Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: BC_cheque on March 23, 2018, 01:57:34 pm
-
I saw a discussion around this topic the other day. I know it doesn't apply to most parts of Canada but for cities like Toronto and Vancouver I think it's a worthy discussion given that they are growing rapidly in population and space is limited.
Of course it doesn't help when offshore speculators buy real estate and leave them empty, but that's for another discussion. For the sake of this argument, let's assume houses and condos are occupied.
Does the single family unit still make sense or is it a relic of the past? They take up so much resources but do they give back enough?
Unfortunately, condos and townhouses are getting smaller and smaller in size and not really fit to raise a family, but what if there was a middle ground? What if our towers had fewer units but more square footage, including several bedrooms, and a family room in addition to a living room.
The idea would be to have multi-family units of 1800-3000 square feet on top of each other, priced above condos but less than houses. Developers could still profit from rezoning the land and so many people wouldn't have to choose between long commutes or having space.
Is there any reason, other than developer greed, that we don't already see this happening?
-
The idea would be to have multi-family units of 1800-3000 square feet on top of each other, priced above condos but less than houses.
I think you just described the flats so popular in Montreal that have been around since the early 1900's. Most however are limited to 2-3 units tall, and either single or double wide (ie. 2-6 units in a building). The vast majority of buildings are in a row, but there are also many semi-attached and detached buildings as well. I would say they are smaller on average than what you are looking for. If you wanted to go higher, you would need more infrastructure like elevators, lobbies, and these days parking.
-
I think you just described the flats so popular in Montreal that have been around since the early 1900's. Most however are limited to 2-3 units tall, and either single or double wide (ie. 2-6 units in a building). The vast majority of buildings are in a row, but there are also many semi-attached and detached buildings as well. If you wanted to go higher, you would need more infrastructure like elevators, lobbies, and these days parking.
Yeah, I was wondering what the obstacles are. The way I imagined them is one unit per floor so that you get all the benefits of a house (windows on all sides for example as well as privacy), maybe solariums instead of balconies since they're geared toward families, and elevators and multi-floor parking just like all other condo towers we see.
So basically, there is nothing holding back the concept structurally, it just comes down to what developers want to do to maximize profit.
-
Meh, I don't think it is possible to have a decent conversation about housing in Canada until the tide goes out so we can see who is swimming naked.
And by that I mean let's see what house prices are like when CIBC is getting bailed out by the feds, interest rates are 2% points higher and unemployment is running at 10.8%.
Otherwise, this is just an exercise in blaming foreigners (for over buying and under renting), city councils (for under developing) and devolpers (for being "greedy" - whateverTF that means ::) ).
-
Meh, I don't think it is possible to have a decent conversation about housing in Canada until the tide goes out so we can see who is swimming naked.
And by that I mean let's see what house prices are like when CIBC is getting bailed out by the feds, interest rates are 2% points higher and unemployment is running at 10.8%.
Otherwise, this is just an exercise in blaming foreigners (for over buying and under renting), city councils (for under developing) and devolpers (for being "greedy" - whateverTF that means ::) ).
Damn, msj, I used to think you're a pretty smart guy. You don't know what developer greed means even in the context of 'wanting to maximize profit'?
And I'm not talking about prices of homes. Even if the bottom falls and housing prices fall 50%, I think this idea makes sense given the limits of land and population growth in major cities.
There will always be people who insist on having a lawn and they can buy their houses and do all the upkeep that comes with it. This concept is for people who want all the benefits of a condo as well as a house and are willing to pay a little less and have a middle ground.
I don't blame developer greed because that's what any company is supposed to do, but maybe non-profit or government agencies can take on the task of building these structures.
I honestly think single family units in urban centres are a waste of resources.
-
Windows on all sides, and privacy, means a lot of land. Detached houses get their privacy from hedges and trees, but build above 3-4 stories and you no longer have that. The last high rise I lived in (35 years ago) was twin buildings facing each other separated by a 200' courtyard. I don't think you would want to be any closer than that to have the feel of privacy, and certainly that didn't feel as private as a detached house separated by 20' or less from its neighbour. High rises also mean large shadows to block the sun.
Elevators are not cheap (both to build and maintain), and you generally want at least 2 of them in case one is broken or being used for people moving. If you only had one unit per floor, the cost of elevators might be very significant.
-
Windows on all sides, and privacy, means a lot of land. Detached houses get their privacy from hedges and trees, but build above 3-4 stories and you no longer have that. The last high rise I lived in (35 years ago) was twin buildings facing each other separated by a 200' courtyard. I don't think you would want to be any closer than that to have the feel of privacy, and certainly that didn't feel as private as a detached house separated by 20' or less from its neighbour. High rises also mean large shadows to block the sun.
Elevators are not cheap (both to build and maintain), and you generally want at least 2 of them in case one is broken or being used for people moving. If you only had one unit per floor, the cost of elevators might be very significant.
Fair points. I think for having high rises you also have to be on certain major roads. The 2-3 floor ones could work in the same way as a side-by-side duplex in a residential area, just stacked.
The idea is to use the lots for more than one family. In the last few decades I saw Greater Vancouver pretty much double in size and estimates say another 1.2 million people by the year 2040!.
Something has to give.
-
Have 3-4 story house going up in my neighborhood on a narrow lot. Builder told me it was ~500K in material and labour for the building.
I was floored.
If building a new building on free land costs 500K then no property collapse is likely to make housing affordable.
We need to ask why it is so expensive to build a building in the first place.
-
Have 3-4 story house going up in my neighborhood on a narrow lot. Builder told me it was ~500K in material and labour for the building.
I was floored.
If building a new building on free land costs 500K then no property collapse is likely to make housing affordable.
We need to ask why it is so expensive to build a building in the first place.
True, how do other cities manage to sell houses so much cheaper?
-
Tim, just to add to my earlier post...
I am not concerned about price, I'm talking strictly about limited amounts of land. Vancouver was 1.2 million in population in the early 80's, 2.5 million in 2016 and projected to be 3.7 in about 20 years.
Houses are now being built with mortgage helpers and coach houses to increase density, but I have yet to see the idea of building multi-family homes stacked on each other as an alternative.
Taking price and empty units out of the equation, it still makes sense to provide an in-between option to those who want to live close to the city, have space, but not necessarily as a single-family unit.
-
Tim, just to add to my earlier post...
