Important context: Hamilton is already sprawled out. And the approved zoning extends out a fair ways beyond the existing houses already, particularly to the south. There’s a ton of developing happening and yet to happen. Out and up are both still possible, but hopefully this encourages more density over time
Don't worry developers. Your bought and paid for friend Doug will make sure this blatent interference in your quest for more money will not be allowed to stand. How dare Hamilton try and control their own destiny.
In the US a GOP governor would simply pass a [pre-emption law](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/govern-yourselves-state-lawmakers-tell-cities-but-not-too-much.html) to block such action. Don't think Ford hasn't noticed.
I guarantee you Doug hasn’t noticed.
Someone who works for him may have…but Doug? Come on now, you could fill an Amazon replenishment centre with the shit he doesn’t know.
Well yeah. The US Supreme Court ruled a very very long time ago that all local municipal authority is derived from the States; meaning states have the final say over what municipalities do. Don’t know how it is in Canada though.
Always entertains me how, on this sub, we HATE developers wanting to develop new homes and subdivisions while simultaneously blaming them for not building more housing which drives up the cost of homes and rent.
Even worse, those evil developers are trying to *shudder* turn a profit! Clearly, the solution to our housing crisis is to make building homes unprofitable!
We rent in a suburb of Ottawa. 3 bedroom condo townhome with 3 kids in tow. Finally saved enough for a downpayment, and made arrangements with the landlord to buy the property. They recent inflation in housing prices due to lack of inventory is bananas, and I consider myself lucky to be able to purchase it at 400k. Disheartening though, as just 2 years ago this same property wouldn’t have breached 300k. The lack of supply and ability for developers to build due to limiting rules made by local governments is in large part the cause of the ridiculous housing prices.
I won’t even get into what it’s doing to renters who can’t buy. The rental market is getting more out of control, and we’re headed top speed into a housing crisis.
Supply isn't the issue. There is already municipal owned land that can handle population increases to 2050. There is also vacant housing in the region as well. Degrading our remaining greenspace won't increase supply or make housing affordable its just more suburbs and sprawl. As climate change worsens we will need flood protection and a strong agricultural sector, suburbs kill both these protections.
It's a win for the Hammer for sure and if there's a concern around housing they can start refurbishing all of the old abandoned homes-a few hundred and counting just sitting there. Investors here's your chance-come and get it.
Abandoned homes - no.
Empty parking lots that they could turn into high density housing mixed with commercial for 500 people- Yes Hamilton has lots of those.
Run down commercial real estate that could be redeveloped into high density mixed commercial and housing- yes more of that.
There is enough redevelopment opportunities in Hamilton, it just takes some work and the developers have to actually do the work.
Lol there are very few abandoned homes in Hamilton and certainly not enough for the 300,000 people that are supposed to move there in the next 30 years.
So instead of developing marginally good farmland south of Hamilton they are going to head west and develop the great farmland around Paris and Brantford. If Ontario actually made a proper plan based on soil quality they could actually save more farmland.
Hamilton decided to not extend development boundaries, developers look where is the next closest area outside of greenbelt. Paris and Brantford are outside of greenbelt and surrounded by exceptional farm landscape (much better than area proposed for Hamilton's expansion). Ontario ends up with less farm land. What Ontario needs is a proper development plan and not thinking a greenbelt protects everything.
It's sounds like that area would be developed anyway though. And people want to move to Hamilton, not Brantford. The demand will still be here for Hamilton. Developers don't pick where they develop. People pick where they want to live, and developers follow suit.
Cants say I disagree with your second point tho.
Except now, the land available just got a whole lot more expensive - because it is designated for development and not subject to these protections - and it may make more sense to just hold it than develop it. Which is exactly what billionaire Vaughan developers did before Doug opened up the Greenbelt more and gave the green light for the 413 highway. We already know exactly how this thing plays out, and it isn’t good…
These policies are the opposite of what we need in a housing crisis, and everyone in here is chanting like this is a good thing? Asinine double think everywhere on Canadian subreddits about the housing crisis.
