per cent from recent completion levels – and it would require a record pace of construction.

If anything, Canada is moving in the wrong direction. There were around 240,000 housing unit starts in 2023, down from roughly 271,000 in 2021, according to figures from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

The RBC report outlines dozens of potential ways to mitigate the housing shortage – everything from speeding up project approvals to encouraging more people to enter the skilled trades. In some cases, governments are already moving to implement the solutions that are mentioned.

However, the RBC report says more action is needed and soon, especially when it comes to bulking up the stock of affordable units through rentals and social housing.

“It is imperative for Canada to find solutions and very quickly, because the pressures are there already,” said RBC assistant chief economist Robert Hogue, who wrote the report. “Time is of the essence.”

[CdnFox]

There ARE things that can be done   The report notes many of them.  The gov't just isn't doing enough  And we're falling further behind

Every person from every political party and persuasion should be getting behind this and pushing the gov't hard. This is going to be a catastrophe for EVERYONE if we get this under control and it takes years to turn that ship. We have to start now.

[QuebecOverCanada]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

However, the RBC report says more action is needed and soon, especially when it comes to bulking up the stock of affordable units through rentals and social housing.

Wow, when I suggested that in another thread, @ExFlyer scolded me, calling me a Communist.

Is RBC a communist organization, @ExFlyer?

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Wow, when I suggested that in another thread, @ExFlyer scolded me, calling me a Communist.

Is RBC a communist organization, @ExFlyer?

Yes, I called you out as communist but, not for just one thing, your diatribes are communistic or at the very least socialist.

When a government offers loans, that is not giving for free as in communist countries.  They are loans and have to be paid back.

The banks are pissed because they are not going to get the business from the developers and builders if the government gives the loans.

Also, RBC suggestions are well known and yet, there is still an issue. RBC is not going into the construction business. What it says will be for ts benefit. How can they make money.

If young folk do not want to go into the trades, are the banks or governments going to force them?

Who is going to force developers and builders to increase construction?

Anyone can say anything but, do any of them actually have a viable solution?? No.

Edited April 8 by ExFlyer

[QuebecOverCanada]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Yes, I called you out as communist but, not for just one thing, your diatribes are communistic or at the very least socialist.

I am pragmatic and don't like too much State influence in the economy, but there is a point where the State has to intervene; we've reached that point with housing.

There needs to be social housing paid for by the federal government for the reasons I mentioned in the other thread. The reasons are that the federal government allowed the (sometimes illegal) entry of millions of people in a very short span, without finding an agreement with the provincial governments, who have to pay for this incredible mess caused by, once again, the feds.

RBC's call for social housing is logical. There can't be business if there is social unrest. The social unrest we will have to endure - the RCMP agrees with me on that according to their latest reports -, will be caused by lack of housing. The free market does not want to build right now because it is not profitable. Then, if the free market is not able to take care of this crucial economic sector, the State has to massively intervene short term until the free market is able to function as intended, because otherwise other parts of the free market will be going down the drain because of the lack of peace.

[QuebecOverCanada]

You don't have a peaceful society when people can't house themselves. You don't have grocery stores if no one is able to buy from them or have to steal for food. You don't have a bank account or apply to a mortgage if you can't find a job or don't have an address.

The State ultimately has to intervene. The alternative is Brazil.

Edited April 8 by QuebecOverCanada

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Wow, when I suggested that in another thread, @ExFlyer scolded me, calling me a Communist.

Is RBC a communist organization, @ExFlyer?

Well, Yes it is, - but that doesn't mean that this particular idea is  

The devil as always is in the details.  One thing that some gov'ts have done is say to developers "Hey - we'll give you goodies that will help you make even more insane levels of profit IF - you also include some rental  (or in some cases 'affordabe') housing which you woudn't normally find profitable enough to bother with.  THat way you're still ahead of the game and the gov't isn't paying for it.

Usually the 'goodies' come in the form of zoning allowing bigger or more buildings so that a parcel of land can be turned into even more cash.