I am not concerned about price, I'm talking strictly about limited amounts of land. Vancouver was 1.2 million in population in the early 80's, 2.5 million in 2016 and projected to be 3.7 in about 20 years.
Houses are now being built with mortgage helpers and coach houses to increase density, but I have yet to see the idea of building multi-family homes stacked on each other as an alternative.
Taking price and empty units out of the equation, it still makes sense to provide an in-between option to those who want to live close to the city, have space, but not necessarily as a single-family unit.
Living in a very dense part of a dense city is a nightmare to me. I could only enjoy it for a short while, not longterm. I'd never want to raise a family in the kind of building/environment being described, it sounds like a dystopia to me. I like some space to breathe, I think a lot of families like so too so the idea wouldn't be popular unless housing prices in place like Vancouver make it necessary.
-
I am not concerned about price, I'm talking strictly about limited amounts of land. Vancouver was 1.2 million in population in the early 80's, 2.5 million in 2016 and projected to be 3.7 in about 20 years.
Behold Vancouver's future:
(https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wn20130918n2a-870x580.jpg)
-
Have 3-4 story house going up in my neighborhood on a narrow lot. Builder told me it was ~500K in material and labour for the building.
I was floored.
If building a new building on free land costs 500K then no property collapse is likely to make housing affordable.
We need to ask why it is so expensive to build a building in the first place.
It doesn't cost that for the materials. New houses today are made of cardboard. I've watched them put up a lot of them around me since I moved in. They're nothing but wooden frames with some pressboard over them, plastic insulation and vinyl siding (with stone on the front side). And these are $600-$800k homes.
It's the land and the army of lawyers that costs money. The permits take lots of time to negotiate and come with lots of conditions and fees to the developer.
-
Tim said specifically the $500K was labour and materials. It does seem high though.
-
Living in a very dense part of a dense city is a nightmare to me. I could only enjoy it for a short while, not longterm. I'd never want to raise a family in the kind of building/environment being described, it sounds like a dystopia to me. I like some space to breathe, I think a lot of families like so too so the idea wouldn't be popular unless housing prices in place like Vancouver make it necessary.
I know it wouldn't be for everyone but the reality is our big cities are becoming very populous and single family units aren't exactly conducive to metropolitan centres unless, as you say, people have a lot of money.
Prices may correct, but with so many newcomers every year, in the decades to come most people will be priced out of the single family home anywhere near a city of 3-4 million.
People like you will migrate to smaller cities or the suburbs, but for people who don't mind raising a family in the city there would be an alternative between space or distance. Right now the only condos being built are geared toward double-income, no kid families with relatively small square footage.
Like you I would be more apt to move away from the city but I think it's a great option to provide to those who want to stay.
-
Tim said specifically the $500K was labour and materials. It does seem high though.
At current rates 500k would build you ~2500 sq.ft. in Victoria BC, which is a bit of a booming market. That doesn't include the land purchase of course.
-
I know we're getting off-topic from my OP but that's ridiculous. If the price doesn't include land or permits, how do other cities manage to sell houses for under 500K and not lose money?
What is it about labour and materials that's so expensive here?
-
I know we're getting off-topic from my OP but that's ridiculous. If the price doesn't include land or permits, how do other cities manage to sell houses for under 500K and not lose money?
I link to back up my claim:
https://www.vancouverhome.builders/how-much-cost-to-build-house/
The average cost to build a house can range from as low as an average of $200,000 to $350,000 for a 1000 square foot home to double, triple or even quadruple that amount. An average sized 2500 square foot house, for example, will cost anywhere between $500,000 and $875,000 to build based on these price considerations. Higher end finishes will increase the price dramatically.
The house on my block is at least 2500 sq ft.
Note that someone building an entire neighborhood of similar homes would have significantly lower costs per home.
What is it about labour and materials that's so expensive here?
I heard that 25% of cost of a home are various permits and inspections. It is not clear how much of that 25% is useless red tape and how much is necessary (i.e. inspecting electric work). Labour is also costly because you need local skilled workers (25-50/hour). In countries with cheaper workers the labour would be cheaper.
That said, buildings are a depreciating asset like a car. A new one costs 500K but a 10 year old building is only worth 300K and a 40 year old one is 30K.
In markets with cheaper housing most of the sale will be for old homes.
-
I link to back up my claim:
https://www.vancouverhome.builders/how-much-cost-to-build-house/The house on my block is at least 2500 sq ft.
Note that someone building an entire neighborhood of similar homes would have significantly lower costs per home.
I heard that 25% of cost of a home are various permits and inspections. It is not clear how much of that 25% is useless red tape and how much is necessary (i.e. inspecting electric work). Labour is also costly because you need local skilled workers (25-50/hour). In countries with cheaper workers the labour would be cheaper.
That said, buildings are a depreciating asset like a car. A new one costs 500K but a 10 year old building is only worth 300K and a 40 year old one is 30K.
In markets with cheaper housing most of the sale will be for old homes.
I'm not disputing what you say because reading the words everything you say makes sense, but what is it about the brand new house in Kamloops in the link below that can sell at a profit at $350K for close to 1500 square feet?
Are labour and materials and permits THAT different in Kamloops? Or in Chilliwack 3 years ago when houses were selling for that much brand new?
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Single-Family/18751124/167-1850-HUGH-ALLAN-DRIVE-Kamloops-British-Columbia-V1S0C8
ETA - I realize the square footage is smaller, but assuming a profit at $350K, the difference would still be considered in the difference.
-
ETA - I realize the square footage is smaller, but assuming a profit at $350K, the difference would still be considered in the difference.
A quick look at google street view and you can see that house is one of an entire neighborhood of identical houses. A developer building multiple identical houses saves money on architects, permitting and materials. Labour is also likely cheaper because the developer can set up an 'assembly line'.
-
Damn, msj, I used to think you're a pretty smart guy. You don't know what developer greed means even in the context of 'wanting to maximize profit'?
Duh, I guess I just expect greed to, you know, duh, be in conflict with a buyers’ desire to minimize costs.
To the extent that it is not is because of cheap money and an irrational debt bubble for which I will appluad those who are shown to be left with a bathing suit on when the tide goes out.
And I'm not talking about prices of homes. Even if the bottom falls and housing prices fall 50%, I think this idea makes sense given the limits of land and population growth in major cities.
Ever been to Hong Kong? Or any other major city?
HK is about 2,700 square km and has a population of about 8 million.