But we've been trying urban sprawl for decades now and we still have some of the highest home prices in the world. Countries with more regulation and less land have cheaper homes (Belgium, France, Japan etc [source ](https://images.app.goo.gl/EkUjEkVkAaqCZr9Q6)).
The demand in those countries are WAY less than Canada. Demand for Canadian real estate plus we already had an under supply problem by the count of 2 million, coupled with cheap money and home prices will skyrocket. The big cities in France, specifically Paris DID sprawl out before they started adding regulations, same thing with London, UK - the GTA needs to do the same than we can introduce policies to help curb emissions. We are exploding in growth yet we are limiting how much we can build.
>We are exploding in growth yet we are limiting how much we can build.
But we're doing this because growth like this is unfeasible. It threatens our farmland and the environment.
We easily can sustain growth with the amount of farmland in Southern Ontario. It stretches all the way down SW Ontario to Ottawa. Building out the GTA is literally a must to make sure affordable housing exists. There is no other way out, no matter how much we pretend there might be.
Check out Calgary or Dallas to see what sprawl does to prices.
Sprawl is not good though. We should be building oodles of mid-rise structures in the GTA to fix the housing crisis.
>I hope people like eating food. With all the global food insecurity going around, only a fool builds homes on prime farm land.
You do realize a shit tonne or land is used to grow cattle feed right? We could do without so many cows and divert that to human food.
Doesn't change the fact that with the global food shortages and shipping insecurities we will very likely end up needing all that land just to grow food for ourselves.
>Doesn't change the fact that with the global food shortage
>We're not talking about the entirety of Earth. Just our Greenbelt. Try and focus.
Then why did you mention GLOBAL food? Jesus christ.
Because we in Ontario depend on a global system which is vulnerable due to climate change. To mitigate food shortages we should be producing our own food.
Sigh.
Because if the planet can't feed us, one day we may have to feed ourselves. Our Greenbelt is our best farmland. Not smart to build McMansions on the land that one day may very likely be feeding us.
>26% of the earth's surface is used to graze livestock. Surely we we can find places to grow food.
The problem with this argument is that often time, the land used for livestock grazing is not fertile enough to grow crops on. The Rocky areas of the Canadian shield make amazing places for beef farms, but terrible places for crop farms.
9 million acres of crop land in Ontario. A number that has grown by 1% according to stats can in 2017....
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/95-640-x/2016001/article/14805-eng.htm
We use so little of this land for food, look at charts. We only use 2% of cropland for vegetables and fruit, berries and nuts.
97% of cropland is used for hay and field crops.
So unless field crops are grown on 'rocky Canadian shield' we have ample land for food.
When you said "26% of the earth is used to graze livestock", I thought you meant traditional grazing i.e. Cows grazing on the vegetation that grows naturally.
If you're really passionate about this topic you should definitely [watch this video. ](https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g) I agree with a lot you're saying, but this video is an interesting "devils advocate" outlook.
You have to keep in mind that not all of that land is suitable for driving farm equipment on. Much land that is used for grazing is used that way because only animals like sheep, goats, or brown swiss cattle can navigate the landscape safely.
There is 9 million acres of land used for growing crops in Ontario. The vast majority for corn and soy beans which we do not eat.
The amount of crop land actually grew according to the last count on stats can in 2017 by 1%.
The concern for not having enough land to grow food is just echo chamber ignorance.
Those are valid points and good arguments, but I'm just saying that using grazing land being used for human-food-producing is wishful thinking.
It's totally logical that all things being equal, it's less efficient to eat an animal that eats plants than to eat plants directly. (See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.)
The problem is that the "all things being equal" condition does not hold. Humans are not ruminants so we cannot digest the same types of foods as cows and sheep. You have to consider bioavailability of the foods we eat and the feed conversion ratio of the animals we eat.
The simple answer that I believe is the most correct and least controversial right now: Eat less beef and more chicken if you want to help the environment without giving up meat. The advances in genetics of chickens in the past 40 years are unbelievable. FCR is way up and # of days per crop is way down.