PAYING to build 'affordable' housing is not going to solve anything. A small amount of that is often an arguably good idea but the gov't can't build enough to even put a dent in the over all crisis - and if they tried the free market would build less and we'd be back to where we started just with more debt.

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

 

The State ultimately has to intervene. The alternative is Brazil.

Brazil is largely what happens when the gov't intervenes.

All the gov't has to do is get out of the way. The market can take care of this - the problem is that due to gov't interference it takes way too long to build, it's very very expensive to build, there is NO incentive to build enough to keep up with population growth and nobody is sitting gov't and devleopers down in the same room and saying here's how much we want population to grow and here's how many homes we can build and lets circle that square.

If you need something built nobody anywhere does it faster and better than the market when it's allowed to function. And of course it IS true that there needs to be SOME restrictions and red tape.  But the solutions lay in getting the market excited about building and then getting out of the way while they get the  job done.  Selectively incentivising them with tax and other breaks should be sufficient.

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Usually the 'goodies' come in the form of zoning allowing bigger or more buildings so that a parcel of land can be turned into even more cash.

Yup, it's imperative that the municipal zoning laws in dense urban areas have to be reformed. In Montreal for example, the federal and provincial government paid billions for a transit station (REM) in Pierrefonds.

The homeowners of Pierrefonds (QC), who live in small detached homes, voted by referendum to prevent any dense housing to be built near the station, paid by the taxpayers. That's unacceptable and that's where provincial and federal governments have to slap their dongs on the table and tell Pierrefonds that any funding to build public transit is conditional on allowing dense housing.

[QuebecOverCanada]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Brazil is largely what happens when the gov't intervenes.

Or you have Vienna, which is composed in majority of social housing.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Yup, it's imperative that the municipal zoning laws in dense urban areas have to be reformed. In Montreal for example, the federal and provincial government paid billions for a transit station (REM) in Pierrefonds.

The homeowners of Pierrefonds (QC), who live in small detached homes, voted by referendum to prevent any dense housing to be built near the station, paid by the taxpayers. That's unacceptable and that's where provincial and federal governments have to slap their dongs on the table and tell Pierrefonds that any funding to build public transit is conditional on allowing dense housing.

Yeah  - it's often tough for municipalities alone.  As you say - the locals might very well rebel against denser housing.  On the flipside it's difficult when it comes from higher up the food chain - it's fine for the province to demand denser housing and reasoning but in some cases the plumbing and electrical services in those areas just can't support it. So who's paying for rebuilding that?

But at the end of the day that's how you crack that nut.  AND - we have to move towards provoincial plans, not JUST municiple planning.  We have to have a more clear vision as to how we're going to build towns and infrastructure out to add more and more people affordably without packing them in so tight they turn like rats in a cage.  But mostly we have to create an environment where it's reasonably easy and affordable and desirable for developers to build faster and more.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

You don't have a peaceful society when people can't house themselves. You don't have grocery stores if no one is able to buy from them or have to steal for food. You don't have a bank account or apply to a mortgage if you can't find a job or don't have an address.

The State ultimately has to intervene. The alternative is Brazil.

You are way over dramatic.

The state is already supporting and perhaps if they stop giving cash and start giving certificates redeemable only for food and housing there would be wiser spending.

I am not sure where you get the idea everyone has a right to own a home. they don't  You are owed what yo work for and if you do not earn it, you don't get it.

Our Brazil are our indigenous nations...everything for free and all shit places because no one e worked for anything and takes no responsibility for what they are given because they know they will get more. Is that what you are aiming for?

Look at Russia...look at the social housing there,  all grey and worn out and crappy looking. Free is not the answer.

22 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I am pragmatic and don't like too much State influence in the economy, but there is a point where the State has to intervene; we've reached that point with housing.

There needs to be social housing paid for by the federal government for the reasons I mentioned in the other thread. The reasons are that the federal government allowed the (sometimes illegal) entry of millions of people in a very short span, without finding an agreement with the provincial governments, who have to pay for this incredible mess caused by, once again, the feds.