Metro Van is about 2,800 sq km with a pop of less than 2.5.
Lots of room left if people choose their councils carefully.
There will always be people who insist on having a lawn and they can buy their houses and do all the upkeep that comes with it. This concept is for people who want all the benefits of a condo as well as a house and are willing to pay a little less and have a middle ground.
I don't blame developer greed because that's what any company is supposed to do, but maybe non-profit or government agencies can take on the task of building these structures.
I honestly think single family units in urban centres are a waste of resources.
If only city councils had any control over the zoning of property in their own jurisdictions..... but, duh, what do I know.
-
I saw the thread title and immediately thought of stacked shipping container homes, Kowloon Walled City, and futuristic dystopian slums. That took me down a rabbit hole that lasted nearly an hour. Did you know that Kowloon Walled City had a population of somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people per square kilometer at its peak?
The idea would be to have multi-family units of 1800-3000 square feet on top of each other, priced above condos but less than houses.
As for this... given the competition for housing, it seems unlikely that these would stay affordable for long, even if they were intended that way.
-k
-
As for this... given the competition for housing, it seems unlikely that these would stay affordable for long, even if they were intended that way.
-k
Isn't this just a duplex or triplex? They're fairly common around here. Don't they have those in BC?
-
At current rates 500k would build you ~2500 sq.ft. in Victoria BC, which is a bit of a booming market. That doesn't include the land purchase of course.
I paid $500k for my house three years ago. And that includes the land of course.
It does not cost $500k to build a house. If you watch the US channels on homebuying you can regularly see nice homes of 2500 sq feet going for $200-$300k, including land.
Further, to indicate how the cost is in the land, take a look at the cost of houses in rural areas or smaller urban areas. They're far, far cheaper. Wanna buy a house in Timmins? https://www.royallepage.ca/en/on/timmins/properties/
-
That said, buildings are a depreciating asset like a car. A new one costs 500K but a 10 year old building is only worth 300K and a 40 year old one is 30K.
In markets with cheaper housing most of the sale will be for old homes.
Hahahahahahahha.
Had a client who sold a rental property last year come in.
I worked out all the numbers and presented them with their tax bill for which they were shocked.
I reminded them that over the years I explained why they should NOT take CCA (tax depreciation) on the building since they are only saving tax at 20%/25% rates on that deduction. If the property goes up in value and we need to recapture that CCA then it is possible that they will pay tax at 28 or even 31%. It was right there in my notes going back several years. I know how to CMA.
[ETA: land is never depreciable, only the buildings/equipment are depreciable at set rates]
Sure enough, they sold one year prior to retirement, meaning they both had their employment income etc so they had to pay tax at the rate of 31%.
In the end it is only an extra $1,000 or so of tax and presumably they had the benefit of the tax savings over the years (which were squandered) so its not like a big deal.
So this idea of non-depreciating buildings is kinda funny.
Although I will note that one client had a terminal loss on their rental property because the value decreased so much that they could take that deduction. This is where the proceeds of the sale allocated to the building is below the original cost of the building.
In this case they had a terminal loss on the building, a capital loss on the land, and a capital loss on the bulding (denied by rule bcause you cannot deduct capital losses on depreciable assets).
Alberta, that property is in Alberta so of course it happened.
-
Hahahahahahahha.
Had a client who sold a rental property last year come in.
I worked out all the numbers and presented them with their tax bill for which they were shocked.
I reminded them that over the years I explained why they should NOT take CCA (tax depreciation) on the building since they are only saving tax at 20%/25% rates on that deduction. If the property goes up in value and we need to recapture that CCA then it is possible that they will pay tax at 28 or even 31%. It was right there in my notes going back several years. I know how to CMA.
[ETA: land is never depreciable, only the buildings/equipment are depreciable at set rates]
Sure enough, they sold one year prior to retirement, meaning they both had their employment income etc so they had to pay tax at the rate of 31%.
In the end it is only an extra $1,000 or so of tax and presumably they had the benefit of the tax savings over the years (which were squandered) so its not like a big deal.
So this idea of non-depreciating buildings is kinda funny.
You're looking at it just from a tax-accountant point of view and leaving out a lot of other pertinent information. Tax Shield alone doesn't give the full picture, you have to look at net annual casfhlows and appreciation of the asset as well.
So this idea of non-depreciating buildings is kinda funny.
I'm pretty sure he was talking only about nominal rate of return.
-
Duh, I guess I just expect greed to, you know, duh, be in conflict with a buyers’ desire to minimize costs.
To the extent that it is not is because of cheap money and an irrational debt bubble for which I will appluad those who are shown to be left with a bathing suit on when the tide goes out.
Ever been to Hong Kong? Or any other major city?
HK is about 2,700 square km and has a population of about 8 million.
Metro Van is about 2,800 sq km with a pop of less than 2.5.
Lots of room left if people choose their councils carefully.
If only city councils had any control over the zoning of property in their own jurisdictions..... but, duh, what do I know.
I've never been to Hong Kong but I've been to London and New York and I didn't see too many single family units near the city, which is precisely my point.
As for the city councilors, there is talk of banning 'donations' to their campaigns so while they do play their role, they are ultimately colluding with developers.
The flip side of the argument is that without donations incumbents will always have the upper hand.
-
Isn't this just a duplex or triplex? They're fairly common around here. Don't they have those in BC?
We do have duplex and triplexes. Even fourplexes, but I was talking about a different concept all together. Something between a house and a condo. Multi units, but not tiny in size. I only brought up the 3 or 4 storey issue because Impact was talking about the costs of elevators. I added that zoning would also be easier for 3 or 4 storey because they could be in more residential areas as well as major roads.
-
As for this... given the competition for housing, it seems unlikely that these would stay affordable for long, even if they were intended that way.
-k
True, but relative to whatever the current market is at the time, they'd always be somewhere in between a detached house and a smaller multi-family. That's the alternative I wish to see more of. Our only two options seem to be single family units or tiny little townhouse or condos.
-
I've never been to Hong Kong but I've been to London and New York and I didn't see too many single family units near the city, which is precisely my point.
I find it interesting that the [predominant] type of housing is very different between cities. Some of that is regional (east coast, west coast, southern, etc.), but much of it is fairly local to a city. There is certainly an effect on population density, which might drive the growth of the city; but there is also a change over time in housing types which might be a response to growth.