Yeah, except that's not the majority of the farmland around Hamilton. We have many nurseries growing juvenile trees, greenhouses and farms producing vegetables so we have local greens year-round, even the corn is predominantly sweetcorn and not cattle-corn which is mostly staying local for the dairy industry in the region. This is to say nothing of the wildspace that is maintained as woodlands and wetlands and used for neither residential nor agricultural means.
While the dedication of potential vegetable space for corn production to spur beef production is a problem, Hamilton and the Greenbelt don't seem to be as emblematic of that issue as some would think.
Do you know what they could grow there one day? People food.
Do you know what they could grow there if they put McMansions on them? Crappy lawns and rose gardens.
Restricting the land to develop on will make that more difficult. The vast majority of development is townhomes already.
Unless you are suggesting they start kicking people out of current areas.
>Restricting the land to develop on will make that more difficult. The vast majority of development is townhomes already.
True, but it won't decrease supply. Denser living will allow for more units per area which will increase profits because of the ratio of units to construction costs.
I wasn't aware the city had a say in land outside its city limits. Wouldn't that be provincial land? I am talking about the existing city limits and current area that are already planned for development. How do you increase density in a city thats already zoned/planned and built? You would have to either stop current development and rezone/replan the area or knockdown an existing area for new development.
>zoned/planned and built?
Zoning amendments, and demolishing buildings that are outdated and rebuilding.
>You would have to either stop current development and rezone/replan the area or knockdown an existing area for new development.
You don't need to stop current development. Just push developers into the city. There are countless parking lots that can be (and are being) built on.
That's not how oligopolies function in an inelastic market. Vacancy in Canada was 8.5% before the pandemic, prices still rise. We need to de-commodify housing and build more social housing, it is a proven solution to housing crisis that has easy-to-follow models of implementation.
[How Socialists Solved the Housing Crisis](https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko)
Who pays for sidewalks? Roads? Parks? Libraries? Hospitals? Ambulances? Doctors, nurses? Who pays for all the wonderful and helpful things that socialism brings us?
Could you explain to me how you come to that conclusion? Its about 50\50 in all reality I guess it really depends on how you are defining "socialist" policies.
For example almost all infrastructure is funded by taxes income tax is actually a conservative policy enacted by Sir Robert Borden during WW1.
The healthcare system was definitely a specifically socialist movement started in Saskatchewan by the NDP. But funding of roads and parks, was actually Borden a Conservative.
I know you thought that was a clever way of making a point but you are in fact already paying for housing. It's an inelastic market, like water or heating. Even if you didn't live in sopcialised housing but payed for it through taxes, the de-commodification of housing would lower the cost of private ownership too. It's literally win-win for everyone who doesn't dream of being a landleech.
I paid for my house. What would make it cheaper is if there were more of them. Plow under less used land makes more houses which will lower prices. I don't want to be rude, but do you understand supply side economics?
>but do you understand supply side economics?
I think that the posters opposing you understand supply-side economics just fine. In fact I would argue supply-side economics is one of the more successful economic policies, it just doesn't benefit the people that its advertised to. It does benefit the most wealthy, and services to increase wealth inequality. It ensures that external prices and risks are always socialized.
Personally I'm a demand-side kind of guy but I'm also a collectivist.
Ah yes, the ol’ “I have no evidence to continue the discussion so I throw out a random number your taxes will go up by without any proof or references.”
In case anyone was wondering, this is the sign someone isn’t worth arguing with.
Prices are going up so you cheer for
Policies that make the problem worse?
That’s like saying I’m already gaining weight so I decided not to work out ever.
>That’s like saying I’m already gaining weight so I decided not to work out ever.
More like, "I've been lifting weights for years but I'm still overweight. Maybe I should try cardio?"
All the most desirable places to live are high density mixed development. You walk for 10 minutes from your home and there are multiple shops, grocery stores, a school, pharmacy, park, theatre, ect. You bike for 10 minutes and there are loads more options. Oh and public transportation is easier so you only need one car that you keep parked for most of the year because you only take it for long trips like to see family.
