The actual solution was burried at the bottom of the article:
But here we can take another page from the wartime playbook: the massive construction of housing by the government. We don’t need to rely on profit-seeking developers to build our housing. The government could do it, like it did during the period around WWII.
Government-built and -run housing side-steps the profit requirement altogether. With that out of the way, the focus can return to building the kind of housing people need, in the places where they need it.
Rent controls are lazy policy used by negligent governments who have failed to act until a crisis is reached. If the problem is greedy landlords you don’t try to ban being greedy, you force them to compete. If they can’t, you just build until everyone is housed and congratulate yourself for being so efficient.
But that’s not even possible because we have terrible zoning practices in many places and lots of outdated legislation that adds too much cost to projects. Ever wonder why we don’t have any multi unit buildings beyond fourplexes and giant condo complexes? You can thank outdated, ineffective laws related to stairwells for that one.
Of course, the government would basically have to rebuild all the stuff that developers have from scratch, and then that department would be at risk of ossifying the way institutions with no competitors often do.
It’s not a doomed approach, but sometimes it’s made out to be more of a silver bullet than it is. In our current situation, the main obvious bottlenecks are zoning, labour shortages and NIMBYism.
Zoning and burdensome outdated (often copycats from US laws rather than EU) regulations are two of the worst barriers and represents a large reason we have so little innovation.
Good YT video from a Canadian creator on an example of this:
Shoutout to Calgary for abolishing single-family zoning. Housing starts are exploding as a result.
Rents have been going down for a while now. You sure this isn’t a ploy?
Where’s that? Definitely not a nationwide trend.
It’s mostly apartments, but pretty significantly for the last few years
Interesting. Without all the actual data I’d have to hypothesize the big cities finally hit a tipping point, and these drops haven’t hit the smaller towns that the people priced out by the cities have been moving to.
I doubt that rents will fall all that much outside of the big cities. Unfortunately, the cities have also become more of a playground for the wealthy, wealthy people in denial (children of homeowners that will receive assistance to join the property market), and a home for the unhoused and people in precarious living situations.
If you’re not in either ends of the social classes, there isn’t as much of an incentive to remain, since most leisurely activities and meeting areas are crowded, behind an expensive paywall (if not at the gate, then the activities themselves), or they’re outside the city anyways.
What kind of leisurely activities are you thinking of? Cities have the best libraries, art exhibits and niche hobby groups.
Going out for dinner and/or drinks, street festivals/special events that take over part of an area, which are more social activities rather than leisurely.
There has always been some sort of a premium involved, and anything “free” is seriously overcrowded.
I’ve made the move from the big city to a smaller one and it’s been much less stressful, with cheaper rent being very enticing as well.
While there is some degree of car dependency involved, there isn’t a lot of long drives needed to get anywhere, really, with traffic being much lighter than what I’m used to.
It sounds like you really hate crowds. That’s fair, but I’d point out that the other people showing up to form the crowds shows the average person doesn’t quite as much.
Small cites can do transit, in theory. It only gets difficult once you get to small towns, and only impossible at hamlet size. You just need enough people to come close to filling the route.
I lived in a small town. There were annual events for the community and multiple churches. There were also expensive outdoor hobbies like skiing in the winter.
That was literally everything.
Cities have the issue of there being so many things going on it’s hard to chose and quality free and low cost events have a hard time breaking through the noise. But things like this are the exclusive privilege of existing in cities:
I live in a small town. Same. I’m not going to lie, there’s a couple events I look forward to, but it’s still very limited. (And woe be to you if you’re niche in a way that’s more of a lifestyle than a hobby. The gay scene is going to be small and mostly closeted)
TBF if you have aggressively common tastes you wouldn’t miss anything in a small town, and the property prices are lower. If you’re farming or something like that you just get used to driving to the nearest city and town for literally everything, and bear the expense and inconvenience of it. AFAIK if you’re a fur trapper in the bush you’re a fur trapper in the bush and that’s it.
Basically, there’s a reason cities grew up in the first place.
If the government is going to get more involved, they should build more, not force owners to fix their prices in a volatile economy.
Instead, the rent should be managed by the markets, which will be beneficial to all renters if government built supply can beat the demand. We shouldn’t stop building until we reach such a point.
We also need policies for how many homes you can own, building more won’t help if they all turn into airBNB. Thankful BC halted airBNB unless it was also your primary home, we did see a flood of units back onto the market as “Investors” had to sell
Hmm, I wonder how much tourism slowed down as a result. If the airBNBs were full those people must just be staying home now.
They just stay at a hotel. Hotels had vacancies and some took on housing contracts for the unhoused. But we would have less unhoused if rent wasn’t more than wages
Do you have a source on that? In the beginning, airBNB was a new thing and was cheap as a result, but at this point it costs about as much as a hotel, and often requires busywork. That makes sense, a facility built for short-term stays should be more efficient.
The only way that could possibly add up is if the growth of airBNBs has vastly outstripped the growth of demand in BC, and nearly every person was going with airBNBs given a choice between the two.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/short-term-rentals-back-long-term
People choose an airbnb because of convenience of laundry and food prep, but also you can sleep 6 in ê bedroom home for way less than hotel rate of 3 rooms. But with that option restricted, tourists still tour.
Oh, it’s just 10%. Well that makes sense in either case, then. The other airBNBs could probably absorb that on their own.
but also you can sleep 6 in ê bedroom home for way less than hotel rate of 3 rooms.
At the expense of privacy, and at a greater cost to the owners than 3 hotel rooms would be. Which is probably why it’s just 10%.
Was 10% at that time, some kept operating, but BC has put together a plan to go after those still operating, so we will see more flood the market. And for 6 I meant when you have group travel and expect to hangout together. You can rent 6-8 capacity at 500 a day instead of hotel at 250-300 a day x 3 rooms.
One airBNB whiner had 50 rental properties.
I’ve heard that one of the reasons airBNB was successful wasn’t due to costs (outside of the initial burst) but because the sheer lack of hotels in many major cities. I do know that there is almost no hotels in downtown Toronto despite the sheer number of convention centres and tourist attractions. No way a tourist or business person is going to book a hotel on the edge of the city when everything they’re doing is in the downtown area.
This is another area that the NIMBYs have been screwing over people and certain groups have been discreetly taking advantage of people.
Either way, both problems would be solved quite easily if supply was simply greater. Hotels shouldn’t be blocked from being built where they’re needed the most, nor should any group have the power to block housing development unless if it’s actually unsafe to do so for some reason. This is why it’s actually cheaper to buy a house in downtown Tokyo than it is within 100km of Toronto. And I’m talking about a detached house in Tokyo, not a condo.
TBF just getting the right to live in Japan is the hard part there, haha.
I’ve been out of country for 6 months, has it gotten worse out there?
No, I think they’re actually starting to go down.
LEETSS FUCKKKIIINNGG GOOOOOO!!!
That’s a good way to make sure no more get built.