-
Unlike London and New York, Vancouver is a very young city and until the nineties the average Joe could afford a detached home. The big change started with EXPO 86 and accelerated as the Brits left Hong Kong and the rest of China opened up. It also has geographical restraints that other Canadian cities don't have. Water to the west, mountains to the north and the US border to the south. The only room for expansion is higher density or up the Fraser Valley, which is some of the best agricultural land in Canada that is protected by the ALR.
-
Duh, I guess I just expect greed to, you know, duh, be in conflict with a buyers’ desire to minimize costs.
To the extent that it is not is because of cheap money and an irrational debt bubble for which I will appluad those who are shown to be left with a bathing suit on when the tide goes out.
Money's not cheap. Credit is cheap. Everywhere there's a credit industry, buyers are nothing more than the middle-person in an exchange of capital between the wealthy. Homeowners are on the hook to pay for that exchange of wealth when they buy a home (shelter being necessary for survival, this is an immoral racket from the start) and students are put on the hook when it comes to education. They only see this money in ephemeral terms: the homeowners as equity (eventually, if it's not eaten up by the impending collapse) and students as return to wages (again, eventually if they can leverage their skills). Credit, as it exists today, is an immoral and unethical means of enriching those who already have wealth at the expense of people who still believe in economic social mobility.
-
Isn't this just a duplex or triplex? They're fairly common around here. Don't they have those in BC?
I think BC_Cheque is talking about the idea of high-rise towers that contain condos that have space comparable to a detached house. Perhaps three or four bedrooms... enough that a couple with the typical 2.3 kids wouldn't have to look for someplace with "more room" as their family grows. It sounds like a good idea. People do tend to think of a house with a yard when they picture a place to raise a family, but in some places that's becoming unviable.
-k
-
Credit, as it exists today, is an immoral and unethical means of enriching those who already have wealth at the expense of people who still believe in economic social mobility.
Credit, like drugs, is something that can destroy a person if abused. However, there are many people who use credit wisely to better their lives over time (i.e. virtually everyone who took out a mortgage that they could afford and paid it off). The price of living in a free society the fact that some people will make bad choices. That is not a justification for taking options from people who would make good choices.
-
Credit is never used wisely. It's always a net negative for society. Those who can afford credit, don't need it. Those who can't afford credit are forced to take it when others take it. Credit is like the PEDs of people's economic lives. It inflates the cost of things, forcing others to take credit to keep up with basic necessities like shelter.
-
Credit is never used wisely. It's always a net negative for society. Those who can afford credit, don't need it. Those who can't afford credit are forced to take it when others take it. Credit is like the PEDs of people's economic lives. It inflates the cost of things, forcing others to take credit to keep up with basic necessities like shelter.
We should take this to another thread. BTW - the high cost of building a home today illustrates why the cost of housing is not only a function of available credit.
-
I think BC_Cheque is talking about the idea of high-rise towers that contain condos that have space comparable to a detached house. Perhaps three or four bedrooms... enough that a couple with the typical 2.3 kids wouldn't have to look for someplace with "more room" as their family grows. It sounds like a good idea. People do tend to think of a house with a yard when they picture a place to raise a family, but in some places that's becoming unviable.
-k
Finally someone gets it after all this talk of over-inflated markets and construction costs. I'm only talking about providing options in cities that are becoming increasingly dense.
Whatever the cost of real estate will be and whatever it costs to build a house, I imagine the pricing being somewhere between a condo and house, but a little less than a townhouse since townhouse still have height limitations.
Basically the price of a house in the suburbs, but for people who don't care that much for a lawn (or don't even want to deal with the upkeep of a house), and who don't want to commute very far to the city.
-
We do have duplex and triplexes. Even fourplexes, but I was talking about a different concept all together. Something between a house and a condo. Multi units, but not tiny in size. I only brought up the 3 or 4 storey issue because Impact was talking about the costs of elevators. I added that zoning would also be easier for 3 or 4 storey because they could be in more residential areas as well as major roads.
Well, elevators do cost a lot, and if you've got an underground parking lot that requires heavy maintenance. Sometimes repair costs can be close to half a million or more on those suckers. I was considering a condo downtown in one of those nice buildings (as an example) and they come with $1000 a month condo fees on top of the rest because of the additional costs involved. That's the problem you have with large buildings that have small footprints. If you have large apartments that means fewer people to pay for these elevators and other costs and consequently even higher fees.
If you're just talking about making the triplex wider that's doable, but you might need a larger lot if you want decent sized decks, esp if you're going to have a multi-car garage (not as important in BC but priceless here).
-
I was considering a condo downtown in one of those nice buildings (as an example) and they come with $1000 a month condo fees on top of the rest because of the additional costs involved.
Were property taxes and insurance part of that fee?
-
SJ, thanks for contributing. You bring up good points.
We live in a house right now and I budget close to $1800/month to cover everything. Property tax, utilities, insurance, maintenance (this one is a lot) and contingency fund. Based on a square footage of 2000-2500, I don’t think a maintenance fee of $800 would be unreasonable leaving just utilities and property tax.
It’d come out about the same as maintaining a house.
-
You're looking at it just from a tax-accountant point of view and leaving out a lot of other pertinent information. Tax Shield alone doesn't give the full picture, you have to look at net annual casfhlows and appreciation of the asset as well.
I'm pretty sure he was talking only about nominal rate of return.
More importantly one has to consider inflation and competition between old stock housing and replacement values.
Economically, when capital appreciation is all that matters to the investment decisions (i.e. prices are divorced from rents) then buildings do, indeed, appreciate.
Even when real estate values rise at low levels we see buildings appreciate in value.
For the simple reasons of inflation, repairs and maintenace, and replacement cost considerations.
My little example is interesting because it was a condo. Condo’s do have a land value and an improvement value - yet does anyone buying a condo consider their purchase to be the dirt below the unit two stories below them?
-
Nominal rate of return does not consider inflation or tax implications, that was my point earlier about the figures Tim provided.
Given the spike in property values in BC in the last 3-4 years, there is very little of anything else to consider. Condo, townhouse, house, old or new, everyone came out on top in terms of NPV.
CCA didn't really play the kind of role it should have in any other market.
-
That’s fine but I specifically was responding to him claiming that buildings depreciate like cars.
They don’t. Not even remotely.
They have fair market values that rise, like land, at the whims of emotional people.
Especially when people are being stupid about buying real estate because of cheap credit.