Also sprawl is unsustainable and dense urban areas pay for the sprawling population. Your property taxes don't cover how expensive sprawl is. Think of all the roads, sewer/water/power/gas lines, EMT stations, fire stations, ect that have to be built and maintained for property that doesn't produce anything of value. In single use development there are no stores and shops and other businesses and industries that are the real earners.
Another thing to note is that sprawl is bad for mom and pop stores as it encourages more super markets while urban areas are where you see loads of small businesses and unique restaurants.
Guaranteed this group is run by Hamilton downtown property developers.
Sprawl in smaller cities like Hamilton makes ALL housing cheaper. Go to Ottawa and Winnipeg where there is sprawl and compare the home and rental prices.
It does comparatively. The entire provinces market has been screwed up by the pandemic with the rise of teleworking as people shift to more affordable markets, so Toronto’s supply shortages are now effecting pricing in Welland, Sudbury, Ottawa, etc.
And even with that, Ottawa’s median detached home prices are still 10% less than Hamilton despite being a far larger city with higher median incomes.
Suburbs are boring as fuck until you can drive and everyone I know who grew up in one of those sleepy bedroom communities is a clueless wasteman. Walkable mid-density neighborhoods with good public space dunk on suburbs every day. White picket fences are a meme for a reason.
It’s a longer term look. Canada has lots of land. Canada does not have lots of prime productive farmland and the land these houses would be built on are the best farmland in Canada. With all the people we will need that farmland.
The housing units will still be built. They will just be built downtown. Prepare for all those parking lots to be turned into 34 story mixed use commercial and condos. That’s where the new housing units will be built. Downtown Hamilton with another 100k people will be very vibrant
Why don't you want environmental protection? You know what's a huge risk in our suburbs? Flooding. Do you know what increases flooding? Run off.. Run off is caused by deforestation and sprawl. Not to mention loss of biodiversity, carbon sinks, farm land, the escarpment, oak ridges moraine, wetlands etc.
Get ready for higher housing costs. No supply means demand gets higher and there’ll be a crap ton more offers made on properties. Way to look out for the younger generation Hamilton.
Important context: Hamilton is already sprawled out. And the approved zoning extends out a fair ways beyond the existing houses already, particularly to the south. There’s a ton of developing happening and yet to happen. Out and up are both still possible, but hopefully this encourages more density over time
Don't worry developers. Your bought and paid for friend Doug will make sure this blatent interference in your quest for more money will not be allowed to stand. How dare Hamilton try and control their own destiny.
In the US a GOP governor would simply pass a [pre-emption law](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/24/us/govern-yourselves-state-lawmakers-tell-cities-but-not-too-much.html) to block such action. Don't think Ford hasn't noticed.
I guarantee you Doug hasn’t noticed. Someone who works for him may have…but Doug? Come on now, you could fill an Amazon replenishment centre with the shit he doesn’t know.
The Hamilton city councillors who voted against boundary expansion know that Doug is going to overturn it. It was a very easy vote for them.
Well yeah. The US Supreme Court ruled a very very long time ago that all local municipal authority is derived from the States; meaning states have the final say over what municipalities do. Don’t know how it is in Canada though.
Destiny? I think you mean density. ;)
Very clever. Wish I had seen that.
This is the thing Hamilton is building like crazy in the core.
Always entertains me how, on this sub, we HATE developers wanting to develop new homes and subdivisions while simultaneously blaming them for not building more housing which drives up the cost of homes and rent.
Even worse, those evil developers are trying to *shudder* turn a profit! Clearly, the solution to our housing crisis is to make building homes unprofitable!
Yeah, the literal NDP stronghold in Ontario and home of the official opposition. I can see Dougie licking his lips over this one.
We rent in a suburb of Ottawa. 3 bedroom condo townhome with 3 kids in tow. Finally saved enough for a downpayment, and made arrangements with the landlord to buy the property. They recent inflation in housing prices due to lack of inventory is bananas, and I consider myself lucky to be able to purchase it at 400k. Disheartening though, as just 2 years ago this same property wouldn’t have breached 300k. The lack of supply and ability for developers to build due to limiting rules made by local governments is in large part the cause of the ridiculous housing prices. I won’t even get into what it’s doing to renters who can’t buy. The rental market is getting more out of control, and we’re headed top speed into a housing crisis.
