Housing policy megathread

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure increasing density in dense places is what cause the problem though. It just reflects where people want to live. I think the problem is that certainly in the UK (and I think other English speaking countries too as there seems to be a particular issue there) we constrained increasing density for a long time.

[Josquius]

Sure. You might need to build another centre someplace. Cities cannot be infinitely large.

Its not so easy as that though. If it was then why bother expanding your city outwards and not just go to a new city- why is it everyone wants to live in NYC whilst Buffalo is in decline?
The cities need more housing because more people are attracted to the jobs there- and in most cities these do tend to overwhelmingly cluster around the centre.
Even in cities with multiple centres these are often fairly clustered with the more peripheral ones being very much secondary (e.g. Tokyo).

I would certainly agree with the cities can't be infinitely large and part of solving the housing crisis in major cities is trying to spread the economy out a bit more. But there's also plenty the cities themselves can be doing to create housing that is viable for tapping into their central economies- denser housing and better transit.

[HVC]

Toronto already one of the worst traffic in the world. I can only imagine what more sprawl, where possible, would do to that

[Barrister]

Valmy, It's not the solution I am proposing.  It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.

Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand.  There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.

Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices.  It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.

You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.

I've lived in both cities.  They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined.  Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.

[crazy canuck]

Valmy, It's not the solution I am proposing.  It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.

Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand.  There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.

Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices.  It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.

You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.

I've lived in both cities.  They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined.  Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.

Yeah, but as pointed out, even by you, plenty of room does not equal ability to build in an economical way.  Winnipeg is a great example of that.  Think about the geotechnical difficulties presented there.

[Barrister]

Valmy, It's not the solution I am proposing.  It's the solution that all of the housing experts in Canada are proposing. The solution that every politician in Canada is proposing whether left or right.

Why is everyone proposing increased density as the solution? Because they all understand what you seem to not be able to understand.  There is nowhere else for the big cities to build out.

Also, you haven't been paying attention to what has caused the increased housing prices.  It is that there is a lack of supply not that there is too much density.

You listed Calgary and Winnipeg as being in the top 8 dense cities.

I've lived in both cities.  They have plenty of room to which they could sprawl if they were so inclined.  Not saying that would be a great idea, but they are not constrained by geography in the way Vancouver is.

Yeah, but as pointed out, even by you, plenty of room does not equal ability to build in an economical way.  Winnipeg is a great example of that.  Think about the geotechnical difficulties presented there.

I assume you're talking about flooding.

So here's an image of the 1997 flood:



You will note there's a lot of room to sprawl without worrying about flooding.

And otherwise it's comparatively easy to build - it's a floodplain as you know.  The bottom of glacial lake agassiz.  As such it's incredibly flat with virtually zero obstacles.

So I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that.  But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.

[crazy canuck]

No, not just about the flooding.  I am thinking about the soil conditions.  It has been a number of years since I dealt with a construction case involving that area, but as I recall it, there is a lot of risk involved with the geotechnical conditions.  ie.  lots of potential and unknown risk about how much it will cost to get down to native firm silt, precisely because, as you say, it is the bottom of a glacial lake.

Great for farming.  Less great for building on.

Edit: the geotechnical risks I am a lot more familiar with are out in the Fraser Valley east of Vancouver.  that is also great farmland but less great for building on because of similar geotechnical risks.  The valley floor is basically a large deposit of silt from the end of the last ice age.

[PDH]

The valley floor is basically a large deposit of silt from the end of the last ice age.

Here in California we build cliffside homes on that shit.  And they fall off into the ocean, but we still do it.

[Razgovory]

It seems suspicious that all major Canadian cities are surrounded by unbuildable land.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America.  Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth.  Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask.  Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable.  So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not. 

What Wiki page or pages are your source for that?  I looked up Winnipeg because of the discussion just above this and its density is listed as 1,430/km², which doesn't make the list of densest US cities, which is 140-long (8 major).

[Solmyr]

Rent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.

And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.

The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.

Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.

Finland is not a good example of the housing market. If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.

I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.

Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.

[The Brain]

Rent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.

And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.

The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.

Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.

Finland is not a good example of the housing market. If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.

I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.

Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.

I don't see crazy prices, but regardless that situation is infinitely better than rental contracts being simply unavailable.

In Stockholm organizations have problems recruiting people because there's no place for them to live. Buying a place isn't an option for many, and even if you have the money lying around taking that kind of risk when you don't know how long you're gonna stay is often unattractive. This is harmful to society and everyone in it.

[crazy canuck]

Wiki tells me that Canada's cities are among the most densely populated in North America.  Toronto is number 1, Greater Vancouver is fourth.  Montreal, Calgary and Winnipeg are in the top 8. Why is that you might ask.  Canada has vast areas of space that are not reasonably habitable.  So while we have plenty of space we need to pack into the areas that are more habitable than not. 

What Wiki page or pages are your source for that?  I looked up Winnipeg because of the discussion just above this and its density is listed as 1,430/km², which doesn't make the list of densest US cities, which is 140-long (8 major).

https://www.newgeography.com/content/007367-toronto-solidifies-highest-density-ranking-north-america#:~:text=After%20Toronto%20and%20Los%20Angeles,)%20and%20Calgary%20(2%2C100).

One of our sources is very wrong. It could be mine.  But Winnipeg is clustered pretty tightly around the River.

[Norgy]

So I'm taking you at your word that Winnipeg is one of the 8th densest cities, because I wouldn't have expected that.  But whatever is causing Winnipeg (and Calgary's) density, it isn't geography.

A question, how do Canadian regulatory authorities see housing developments on arable land?
Is it allowed? Disencouraged?

[Josquius]

Rent control is horrible. If you need a place to live in Stockholm you have to buy it or wait decades in line to rent.

And if there was no rent control then things would be great for high earners moving into the city. They'd have little trouble just slapping down their crowns and getting a place.
But for the regular working class locals whose landlord sees all this foreign money on the table and the opportunity to quadruple rents?.... Yeah. They're out on the street.

The enormously inefficient housing market that rent control causes costs society a lot. Your idea that the haves (in this case those who sit on artifically advantageous rent contracts) are much more important to protect than the have nots (those who don't have enough money to buy and don't have decades of queue time) seems unattractive to me.

Finland is an example of a comparative country that reformed the housing market, and the positive effects this brought.

Finland is not a good example of the housing market. If you are okay with living out in the countryside, you can, but prepare to have no job and nothing interesting to do. If you want to live in one of the few bigger cities... good luck.

I have read that rental apartments are available in Helsinki "off the shelf". https://www.vuokraovi.com/?locale=en seems to support this, but I might not understand it correctly.

Sure, you can rent from private landlords, if you want to pay crazy prices for tiny single-room apartments.

I don't see crazy prices, but regardless that situation is infinitely better than rental contracts being simply unavailable.

In Stockholm organizations have problems recruiting people because there's no place for them to live. Buying a place isn't an option for many, and even if you have the money lying around taking that kind of risk when you don't know how long you're gonna stay is often unattractive. This is harmful to society and everyone in it.

Stockholm has a  bad housing situation. This is known.
Blaming this on rent control however seems a massive reach as much as folk of a certain ideology are keen to always do so.
Surely far more of a reason is the plummeting home building numbers and increased demand for some parts of Sweden like Stockholm whilst others have declined,

From what I gather the controlled system was in place decades and things worked fine as the government actually built housing.
It's alongside the move to a more free market system from the 90s on that things have become a mess. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but the relationship seems to be the opposite of what you imply.