-
I don't disagree. I was only referencing this quote though:
So this idea of non-depreciating buildings is kinda funny.
I think Tim was talking strictly in terms of nominal rate of return (not considering any other factors other than ages of similar houses) and you were talking about real rate of return.
-
I think Tim was talking strictly in terms of nominal rate of return (not considering any other factors other than ages of similar houses) and you were talking about real rate of return.
Yes that is what I was talking about. The 'improvement value' on my property tax has been decreasing over time while the land price increases.
-
Were property taxes and insurance part of that fee?
Nope. I actually do own a condo on the edge of the city, a high rise, which I rent out. It's a middle income building and the condo fees rose to over $650 this year. That covers utilities and regular maintenance, though if something is wrong with your own unit you pay for that. On top of that there's a special requirement to replace all the windows and I'll be required to fork over $9,000 as my share this year or next.
On the upside, when I bought it three years ago it cost under $200k. And it's an extremely large 2 bedroom with lots of light.
-
Yes that is what I was talking about. The 'improvement value' on my property tax has been decreasing over time while the land price increases.
You mean assessments that, even after increasing from 2016 to 2017 (BC assessments are based in October) by 20% and then proven to still be off by over 10% are a reliable method to determine value?
I have often seen commercial buildings sell for much more than original costs years after being built. In fact, in some instances I actually know the exact original cost of the building because I was the accountant who was involved in the construction of the building.
Sure some of that is the new owner wanting a larger amount to write off, but that often goes against the interests of the seller who does not want the recapture so it is not all explained by playing tax games.
But that’s the thing: there is experience and there is theoretical know how.
Sometimes the theorists are surprised by what's going on in the real world.
-
When I was a kid growing up in Vancouver, we lived in a variety of apartments buildings that were aimed at families. These buildings were full of 2-4 bedroom units clearly intended for families with kids. Usually 3-7 story buildings with anywhere from 6-100 units like this. Now, granted, these were buildings with apartments for rent rather than units to buy, but the layout concept seems the same. So I'm not sure that what's being discussed here is anything new. Families that are not affluent already live like this, in "stacked homes" otherwise known as "apartment buildings".
-
No, the concept I'm talking about is a hybrid of house and apartment otherwise I'd just call it a big apartment. Also, I'm talking about new construction, not existing inventory from the 70's and 80's.
The discussion went beyond the OP if you're interested.
-
So we now have more information about why Canadian housing costs so much - government.
Research from the C.D. Howe Institute released Tuesday revealed zoning regulations, development charges and housing limits in and around southern Ontario’s Greenbelt have added around $168,000 to single-family houses in the Greater Toronto Area and about $644,000 to the cost of others in Vancouver — a number the non-profit research organization says draws comparisons with Manhattan and U.K. housing.
http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/regulations-cost-single-family-home-buyers-an-extra-229000-on-average-study
-
So we now have more information about why Canadian housing costs so much - government
Your approach to everything ends in disaster. Unrestrained development comes with huge costs as well, but if you got off your worship of the short term almighty dollar you might not be so blind.
-
Your approach to everything ends in disaster. Unrestrained development comes with huge costs as well, but if you got off your worship of the short term almighty dollar you might not be so blind.
I posed a cite w/r to the governmental costs added to housing and your response is a direct personal attack on me without saying a single word about the subject or cite.
This is how the far left counters arguments. Instead of addressing any of the subjects or issues raised it attacks whomever is putting them forth. It's brainless and stupid, and bases everything on a wild-eyed anger at those who oppose its ideological beliefs.
-
I posed a cite w/r to the governmental costs added to housing and your response is a direct personal attack on me without saying a single word about the subject or cite.
Why don't you tell me why you even think that comparisons to New York and London have any relevance. Canada has nothing comparable to those cities, both the good and the bad. To get the same lifestle that people in say Markham enjoy, in New York you would be going the equivalent distance as Barrie. If you want a relevant comparision, pick Chicago or perhaps Frankfurt as a comparison. Being the far left as you continually directly make your personal attacks on me, you should know that I care about lifestyle and am not just some number you can slot me into like you right wing extremists always do. For me society is about people, and not just the robots that keep your factories running.
-
You're such a **** cliche.
I posed a cite w/r to the governmental costs added to housing and your response is a direct personal attack on me without saying a single word about the subject or cite.
This is how the far left counters arguments. Instead of addressing any of the subjects or issues raised it attacks whomever is putting them forth. It's brainless and stupid, and bases everything on a wild-eyed anger at those who oppose its ideological beliefs.
Says he who starts most posts that refute him with nothing but insults. I think you maybe just looked in the mirror but wrote "far left" instead of "far right".
-
You throw stones at SJ but without him we have no hope for any kind of thoughtful right-wing perspective... don't scare him off or we'll be left with FedUps....
-
You throw stones at SJ but without him we have no hope for any kind of thoughtful right-wing perspective... don't scare him off or we'll be left with FedUps....
I usually just pick up the stones and throw them back, and as I understand it, the management here had the good sense to get fed up with "fedup" and I assume he's now back with the rest of his ilk at MLW
-
I usually just pick up the stones and throw them back, and as I understand it, the management here had the good sense to get fed up with "fedup" and I assume he's now back with the rest of his ilk at MLW
Really ? Well that's ok with me.
-
looked in the mirror but wrote "far left" instead of "far right".
When I look in the mirror, left is right and right is left.
-
Says he who starts most posts that refute him with nothing but insults. I think you maybe just looked in the mirror but wrote "far left" instead of "far right".
You like that 'refutes' word so much. I think it's like your life's ambition to actually "refute" someone. But like a 48 year old virgin with a one inch dick you're condemned to never being able to accomplish your goal due to a lack of equipment.
-
Why don't you tell me why you even think that comparisons to New York and London have any relevance.
I'm sorry, was that the subject? Was that the point? Were you even involved in the earlier discussion here about the affordability of housing? This helps to explain why new houses cost so much. That was the point of the article.
Being the far left as you continually directly make your personal attacks on me, you should know that I care about lifestyle and am not just some number you can slot me into like you right wing extremists always do. For me society is about people, and not just the robots that keep your factories running.
And yet, you don't care about the affordability of housing. Which was the actual topic.
The socialist fixation with the idea they're helping people always runs up against the fact that the only way you can think of to do that is to redistribute income from other people - and that the more Socialism there is in a system the less money there is to redistribute. And the more poverty.
-
And yet, you don't care about the affordability of housing.