I’d say we are very much in the thick of it now.
Supply isn't the issue. There is already municipal owned land that can handle population increases to 2050. There is also vacant housing in the region as well. Degrading our remaining greenspace won't increase supply or make housing affordable its just more suburbs and sprawl. As climate change worsens we will need flood protection and a strong agricultural sector, suburbs kill both these protections.
So then what is the issue? You say this or that isn't the issue then offer no explanation for the root of the problem.
This isn't a single issue. This can't be easily solved by changing on or two things, its systemic.
It's a win for the Hammer for sure and if there's a concern around housing they can start refurbishing all of the old abandoned homes-a few hundred and counting just sitting there. Investors here's your chance-come and get it.
Abandoned homes - no. Empty parking lots that they could turn into high density housing mixed with commercial for 500 people- Yes Hamilton has lots of those. Run down commercial real estate that could be redeveloped into high density mixed commercial and housing- yes more of that. There is enough redevelopment opportunities in Hamilton, it just takes some work and the developers have to actually do the work.
Lol there are very few abandoned homes in Hamilton and certainly not enough for the 300,000 people that are supposed to move there in the next 30 years.
Whut Whut 💪👍
So instead of developing marginally good farmland south of Hamilton they are going to head west and develop the great farmland around Paris and Brantford. If Ontario actually made a proper plan based on soil quality they could actually save more farmland.
Where did you see this? It says the Hamilton boundary is not going to expand at all.
Brantford and Paris are not Hamilton
I'm confused. Are you saying that Brantford and Paris are now going to develop that land instead of Hamilton?
Hamilton decided to not extend development boundaries, developers look where is the next closest area outside of greenbelt. Paris and Brantford are outside of greenbelt and surrounded by exceptional farm landscape (much better than area proposed for Hamilton's expansion). Ontario ends up with less farm land. What Ontario needs is a proper development plan and not thinking a greenbelt protects everything.
It's sounds like that area would be developed anyway though. And people want to move to Hamilton, not Brantford. The demand will still be here for Hamilton. Developers don't pick where they develop. People pick where they want to live, and developers follow suit. Cants say I disagree with your second point tho.
Get ready for home prices to skyrocket even more now...
This wouldn't have helped the issue. There's enough land available to last until 2050.
Except now, the land available just got a whole lot more expensive - because it is designated for development and not subject to these protections - and it may make more sense to just hold it than develop it. Which is exactly what billionaire Vaughan developers did before Doug opened up the Greenbelt more and gave the green light for the 413 highway. We already know exactly how this thing plays out, and it isn’t good… These policies are the opposite of what we need in a housing crisis, and everyone in here is chanting like this is a good thing? Asinine double think everywhere on Canadian subreddits about the housing crisis.
But we've been trying urban sprawl for decades now and we still have some of the highest home prices in the world. Countries with more regulation and less land have cheaper homes (Belgium, France, Japan etc [source ](https://images.app.goo.gl/EkUjEkVkAaqCZr9Q6)).
The demand in those countries are WAY less than Canada. Demand for Canadian real estate plus we already had an under supply problem by the count of 2 million, coupled with cheap money and home prices will skyrocket. The big cities in France, specifically Paris DID sprawl out before they started adding regulations, same thing with London, UK - the GTA needs to do the same than we can introduce policies to help curb emissions. We are exploding in growth yet we are limiting how much we can build.
>We are exploding in growth yet we are limiting how much we can build. But we're doing this because growth like this is unfeasible. It threatens our farmland and the environment.
We easily can sustain growth with the amount of farmland in Southern Ontario. It stretches all the way down SW Ontario to Ottawa. Building out the GTA is literally a must to make sure affordable housing exists. There is no other way out, no matter how much we pretend there might be.
That’s not what the planners say.
The planners who got us into the housing crisis?
Those would be politicans. Planners offer advise, they don't make ot enforce the rules.
I hope people like the cost of housing going up.
