And then those changes in the rules are meant to spur developers
This was about the Canadian Housing accelerator fund. Though, also, yes, increased supply tends to lead to a reduction in prices.
I’m not saying that’s impossible, but it would require a concerted effort to build a huge number of units in a short period of time. No Canadian party has released a plan to do so.
I’d take another look at the Liberal’s housing platform in detail.
Act as a developer to build affordable housing at scale, including on public lands. BCH will develop and manage projects and partner with builders for the construction phase of projects.
Build faster, smarter, sustainable, more affordable homes by providing over $25 billion in financing to innovative prefabricated home builders in Canada, including those using Canadian technologies and resources like mass timber and softwood lumber. BCH will also issue bulk orders of units from manufacturers to create sustained demand. This will revitalize how we build homes in Canada, bringing forestry, innovation, engineering, manufacturing, and construction together.
Support affordable homebuilders by injecting $10 billion in low-cost financing and capital for homes that support middle and low-income Canadians. This will include housing for students, seniors, Veterans, people with disabilities, and Indigenous housing, shelters, and more.
All of these are things that are government actually getting into the business rather than just handing money to developers while at the same time not miscasting the government as an actual construction company.
I struggle to think of a more ambitious but realistic plan released by any comparable party among any of our developed nation peers.
A more realistic plan would involve the definancialization of Canadian housing. As long as homes are a lucrative investment vehicle for middle class Canadians, we’re going to keep laddering up the price.
I’d take another look at the Liberal’s housing platform in detail.
The plan has the issues I listed above: no near term construction targets, no affordability guarantees for new units, and no price goal for the total housing stock. It promises money for builders, but includes no mechanism to ensure prices fall.
I struggle to think of a more ambitious but realistic plan released by any comparable party among any of our developed nation peers.
I hear good stuff about Singapore’s model. Denmark and Vienna apparently do social housing well.
I think we’re using realistic differently somehow. You seem to mean ‘comprehensive’ or faster? I mean it in the sense that this could happen and address the issue.
The link you shared is wild but while it has numbers, those are as real as Polievre’s numbers to make his deficit projections work.
The stuff outlined is mostly hope and “I would like ot to be this way so it should be.” Just some back of the envelope math, a fee years ago the value of Canadian residential real estate was some 7.5 trillion, just call it 7. Even a 10% drop in value means a roughly 700 billion loss. For the 40ish percent of Canadian households which own their home, the plan evaporates a large chunk of their retirement wealth. “Just teach people to be cool with it” isn’t particularly realistic or feasible.
The lesson I thought we’d taken from our Southern neighbours was to watch out for anyone claiming simple problems to complex and significant problems.
Carney’s plan is long term but actually looks to solve a similarly long term and serious problem, which is that housing starts have not kept pace with population growth. (All the talk of investors scooping up all the houses is a little silly, that works in a tight market but it’s not like we didn’t have industrial investors in the 90s when housing was affordable. Are people so ignorant they think capitalism just started in the last couple decades?) When part of your plan is to literally create a giant new government organization to do housing ina radically different way, only a very unserious person would put hard but ambitious numbers to it immediately.
Finally, Singapore is wildly different than Canada in a bunch of important ways, Denmark and Austria are doing social housing but suffer in actual housing
It’s a question of how likely a proposed solution is to reduce housing costs.
Just some back of the envelope math, a fee years ago the value of Canadian residential real estate was some 7.5 trillion, just call it 7. Even a 10% drop in value means a roughly 700 billion loss. For the 40ish percent of Canadian households which own their home, the plan evaporates a large chunk of their retirement wealth.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: it’s hard to make housing more affordable without reducing the amount of money people charge for housing. If the goal is to build a few more houses, but keep the cost of housing the same, then the LPC plan will succeed - it’s provides money to builders without a guarantee of price reductions.
But low income and young Canadians will continue to be priced out of housing with that approach. Unless CMHC the new government body builds houses, and rent/sells them to the next generation of Canadians below market rates. That’s possible, but that Singaporean approach it isn’t described in the LPC plan. And it will probably require more money than it promises for affordable housing.
We’ve been in a housing crisis for something like five years now, and it’s helped fuel a push to the right. If the LPC plan is as you describe it, and the intent is to keep inflated housing prices for the next decade (perhaps until real wages catch up), then we’re going to see a continued right-ward push.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: it’s hard to make housing more affordable without reducing the amount of money people charge for housing.