Yes, this socialist income redistributor does care about affordability of housing. Saying however is is all the fault of government is ludicrous. We want to have livable communities, not Capitalist ant farms to hold workers. We don't want so have government subsidize developers so they can make huge profits and pass on the cost to the taxpayer. Development charges are important that new infrastructure required by the new houses is not downloaded on everyone. I know you love to have the taxpayer subside your business so you can make profits and accumulate the wealth and be the real income redistributor.
-
You like that 'refutes' word so much. I think it's like your life's ambition to actually "refute" someone. But like a 48 year old virgin with a one inch dick you're condemned to never being able to accomplish your goal due to a lack of equipment.
I've forgotten what it's like to be a virgin. Please refresh our memories.
-
When I look in the mirror, left is right and right is left.
Aha, that's where he went wrong.
-
I've forgotten what it's like to be a virgin. Please refresh our memories.
Ouch ! BURN ! SJ is.... a virgin ? ???
-
Issues can make us all angry, but we should all behave like adults and not let others who cross the line bring us there too.
-
Ouch ! BURN ! SJ is.... a virgin ? ???
I dunno, could be a source of anger I guess.
-
Your approach to everything ends in disaster. Unrestrained development comes with huge costs as well
Well i guess there's 2 choices: 1. make developing easier, which would create more units for sale and drive down costs, but would lead to more sprawl & urbanization, or 2. limit development, making units scarcer, driving up costs, but limiting sprawl and other buildings unwanteds.
I think domestic housing speculation is a huge problem. The thing with speculators is that their greed always makes them destroy themselves via market correction.
-
I've forgotten what it's like to be a virgin. Please refresh our memories.
You'd be better off asking me what it's like to be smart and win arguments. Those are things I know about and you don't and never will.
-
Yes, this socialist income redistributor does care about affordability of housing. Saying however is is all the fault of government is ludicrous. We want to have livable communities, not Capitalist ant farms to hold workers.
I didn't say it was ALL the fault of the government. And spare me your Marxist rhetoric. We're living in a country with one of the richest standards of living in world history.
We don't want so have government subsidize developers so they can make huge profits and pass on the cost to the taxpayer. Development charges are important that new infrastructure required by the new houses is not downloaded on everyone.
Why shouldn't it be downloaded onto everyone? When I bought my last house I paid no GST or HST and no development charges. Because it wasn't brand new. I didn't have to contribute a dime to the sewers and roads or other infrastructure beyond my yearly taxes. By heaping this all onto developers they simply pass it on to potential buyers in a lump sum which drastically increases the cost of new housing and pushes it beyond reach for many people.
I know you love to have the taxpayer subside your business so you can make profits and accumulate the wealth and be the real income redistributor.
More brainless anti-business Marxist bullshit.
-
You'd be better off asking me what it's like to be smart and win arguments. Those are things I know about and you don't and never will.
I gather that it must be frustrating.
-
Why shouldn't it be downloaded onto everyone? When I bought my last house I paid no GST or HST and no development charges. Because it wasn't brand new. I didn't have to contribute a dime to the sewers and roads or other infrastructure beyond my yearly taxes.
For someone who thinks they are smart and wins arguments, you sure don't put much effort into thinking. Resale houses already have the infrastructure in place to support them. They don't need new sewers, water, roads, street lights, snowplows and other equipment to maintain them, support personnel at the town, schools, hospitals, parks, recreation centers, libraries, etc. there are countless capital costs associated with building new communities. This Marxist believes that the developper should not get a free ride and be subsizided by government.
-
Ouch ! BURN ! SJ is.... a virgin ? ???
I haven't been burned so bad since I was of the same fourteen year old mentality as you two apparently possess.
Of course I grew up.
-
For someone who thinks they are smart and wins arguments, you sure don't put much effort into thinking. Resale houses already have the infrastructure in place to support them. They don't need new sewers, water, roads, street lights, snowplows and other equipment to maintain them, support personnel at the town, schools, hospitals, parks, recreation centers, libraries, etc. there are countless capital costs associated with building new communities. This Marxist believes that the developper should not get a free ride and be subsizided by government.
Your argument has no commons sense or logic - much like your ideology. First, the developer doesn't pay them. The home buyer does. It is in the city's interest to expand, to have more housing constructed. In fact, it is a requirement, as long as the population continues to grow. Where is the fairness in requiring everyone who goes into those new houses to foot such heavy development costs for city services? I assure you those who first moved into my last house when it was built in the 1950s didn't pay that. Those who moved into it when I sold it didn't pay either. Costs for city services should be shared.
-
I haven't been burned so bad since I was of the same fourteen year old mentality as you two apparently possess.
Why ME ? I threw shade on his insult, yo.
-
First, the developer doesn't pay them. The home buyer does.
Ok, then lets levy a quintuple property taxation on all new home buyers. In my last house, our small town had a standpipe that served the population well and had many years of good life left in it. Along comes Joe home builder and puts in hundreds of new houses and suddenly we need a new water tower to have the capacity and pressure to reach those new houses. Why was I stuck subsidizing Joe home builder for something he benefited from and only cost me a fortune in increased property taxes?
-
Ok, then lets levy a quintuple property taxation on all new home buyers.
And then people stop buying new homes. And then the builders stop making them. And then the prices skyrocket on older homes, not to mention rental housing and now you're crying about all the poor people who are homeless or can't afford rent.
Why don't you just accept it is the city's job to ensure all areas within it are served with roads and plumbing and tax everyone equally? That used to work, btw.
-
And then people stop buying new homes. And then the builders stop making them. And then the prices skyrocket on older homes, not to mention rental housing and now you're crying about all the poor people who are homeless or can't afford rent.
Why don't you just accept it is the city's job to ensure all areas within it are served with roads and plumbing and tax everyone equally? That used to work, btw.
I dunno about yours, but my property taxes are based on a property value assessment. And older more centralized areas typically have higher property values than new outlying subdivisions. So you get people in established subdivisions basically subsidizing the development of infrastructure in new subdivisions where people will be paying lower tax rates than they themselves.
-k
-
I dunno about yours, but my property taxes are based on a property value assessment. And older more centralized areas typically have higher property values than new outlying subdivisions. So you get people in established subdivisions basically subsidizing the development of infrastructure in new subdivisions where people will be paying lower tax rates than they themselves.