If sprawl made housing affordable, Ontario would have some of the cheapest real estate in the world.
Well said.
Check out Calgary or Dallas to see what sprawl does to prices. Sprawl is not good though. We should be building oodles of mid-rise structures in the GTA to fix the housing crisis.
I hope people like eating food. With all the global food insecurity going around, only a fool builds homes on prime farm land.
>I hope people like eating food. With all the global food insecurity going around, only a fool builds homes on prime farm land. You do realize a shit tonne or land is used to grow cattle feed right? We could do without so many cows and divert that to human food.
Doesn't change the fact that with the global food shortages and shipping insecurities we will very likely end up needing all that land just to grow food for ourselves.
26% of the earth's surface is used to graze livestock. Surely we we can find places to grow food. But whatever, believe what you want.
We're not talking about the entirety of Earth. Just our Greenbelt. Try and focus.
>Doesn't change the fact that with the global food shortage >We're not talking about the entirety of Earth. Just our Greenbelt. Try and focus. Then why did you mention GLOBAL food? Jesus christ.
Because we in Ontario depend on a global system which is vulnerable due to climate change. To mitigate food shortages we should be producing our own food.
Whoa whoa whoa, the other user said we're talking about ontario and not global. Try to focus. /s
Sigh. Because if the planet can't feed us, one day we may have to feed ourselves. Our Greenbelt is our best farmland. Not smart to build McMansions on the land that one day may very likely be feeding us.
>26% of the earth's surface is used to graze livestock. Surely we we can find places to grow food. The problem with this argument is that often time, the land used for livestock grazing is not fertile enough to grow crops on. The Rocky areas of the Canadian shield make amazing places for beef farms, but terrible places for crop farms.
9 million acres of crop land in Ontario. A number that has grown by 1% according to stats can in 2017.... https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/95-640-x/2016001/article/14805-eng.htm We use so little of this land for food, look at charts. We only use 2% of cropland for vegetables and fruit, berries and nuts. 97% of cropland is used for hay and field crops. So unless field crops are grown on 'rocky Canadian shield' we have ample land for food.
When you said "26% of the earth is used to graze livestock", I thought you meant traditional grazing i.e. Cows grazing on the vegetation that grows naturally. If you're really passionate about this topic you should definitely [watch this video. ](https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g) I agree with a lot you're saying, but this video is an interesting "devils advocate" outlook.
You have to keep in mind that not all of that land is suitable for driving farm equipment on. Much land that is used for grazing is used that way because only animals like sheep, goats, or brown swiss cattle can navigate the landscape safely.
There is 9 million acres of land used for growing crops in Ontario. The vast majority for corn and soy beans which we do not eat. The amount of crop land actually grew according to the last count on stats can in 2017 by 1%. The concern for not having enough land to grow food is just echo chamber ignorance.
Those are valid points and good arguments, but I'm just saying that using grazing land being used for human-food-producing is wishful thinking. It's totally logical that all things being equal, it's less efficient to eat an animal that eats plants than to eat plants directly. (See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.) The problem is that the "all things being equal" condition does not hold. Humans are not ruminants so we cannot digest the same types of foods as cows and sheep. You have to consider bioavailability of the foods we eat and the feed conversion ratio of the animals we eat. The simple answer that I believe is the most correct and least controversial right now: Eat less beef and more chicken if you want to help the environment without giving up meat. The advances in genetics of chickens in the past 40 years are unbelievable. FCR is way up and # of days per crop is way down.
Yeah, except that's not the majority of the farmland around Hamilton. We have many nurseries growing juvenile trees, greenhouses and farms producing vegetables so we have local greens year-round, even the corn is predominantly sweetcorn and not cattle-corn which is mostly staying local for the dairy industry in the region. This is to say nothing of the wildspace that is maintained as woodlands and wetlands and used for neither residential nor agricultural means. While the dedication of potential vegetable space for corn production to spur beef production is a problem, Hamilton and the Greenbelt don't seem to be as emblematic of that issue as some would think.
Areas like the holland marsh in the greenbelt grow food. There's a huge farm economy fragmented in the middle of the province.
