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

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours 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 11 hours 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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 51 seconds ago

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

[–] silverneedle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours 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.