RBC's call for social housing is logical. There can't be business if there is social unrest. The social unrest we will have to endure - the RCMP agrees with me on that according to their latest reports -, will be caused by lack of housing. The free market does not want to build right now because it is not profitable. Then, if the free market is not able to take care of this crucial economic sector, the State has to massively intervene short term until the free market is able to function as intended, because otherwise other parts of the free market will be going down the drain because of the lack of peace.

You are aware there is already a lot social housing everywhere?  My town has over 15,000 city owned social housing units and is buying another 10K.

Other cities and towns in this country have them too. Social housing and welfare are a provincial and municipal responsibility. The feds have stepped in and offered low interest loans to developers and builders. The banks are critical because that robs them of giving the loans and making money so, what RBC has to say is very self serving.

Your agreement with providing all this for nothing is communist and that is why I called you out. So the "State has to massively intervene short term" and then what??/The state becomes a real estate company and sells the homes and undercuts everyone that worked hard for their homes?? The state dumps thousands of homes on the market and kills everything? You need to look past your noise dude. LOL

 

Edited April 8 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Or you have Vienna, which is composed in majority of social housing.

 

No, you don't. Not in north america.  Britian tried to do that after ww2 and it was a disaster.

The gov't simply isn't up to this challenge. They can't do it. Hell - all that money that the gov't just announced for 8000 new homes in bc for low to mid income rental stuff? That's already been offset by a slowdown in private development. We'll still have fewer homes in 3 years than we do now population growth wise.

IF the day comes when construction has exceeded the growth for long enough to have caught up and now we're building more than we need - that's a time when the gov't can step in and build social housing with some success.  But - we are literally decades away from being anywhere near that - we are currently about 3 million homes short and it's growing every hear by leaps and bounds. SO  we'd need to increase buliding to match our increase in population and THEN build 3 million more on top - that's not happening any time soon.

But we can reverse the trend and start moving in that direction if we free the power of the market to resolve it.

[Moonlight Graham]

If we keep up the population growth rate as it is and don't significantly increase housing supply then obviously the price of housing and rents should keep rising.  Locking young people into expensive mortgages for the rest of their working lives is a disaster for this economy, at least for workers, not the banks and developers and baby boomers selling and moving into retirement homes.

Edited April 8 by Moonlight Graham

[I am Groot]

Reduce foreign students to 100,000 from current 900,000. Focus on those in the most in-demand courses who are likely, on graduation, to want to stay here, and who will earn a salary higher than the national average.

Reduce foreign workers from current 1m to 100k. The majority of that number will be in agriculture.

Together that frees up 1.8 million spaces.

Reduce immigration to 100k from 500k. Ensure anyone who comes in will earn more than the national average.

That reduces demand increases.

Refuse asylum claims from anyone coming from a safe country like the US, UK, France, Spain, etc. Turn back anyone who arrives without papers. That should further reduce demand by about 100k per year.

Problem solved.

Edited April 11 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

On 4/8/2024 at 10:07 AM, CdnFox said:

We have to start now.

We started years and years ago. It took that long just to change the zoning and amend our community plan.

Enough of the the older nimbys finally died off too thankfully.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

We started years and years ago. It took that long just to change the zoning and amend our community plan.

Enough of the the older nimbys finally died off too thankfully.

Yes - we're all happy you managed to finally buy that hotel for park place you've been waiting for but this is the real world

Having said that a permanent solution will take years.  Even if we doubled production of homes today it'd be 2 - 3 years before they started to roll off the line so to speak.

But we can cheat in the meantime. There's already a lot of building in the pipeline, just not enough for our population growth. So if we radically slow our population growth, suddenly there's a bit of a surplus over what was expected.  In a few years the market will correct for that and we'd be back where we started but we can use that time to implement a permanent solution.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Having said that a permanent solution will take years.

Yes I know.  Some of us are years ahead of you if you're just getting around to dealing with zoning and density in your region/municipality now.  We managed to get here via consensus but it looks like it'll need to be forced or enticed in a lot of other places.

