this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
52 points (96.4% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
143 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
52
Canada needs to get real about addressing the housing crisis (www.theglobeandmail.com)
submitted 7 months ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It feels like Canadian governments have forgotten how to plan. As the op-ed states, we don't have the sewer/water/road/fire for the 5,800,000 houses we're building by 2030. And politicians aren't budgeting for it's construction.

In the bigger picture, we aren't training enough nurses and doctors to service our current population, let alone what our population is forecast to become. Similarly, we aren't funding post-secondary education beyond overcharging students from abroad.

But I digress. On the housing file:

The politicians who are promising action to build the 5.8 million new homes Canada needs by 2030 seem to be forgetting that, unlike that log cabin, the millions of homes that are needed can’t even begin to be built without connection to the world around them, to roads, bridges, clean water, electricity and waste management. They don’t seem to be factoring in that those houses will have people in them, millions of people, who need access to hospitals and schools, to civic and recreational facilities, to public transit, to emergency services. In other words, it is not possible to build so many new homes across Canada without considering essential housing-enabling infrastructure. Yet no one is even talking about that part of the equation, let alone announcing funding for it.

It is a significant oversight. A report by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that each new housing unit will require $107,000 in public infrastructure investment. This amounts to a total of $620-billion in new public funding needed to produce workable housing, which far outstrips currently projected investments of $245-billion.

https://archive.is/xEIez

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Without planning, all that we end up building is just more unsustainable sprawl. Getting serious about housing means getting serious about infill development and investing in active and mass transit.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It means a huge number of things: building schools, community centres, sewers, etc. And yes, transit and density need to be in the mix.

The key raised by OP (oh hey! that's me!) is that our politicians aren't allocating funds for any of those things. Housing is just the tip of the melting iceberg.

Canada has a mind-boggling planning deficit. Our governments are showing incredible incompetence at figuring out what we need before we need them. That's why we're in the housing crisis, the healthcare crisis, etc.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I completely πŸ’― % agree about the need for more planning. We might be not agreeing entirely on the direction. Transit and mixed use density are not just in the mix, they should be the mix. Suburban, car centric sprawl is not just not-a-solution, it is creating financial problems for the future.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm cool with the direction. I just want to highlight that the planning deficit covers more than housing crisis, it includes the lack of healthcare workers, etc. Basically all government responsibilities.

Just to troll: I'd be more confident about the future if politicians could plan in a bad direction. I don't want suburban sprawl either, but if our governments could plan a sprawl properly (enough sewers, schools, grocery stores, community centres, not in a flood plane), then we'd have a chance. Because we just need to change the direction of planning.

But we don't even do that right. Politicians just do random shit and hope it gets them elected. They don't even bother to get their shitty sprawl plans working properly.

But yes. More transit and density. πŸ‘

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

I think the Liberal party is ideologically the "the lack of plan is the plan" party. The market is supposed to magically sort itself out in their heads.

[–] zaphod@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Lol as if the Canadian Construction Association wants infill. Their members are responsible for the municipal lobbying that leads to sprawl in the first place, and I all but guarantee you their infrastructure cost estimates are assuming traditional suburban residential growth

So sure, this person may have a point in that supportive infrastructure is not being adequately accounted for. But I don't believe for a second that they're interested in what's actually best for Canadians.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Talking with many people, they just cant fathom living anywhere but an isolated single family home where they depend on their SUV to do anything. As someone who lives in an apartment in a relatively dense area, I feel more free than ever being able to walk to almost any need i have.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

just cant fathom living anywhere but an isolated single family home where they depend on their SUV

A huge part of that is affordability and the availability of services. We started out in a downtown apartment, and it was fine. There were lots of playgrounds for our kids, and we could afford it.

As the playgrounds began to get more and more drug paraphernalia, and we were told we needed two home working spaces, downtown became less workable. A downtown apartment/house with enough room is 500k+ more expensive than one in the burbs.

As our kids are older, there's less for them to do in downtown neighbourhoods that just have restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, and playgrounds aimed at toddlers. No sports fields, bookshops, swimming pools, comic book shops, bike paths, museums, or other kid -friendly places. Downtown housing that we can afford doesn't have room for kids' amenities and work space.

So we need to move. Not because we want to, but because planning has built downtown neighbourhoods that are unfriendly to families.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

100% agree and I have been saying this for sometime myself, we need to make north america cities more family focused. COVID made it more visible that no one actually lived in cities.

Most restaurants closed for example, restaurants that you thought were "community focused" were actually only serving commuters into the cities. Nothing was "keeping" people in the surrounding area, no families, no roots.

North america cities for some reason are designed for commuters instead of the people that actually live there. On top of that most new condos and developments are geared to investment properties, meaning small units maybe max 2 bedrooms.

You can't raise two kids in a two bedroom unit. And if you happen to find a three or four bedroom in the downtown core it's priced substantially higher for lower square footage than a single family home in the suburbs.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

It's nice to meet a kindred soul.

Most restaurants closed for example, restaurants that you thought were "community focused" were actually on serving commuters into the cities. Nothing was "keeping" people in the surrounding area, no families, no roots.

Is a great example of the problem. We don't have communities.

And if you happen to find a three or four bedroom in the downtown core it's priced substantially higher for lower square footage than a single family home in the suburbs.

Again, this. My desired city has townhouses that cost $1.5 million downtown. They're nice, but they don't have the space or amenities that a $900k house in the burbs. I want to live in a dense, walkable community, but I'm priced out.

[–] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Most people tell me they could never do it, everyone asks me how I survive the city center crime, and a common question is if I plan to move when I decide to have kids.