Or, like any other commodity where there’s a market imbalance, you address supply issues and prices come down.
I’m sorry but “everyone gets a free house” isn’t particularly realistic or interesting. It’s like when people say the trick to ending war is “no more countries are allowed to go to war!” Cool that’s nice but…
Or, like any other commodity where there’s a market imbalance, you address supply issues and prices come down.
Our largest recent spike in home starts was during the pandemic, when housing prices skyrocketed, so there’s clearly more to the price than just supply. A comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability would take that into account, and address the demand and financing parts of the equation.
There’s nothing in the LPC plan to guarantee costs fall, so it seems we’ll be left to the whims of the market. Again.
This was about the Canadian Housing accelerator fund. Though, also, yes, increased supply tends to lead to a reduction in prices.
I’d take another look at the Liberal’s housing platform in detail.
https://liberal.ca/cstrong/build/#housing
All of these are things that are government actually getting into the business rather than just handing money to developers while at the same time not miscasting the government as an actual construction company.
I struggle to think of a more ambitious but realistic plan released by any comparable party among any of our developed nation peers.
A more realistic plan would involve the definancialization of Canadian housing. As long as homes are a lucrative investment vehicle for middle class Canadians, we’re going to keep laddering up the price.
The plan has the issues I listed above: no near term construction targets, no affordability guarantees for new units, and no price goal for the total housing stock. It promises money for builders, but includes no mechanism to ensure prices fall.
I hear good stuff about Singapore’s model. Denmark and Vienna apparently do social housing well.
I think we’re using realistic differently somehow. You seem to mean ‘comprehensive’ or faster? I mean it in the sense that this could happen and address the issue.
The link you shared is wild but while it has numbers, those are as real as Polievre’s numbers to make his deficit projections work.
The stuff outlined is mostly hope and “I would like ot to be this way so it should be.” Just some back of the envelope math, a fee years ago the value of Canadian residential real estate was some 7.5 trillion, just call it 7. Even a 10% drop in value means a roughly 700 billion loss. For the 40ish percent of Canadian households which own their home, the plan evaporates a large chunk of their retirement wealth. “Just teach people to be cool with it” isn’t particularly realistic or feasible.
The lesson I thought we’d taken from our Southern neighbours was to watch out for anyone claiming simple problems to complex and significant problems.
Carney’s plan is long term but actually looks to solve a similarly long term and serious problem, which is that housing starts have not kept pace with population growth. (All the talk of investors scooping up all the houses is a little silly, that works in a tight market but it’s not like we didn’t have industrial investors in the 90s when housing was affordable. Are people so ignorant they think capitalism just started in the last couple decades?) When part of your plan is to literally create a giant new government organization to do housing ina radically different way, only a very unserious person would put hard but ambitious numbers to it immediately.
Finally, Singapore is wildly different than Canada in a bunch of important ways, Denmark and Austria are doing social housing but suffer in actual housing
It’s a question of how likely a proposed solution is to reduce housing costs.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: it’s hard to make housing more affordable without reducing the amount of money people charge for housing. If the goal is to build a few more houses, but keep the cost of housing the same, then the LPC plan will succeed - it’s provides money to builders without a guarantee of price reductions.
But low income and young Canadians will continue to be priced out of housing with that approach. Unless
CMHCthe new government body builds houses, and rent/sells them to the next generation of Canadians below market rates. That’s possible, but that Singaporean approach it isn’t described in the LPC plan. And it will probably require more money than it promises for affordable housing.We’ve been in a housing crisis for something like five years now, and it’s helped fuel a push to the right. If the LPC plan is as you describe it, and the intent is to keep inflated housing prices for the next decade (perhaps until real wages catch up), then we’re going to see a continued right-ward push.
Or, like any other commodity where there’s a market imbalance, you address supply issues and prices come down.
I’m sorry but “everyone gets a free house” isn’t particularly realistic or interesting. It’s like when people say the trick to ending war is “no more countries are allowed to go to war!” Cool that’s nice but…
Now you’re putting words in my mouth.
Our largest recent spike in home starts was during the pandemic, when housing prices skyrocketed, so there’s clearly more to the price than just supply. A comprehensive plan to improve housing affordability would take that into account, and address the demand and financing parts of the equation.
There’s nothing in the LPC plan to guarantee costs fall, so it seems we’ll be left to the whims of the market. Again.