-k
Sure, you pay more based on the value of your property, but that doesn't necessarily mean the new subdivisions pay less tax. The closer in homes tend to be older, like my last 1950s place. I paid a lot more for my current new home than my last place was worth and I pay higher taxes here than I did there. The newer homes have all the bells and whistles, which cost. There are a few closer in neighborhoods that have high costs, but most are not any more costly in land value than the area I'm in now. My last place was 15 minutes from downtown and in a nice, crime free neighborhood of single family houses and sold for $365k. Which is below average in Ottawa.
-
Ok, then lets levy a quintuple property taxation on all new home buyers. In my last house, our small town had a standpipe that served the population well and had many years of good life left in it. Along comes Joe home builder and puts in hundreds of new houses and suddenly we need a new water tower to have the capacity and pressure to reach those new houses. Why was I stuck subsidizing Joe home builder for something he benefited from and only cost me a fortune in increased property taxes?
So then...? Are you advocating a libertarian system where everyone pays for their own sewer and sidewalks?
The property being developed already pays to hook into the existing services.
-
So then...? Are you advocating a libertarian system where everyone pays for their own sewer and sidewalks?
The property being developed already pays to hook into the existing services.
The existing service needs to be upgraded, a hook into is only a very small fraction of the cost. I gave a real world example above about the water supply infrastructure that I ended up subsidizing developers for.
No, I am advocating that new developments cannot leach off of existing ones. They need to supply their complete infrastructure.
-
The existing service needs to be upgraded, a hook into is only a very small fraction of the cost. I gave a real world example above about the water supply infrastructure that I ended up subsidizing developers for.
No, I am advocating that new developments cannot leach off of existing ones. They need to supply their complete infrastructure.
Developers put in their own services. Communities can use permit fees to offset the cost of increased infrastructure.
If you want to take that stance, pay up because someone else subsidized you when you bought a home.
It's like people who say they shouldn't have to pay school taxes because they don't have kids. They can show me the receipts that show they paid for their own primary and secondary education and maybe then I will listen to them.
-
Then lets just jack up everyone property taxes, and you right wing whiners are the ones that demanded it. An established community was built and running just fine, and then some greedy developer came along and doubled it size and the current residents are expected to put money in the pocket of that developer according to you right wing capitalist wealth accumulators. The developer is getting all the benefit from building in a well run community and you think they should have a free ride.
-
Then lets just jack up everyone property taxes, and you right wing whiners
The phrase you're looking for is "taxpayers"
An established community was built and running just fine, and then some greedy developer came along and doubled it size and the current residents are expected to put money in the pocket of that developer according to you right wing capitalist wealth accumulators. The developer is getting all the benefit from building in a well run community and you think they should have a free ride.
Most of you people on the left would slit your wrists rather than lower immigration numbers. Yet you seem to think we can take in 340,000 new people a year and not build houses. Hey, here's an idea, cut immigration and we won't need as many housing developments.
-
An established community was built and running just fine, and then ...
So once you arrive, it needs to stop growing? How NIMBY of you....
-
Then lets just jack up everyone property taxes, and you right wing whiners are the ones that demanded it. An established community was built and running just fine, and then some greedy developer came along and doubled it size and the current residents are expected to put money in the pocket of that developer according to you right wing capitalist wealth accumulators. The developer is getting all the benefit from building in a well run community and you think they should have a free ride.
So build your own damn house and install your own services and infrastructure then. Or are you one of those I’m alright Jack, I’ve got mine so screw everyone else types?
I’ve owned my own home since the mid seventies and have no problem with new homeowners having the same access to services that I did when I bought my first home.
-
So once you arrive, it needs to stop growing? How NIMBY of you....
I didn't say that or anything even closely resembling that. I said new development should pay its own way, and not be subsidized by existing residents. Like my community, you are welcome to join it, but no free ride. I am beginning to sound like a right wing redneck, but for some strange reason you right wing rednecks only use the freeloading argument when it doesn't apply to you.
-
So build your own damn house and install your own services and infrastructure then.
That is about it, you pay to extend the community. Do you understand the difference between join and extend? We have an established community that welcomes newcomers to replace those leaving - that is joining. If you want to build a larger community, then great, go ahead but make sure you don't get me to subsidize your growth.
-
That is about it, you pay to extend the community. Do you understand the difference between join and extend? We have an established community that welcomes newcomers to replace those leaving - that is joining. If you want to build a larger community, then great, go ahead but make sure you don't get me to subsidize your growth.
Why is it "your" growth and not "our" growth? As a matter of public policy we seem to have decided that "we" "need" to have growth, so I don't see why you feel that you're off the hook in this.
-k
-
Why is it "your" growth and not "our" growth? As a matter of public policy we seem to have decided that "we" "need" to have growth, so I don't see why you feel that you're off the hook in this.
Good question. First off I personally don't subscribe to the growth model, but yes I agree it seems to be the public policy foisted upon us by the power brokers. Second, we can have growth as a country by building new communities and not diluting existing communities. When we want to extend existing communities, that extension has to pay its own way. This is not the same as an existing community deciding they want to have more local services, say a theatre or arena, then the exiting members should pay for that. The community has built the infrastructure, and should benefit from it. That has nothing to do with personal mobility, you are welcome to join the community by buying a house from an existing family that has supported it and the house price will reflect that level of service.
Now we come to developers. They see two communities (different sides of the track so to speak). They decide to build in the one that has the better services, because they know they will be able to sell the house for a higher price. They are the ones that should be paying extend the community, not those who built it in the first place.
-
That is about it, you pay to extend the community. Do you understand the difference between join and extend? We have an established community that welcomes newcomers to replace those leaving - that is joining. If you want to build a larger community, then great, go ahead but make sure you don't get me to subsidize your growth.
So who subsidized you? Even if you buy an existing home, someone else paid for your infrastructure improvements. Why should you get a free ride just because you bought an older home? New homeowners pay taxes too, why do you think they should be second class taxpayers? Why do you think others should pay for a new highway, bridge, public transit, enhanced sewer and water treatment, medical facilities or any other improvements that result from growth in a community and you get to use?
Now we come to developers. They see two communities (different sides of the track so to speak). They decide to build in the one that has the better services, because they know they will be able to sell the house for a higher price. They are the ones that should be paying extend the community, not those who built it in the first place.
Local governments decide who gets to build and where, not developers.
I thought you were a socialist but I guess not.
What do you think society actually means?
-
So who subsidized you?