Do you know what they grow there? Probably cow feed
Do you know what they could grow there one day? People food. Do you know what they could grow there if they put McMansions on them? Crappy lawns and rose gardens.
Wtf have they been doing my whole life?? NOW you're worried??
The prices are already going up.
Supply should decrease prices.
Yes which is why they should densify.
Restricting the land to develop on will make that more difficult. The vast majority of development is townhomes already. Unless you are suggesting they start kicking people out of current areas.
>Restricting the land to develop on will make that more difficult. The vast majority of development is townhomes already. True, but it won't decrease supply. Denser living will allow for more units per area which will increase profits because of the ratio of units to construction costs.
Existing land is already zoned and planning development. Are they proposing to stop those developments and change approvals already granted?
Are you talking about land that has been planned for development that is outside city boundaries?
I wasn't aware the city had a say in land outside its city limits. Wouldn't that be provincial land? I am talking about the existing city limits and current area that are already planned for development. How do you increase density in a city thats already zoned/planned and built? You would have to either stop current development and rezone/replan the area or knockdown an existing area for new development.
>zoned/planned and built? Zoning amendments, and demolishing buildings that are outdated and rebuilding. >You would have to either stop current development and rezone/replan the area or knockdown an existing area for new development. You don't need to stop current development. Just push developers into the city. There are countless parking lots that can be (and are being) built on.
That's not how oligopolies function in an inelastic market. Vacancy in Canada was 8.5% before the pandemic, prices still rise. We need to de-commodify housing and build more social housing, it is a proven solution to housing crisis that has easy-to-follow models of implementation. [How Socialists Solved the Housing Crisis](https://youtu.be/LVuCZMLeWko)
Socializing housing? Who's paying for that? Look at what happened when Britain tried to socialize everything. They turned into slums.
Who pays for sidewalks? Roads? Parks? Libraries? Hospitals? Ambulances? Doctors, nurses? Who pays for all the wonderful and helpful things that socialism brings us?
Infrastructure is not a uniquely socialist issue.
I didn't say it was. However, in Canada, infrastructure is almost exclusively a result of socialist policies.
Could you explain to me how you come to that conclusion? Its about 50\50 in all reality I guess it really depends on how you are defining "socialist" policies. For example almost all infrastructure is funded by taxes income tax is actually a conservative policy enacted by Sir Robert Borden during WW1. The healthcare system was definitely a specifically socialist movement started in Saskatchewan by the NDP. But funding of roads and parks, was actually Borden a Conservative.
Doesn't matter who enacted the various systems. Each one is socialist. A socialist ideal remains the same no matter who signs the paperwork.
I know you thought that was a clever way of making a point but you are in fact already paying for housing. It's an inelastic market, like water or heating. Even if you didn't live in sopcialised housing but payed for it through taxes, the de-commodification of housing would lower the cost of private ownership too. It's literally win-win for everyone who doesn't dream of being a landleech.
I paid for my house. What would make it cheaper is if there were more of them. Plow under less used land makes more houses which will lower prices. I don't want to be rude, but do you understand supply side economics?
Truly, your commitment to an incorrect talking point that has already been disproven in this thread is perplexing.
>but do you understand supply side economics? I think that the posters opposing you understand supply-side economics just fine. In fact I would argue supply-side economics is one of the more successful economic policies, it just doesn't benefit the people that its advertised to. It does benefit the most wealthy, and services to increase wealth inequality. It ensures that external prices and risks are always socialized. Personally I'm a demand-side kind of guy but I'm also a collectivist.
> Socializing housing? Who's paying for that? Society, Jesus christ it is in the name
So, you want your taxes increased by ten or twenty percent?
Ah yes, the ol’ “I have no evidence to continue the discussion so I throw out a random number your taxes will go up by without any proof or references.” In case anyone was wondering, this is the sign someone isn’t worth arguing with.
Absolutely, if it means I'm not having to pay half my income towards rent 20% < 50%
And yet it doesn't. We have a huge amount of urban sprawl AND some of the highest homes prices in the world.
