It's interesting to perspectives from elsewhere. The Netherlands is also facing a housing crisis, and they're also talking about significant increases in construction. Part of that will be to limit local control.

Interestingly, they're also talking about changing the type of construction: fewer rooms.

There isn't quite enough context to explain why that would help, but it's something I haven't really heard politicians saying here in Canada.

What changes would you make to speed up housing growth here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You are only thinking one step at a time.

A lot of people who would move into these units live in 2 and 3 bedroom units with roommates. That would free those larger units up for couples and families.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Don't take this the wrong way, but that reminds me of the adage of loosening laws to get companies to build condos and houses, even if most development consists of luxury housing units because somehow there is more on the market, ergo more supply. I am not sure how far either calculi hold true.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

A) most development marketed as "luxury" are not actually luxury in any sort of way. It's just a marketing tactic.

B) I wouldn't expect this to be built by for profit developers. The government should be the one building it.

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

B) I wouldn’t expect this to be built by for profit developers. The government should be the one building it.

I think this is a wholly sensible wish. The thing is however that the governments are building nothing in this political climate and would rather wait for people to die off to make room.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

"Luxury" means "market value", i.e., will be rented/sold for maximum profit margin.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why shouldn't families be able to live close to transit?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They should, how does what I suggested prevent that?

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I understood your text as saying that we should flood the areas close to transit with studio apartments. If that's the type of accomodation that's mostly available close to transit that would make it so that families (who tend to need multiple bedroom apartments) would not have enough options close to transit.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

There's a ton of space next to transit, adding even hundreds of these buildings across a city wouldn't limit regular apartments in the same areas at all.

We also don't tend to tear down apartment buildings that already exist very often.