Quote

But we can cheat in the meantime. There's already a lot of building in the pipeline, just not enough for our population growth. So if we radically slow our population growth, suddenly there's a bit of a surplus over what was expected.  In a few years the market will correct for that and we'd be back where we started but we can use that time to implement a permanent solution.

Sure, good luck with that and let us know how that works out, especially in Ontario, we saw how cheating worked out there and now Ford is courting the Nimbys. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes I know.  Some of us are years ahead of you

Dude you're not even seconds ahead of anyone   You don't even understand the problem.  You think it can be solved with "density" without realizing the only density issue we're facing is your brain
 

Quote

if you're just getting around to dealing with zoning and density in your region/municipality now. 

Everyone has been addressing that for many decades.   You're so far behind you've been lapped and think you're ahead of people.

Quote

We managed to get here via consensus but it looks like it'll need to be forced or enticed in a lot of other places.

It's not the current problem.

Quote

Sure, good luck with that and let us know how that works out, especially in Ontario, we saw how cheating worked out there and now Ford is courting the Nimbys. 

That wasn't a density issue, that was a 'people think there's a magical green belt' issue.  And yeah - handled badly.

But that's really not the problem. This stuff is so far over your head you can't even see it.

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You think it can be solved with "density"

Zoning is merely the first step and you won't get much if anything solved until you take it.  You seem to think it can be sidestepped because you're either dreaming or because I pointed it out months ago and you've invested too much emotional capital in the issue to admit you still don't have a clue what you're faced with or even talking about.

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Everyone has been addressing that for many decades.   You're so far behind you've been lapped and think you're ahead of people.

Go tell it to Doug.

Quote

That wasn't a density issue, that was a 'people think there's a magical green belt' issue.  And yeah - handled badly.

A handful of people thought/hoped it would be a magical cheat around having to deal with zoning issues in the urban areas adjacent to greenbelt areas. They handled it so badly that it set public trust back even farther.

The land-use planning scandal that has rocked Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government has revealed how the province utilized all manner of regulatory tools to force more housing on cities and towns – removing land from the protected area known as the Greenbelt, expanding urban boundaries and issuing special decrees known as minister’s zoning orders.

But a Globe and Mail analysis has uncovered a fourth, less discussed mechanism: The Ford government imposed two dozen policy changes on the city of Hamilton and the regions of Halton, Peel and York by rewriting their official plans – documents that guide what gets built and where. It altered local planning decisions by, among other things, making lands zoned for commercial use available for housing and foisting greater height limits on residential buildings, documents show.

When compared with the 7,400 hectares of farmland the province unilaterally added to the urban boundaries of the four municipalities, the policy changes seem modest. But regional councils opposed them, largely because of their outsized negative impact on local communities.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ford-government-greenbelt-policies/#:~:text=The land-use,on local communities.

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But that's really not the problem. This stuff is so far over your head you can't even see it.

Sure kid.

Like I've said to our forum's vaccine and climate change experts you should approach the powers that be with your housing issue expertise and prescriptions for progress. Get your name put on schools, cul de sacs and boulevards - heck I bet even Doug Ford will throw his panties in your direction. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Zoning is merely the first step and you won't get much if anything solved until you take it.  You seem to think it can be sidestepped because you're either dreaming or because I pointed it out months ago and you've invested too much emotional capital in the issue to admit you still don't have a clue what you're faced with or even talking about.

Yeah... nobody actually said anything about sidestepping anything at any time     What i said was that 'density' doesn't solve the housing problem. Then when you suggested nobody's been dealing with zoning etc i replied that they have for years.

 

So once again you've said something stupid but rather than address it or move on you're trying to pretend i said something i never did and argue with that  

LOL - you're damn stupid, but you are consistent and i guess that's something

Quote

Go tell it to Doug.

Why? How does doug change what i said about canadian cities addressing the issue you raised for many decades now?

Or were you just trying to distract from your own stupidity again  

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

A handful of people thought/hoped it would be a magical cheat around having to deal with zoning issues in the urban areas adjacent to greenbelt areas.