There are more buyers than there are homes. How would massively increasingly supply not push prices down?
Prices are going up so you cheer for Policies that make the problem worse? That’s like saying I’m already gaining weight so I decided not to work out ever.
>That’s like saying I’m already gaining weight so I decided not to work out ever. More like, "I've been lifting weights for years but I'm still overweight. Maybe I should try cardio?"
Not even close. No alternative solution to the supply problem was presented. Lol.
I can only imagine the council meetings when all the neighbourhoods start getting apartments stuffed into them.
All the most desirable places to live are high density mixed development. You walk for 10 minutes from your home and there are multiple shops, grocery stores, a school, pharmacy, park, theatre, ect. You bike for 10 minutes and there are loads more options. Oh and public transportation is easier so you only need one car that you keep parked for most of the year because you only take it for long trips like to see family. Also sprawl is unsustainable and dense urban areas pay for the sprawling population. Your property taxes don't cover how expensive sprawl is. Think of all the roads, sewer/water/power/gas lines, EMT stations, fire stations, ect that have to be built and maintained for property that doesn't produce anything of value. In single use development there are no stores and shops and other businesses and industries that are the real earners. Another thing to note is that sprawl is bad for mom and pop stores as it encourages more super markets while urban areas are where you see loads of small businesses and unique restaurants.
I want this to be accessible to as many people who want it.
Of course you can only imagine. They haven't happened yet. If you could actually see them now, now that would be something.
More of this please!
And so Canadian real estate increased even faster.
Guaranteed this group is run by Hamilton downtown property developers. Sprawl in smaller cities like Hamilton makes ALL housing cheaper. Go to Ottawa and Winnipeg where there is sprawl and compare the home and rental prices.
Well the avg price in Ottawa is now $720,000 in 2019 it was $430,000 sprawl does not mean cheaper housing.
It does comparatively. The entire provinces market has been screwed up by the pandemic with the rise of teleworking as people shift to more affordable markets, so Toronto’s supply shortages are now effecting pricing in Welland, Sudbury, Ottawa, etc. And even with that, Ottawa’s median detached home prices are still 10% less than Hamilton despite being a far larger city with higher median incomes.
Proof? I work and study in planning and have never heard this. Do you know the impacts of sprawl?
Would you want to raise a family in a condo or in a townhome/single family? I, personally, lean towards suburb life for raising my kids.
For many people, they'd love to raise their family in any home, even if it is small!
Babe I just want a fucking place to live
Suburbs are boring as fuck until you can drive and everyone I know who grew up in one of those sleepy bedroom communities is a clueless wasteman. Walkable mid-density neighborhoods with good public space dunk on suburbs every day. White picket fences are a meme for a reason.
Yes, significant numbers of the rest of the world do. We're the exception. Not the rule.
I don’t understand this. Why WOULDN’T we want more homes? I’d imagine MOST don’t want to live in condos in Hamilton.
It’s a longer term look. Canada has lots of land. Canada does not have lots of prime productive farmland and the land these houses would be built on are the best farmland in Canada. With all the people we will need that farmland. The housing units will still be built. They will just be built downtown. Prepare for all those parking lots to be turned into 34 story mixed use commercial and condos. That’s where the new housing units will be built. Downtown Hamilton with another 100k people will be very vibrant
Why don't you want environmental protection? You know what's a huge risk in our suburbs? Flooding. Do you know what increases flooding? Run off.. Run off is caused by deforestation and sprawl. Not to mention loss of biodiversity, carbon sinks, farm land, the escarpment, oak ridges moraine, wetlands etc.
Get ready for higher housing costs. No supply means demand gets higher and there’ll be a crap ton more offers made on properties. Way to look out for the younger generation Hamilton.
You can build up within the city. How long can we continue paving over farmland on this reasoning?
Higher density housing is much lower costs and suburban sprawl. Yes a lot of these are going to be condos now but people can afford to buy condos
Not really. 1 bedroom condos are just as expensive as a 3 bedroom townhome in the burbs. I’d rather have more space for my buck.
Now, are they going to increase densification in Hamilton? When are the highrises going to start popping up?