Uhhh -no.  No that is not remotely accurate at all.. If anything it made for even more complicated and difficult zoning issues. THat's the problem.

People (correctly) thought that it would incentivize developers to build even if it wasn't as profitable to build in bulk right at that moment. So it solves the problem of developers building behind need instead of ahead of it.

It had nothing in the slighest to do with 'bypassing zoning' - it tripled the problems with zoning.

SIgh.   Keep swinging kiddo, one of these days you'll hit the ball instead of striking out, even if it's by chance.

[blackbird]

Some cities in BC are trying to solve the housing crisis by trying to solve the homelessness problem by putting up tents in an orderly fashion in a designated space and running them in an orderly way.  Some places have put up a group of wooden one room sheds with a washroom building, presumably with showers.  That is a better idea than tents.  

But tents and little wooden sheds are not the solution to the housing crisis.  They may work for homeless people who refuse to follow rules in an apartment building.  But it's not a practical solution to the massive shortage of housing for normal people and families.  City councils need to get their act together to make housing affordable by cutting red tape, excessive regulations, cutting fees, and working to make land available for more housing developments at a low cost.  Maybe postpone paved roads and sidewalks until sometime in the future when it is more affordable.  Just provide basic infrastructure like sewer, water, and electricity for now.  The costs have to be reduced somehow.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah... nobody actually said anything about sidestepping anything at any time.

If that's really true then what do you mean by this? 

On 4/8/2024 at 11:03 AM, CdnFox said:

All the gov't has to do is get out of the way. The market can take care of this - the problem is that due to gov't interference it takes way too long to build,

Amongst other things this primarily means zoning regulations It also means things like relaxing or getting rid of building standards, property line setbacks, environmental protection etc etc etc.

You figure there's another little cheat for this?

Its not governments that are the issue here, it's people, voters and taxpayers you need to get out of the way, they are who are interfering and adding years to the process.

And now Doug is saying no to zoning changes.  He's turning years into decades.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If that's really true then what do you mean by this? 

Exactly what it says. But that doesn't have much to do with zoning. Gov'ts take forever to approve applications and make the process extremely expensive and drag it out for years.

Show me where the word "zoning" appears in there?

Quote

Amongst other things this primarily means zoning regulations

Nope.

Quote

It also means things like relaxing or getting rid of building standards, property line setbacks, environmental protection etc etc etc.

Nope.

Quote

You figure there's another little cheat for this?

Yeah. ti's not complicated.

Quote

Its not governments that are the issue here

It's the gov't that's at issue here.

Get out of the way and the market will take care of the problem.

Zoning issues by and large aren't holding up the building of more homes. Excessive bureaucracy, expensive and useless approval processes and failure to plan are the biggest culprit - also things like taxes. If a deveoper builds a home they have to pay tax on the finished product even tho no one is occupying it yet. SO there is a serious disinsentive to build until it's sold, but that means they will always build behind demand. They will never build more homes anticipaing a growing population. We could have gotten around that in the past but now to catch up cities may have to realize they're going to need to change that for a while.

zoning is at the bottom of the problem list

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly what it says. But that doesn't have much to do with zoning. Gov'ts take forever to approve applications and make the process extremely expensive and drag it out for years.

Show me where the word "zoning" appears in there?

Sure. It's the 4th idea in the list of 7 in RBC's housing report.  I guess you didn't read it because you're such a know it all who didn't need to.

It says; Ease zoning restrictions to allow more density in cities and diversify the types of houses built to make more productive use of land.

https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/the-great-rebuild-seven-ways-to-fix-canadas-housing-shortage/

 

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Zoning issues by and large aren't holding up the building of more homes. Excessive bureaucracy, expensive and useless approval processes...

Which exist for the purpose of creating, enforcing, regulating and above all else, changing ...wait for it...zoning bylaws! Many of which are there to ensure changes occur in someone else's backyard.

Edited April 12 by eyeball