Nobody, it was part of the house sale price and went to the family(ies) before who paid the taxes. There is nothing second rate about those buying new homes, I just don't want the existing community to become the second rate ones by subsidizing them.
-
Nobody, it was part of the house sale price and went to the family(ies) before who paid the taxes. There is nothing second rate about those buying new homes, I just don't want the existing community to become the second rate ones by subsidizing them.
So what if you are the third or fourth owner of the home? Each owner has piggy backed off the original owner. You are not subsidizing services that you use.
When your neighbourhood needs new sewer and water lines or upgraded electrical because the existing ones need replacement due to age or obsolescence, maybe your neighbourhood should bare the entire cost. After all, why should those who have paid for newer more modern services under your system, help pay to replace your old ones?
I'll ask again, what does society and community mean to you?
-
When your neighbourhood needs new sewer and water lines or upgraded electrical because the existing ones need replacement due to age or obsolescence, maybe your neighbourhood should bare the entire cost. After all, why should those who have paid for newer more modern services under your system, help pay to replace your old ones?
That's exactly it. When I was in my 1950s bungalow they had to replace some sewers, including the line that connected the main sewer to my house. The city did not demand the people on the street pay for the sewer upgrades. And back when the houses were originally build they didn't have these big development fees, so even the original owners didn't pay for them. What exactly does the city have to pay for a new development, anyway? Hydro isn't their problem. So aside from the sewers what are the costs? I don't believe the city paves the roads or puts sidewalks in. More services needed for those who live there, sure, but those people are paying taxes for those services just like anyone else.
And again, if you're bringing in 340,000 new people every year as immigrants we have to build these developments.
-
I guess it is hard for some people to understand the difference between maintenance and new build.
SJ, yes if the new immigrants want to have new communities then they should participate in financing them. As I said many times before, I don't support the notion of growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. I am not against growth, and not against immigration, but there should be bennefits all around.
-
I guess it is hard for some people to understand the difference between maintenance and new build.
SJ, yes if the new immigrants want to have new communities then they should participate in financing them. As I said many times before, I don't support the notion of growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. I am not against growth, and not against immigration, but there should be bennefits all around.
So how do you stop growth? How do you differentiate which Canadians are a product of growth and which aren't. What makes you think you yourself aren't a product of growth or are you one of these "old stock" Canadians? I think you want to enjoy the benefits a growing vibrant economy provide but want someone else to pay for it.
-
So how do you stop growth? How do you differentiate which Canadians are a product of growth and which aren't. What makes you think you yourself aren't a product of growth or are you one of these "old stock" Canadians? I think you want to enjoy the benefits a growing vibrant economy provide but want someone else to pay for it.
Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany. We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.
-
Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany. We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.
For the most part it does pay its own way. How do you think our society could function if people weren't willing to invest and take risks? You speak as though developers were some kind of parasites. If so, go buy some tools and figure out how to build your own home and install your own services. The only other option is to live with your parents until they croak and then take over their home. Hope you don't have any siblings because you will be living with them for the rest of your life.
How do you plan on controlling growth without a rapidly ageing population?
In Vancouver, to demolish an existing home and rebuild on the same lot with existing infrastructure, permit fees are close to $30,000. Municipalities have ways of getting money out of builders and developers. They can impose whatever conditions they want on a developer and if those conditions aren't cost effective, the developer can walk.
-
Well that is the problem, we have a disagreement if growth is necessary for a vibrant economy. There are clearly examples that don't depend on growth like Germany.
Germany? Whaaa? Germany is taking in huge numbers of newcomers, to the point that it's becoming a major political conflict.
We have many in Canada who believe that growth is unnecessary for the economy, and many that argue that growth hurts us and want to stop it. My argument is simply that where possible, growth should pay its own way.
For the record, I'm with you... I'm not convinced that we really need to keep growing the population. Replacement-level immigration would be fine, I believe.
People say "we need more people working so that we have enough tax payers to pay for everything." (what they really mean is that the government needs revenue.)
People say "we need workers to do all these jobs because there's a shortage of workers in some industries, and Canadian kids don't even want to do low-paying jobs anyway..." (labor market issues are a whole 'nother thread, but a shortage in certain areas of the market (like skilled trades at the moment) isn't addressed by large scale immigration but rather by training and by specifically bringing in immigrants with the specific skills desired. A shortage of teenagers willing to pour coffee at Tim's shouldn't be addressed by the government, it should be addressed by Tim's.)
I don't think population growth is actually a good thing. I think many of the problems we're facing-- skyrocketing housing costs in Canada's biggest cities, transportation, pollution and environmental problems, providing services and infrastructure for more and more people-- are made worse by growing the population. So I'm completely with you on the idea that just growing and growing isn't the answer.
-k
-
There is a difference between growing a population and growing an economy. A growing economy without population growth will increase demand on its own, because as people become more affluent their desire for more and better will increase.
-
Good question. First off I personally don't subscribe to the growth model, but yes I agree it seems to be the public policy foisted upon us by the power brokers. Second, we can have growth as a country by building new communities and not diluting existing communities.
For the most part, communities don't appear because somebody said "there should be a community here". (There are exceptions, like Washington DC or Brasilia, which were established to be capitals.)
Historically, communities occur where they occur for a reason. Access to key transportation routes or proximity to natural resources, or strategic locations, for example. It was inevitable that a community occur where Vancouver is, because the location makes it so. Other cases aren't as cut and dried. Edmonton didn't need to be exactly where it is. It moved several times, in fact. But commercial factors related to the fur trade meant there was going to be some sort of trading post in northern Alberta, the North Saskatchewan River was a transportation route, and the river flats in what is now Edmonton made it a good location. Other similar forts came and went over the years, but Fort Edmonton survived the decline of the fur trade because it became a useful location for other economic purposes as well. A stop on the way to the Klondike gold rush, a center point for the growing agricultural industry in the region, and the transportation and services required to serve these industries, and eventually the oil industry as well. The evolution from fur trading post to regional center illustrates a point about how communities are created and evolve. They were settling the prairies... bringing immigrants to northern Alberta to build farms... why did they bring the railway line to Edmonton? Because Edmonton was already there... it was the most practical place to bring the railway line because there were already people and services there. Ultimately it became the regional center for all this immigrant settlement and farming activity because the Hudson Bay fur traders had set up shop there a hundred years earlier. Population centers are like gravity. They attract more people and more economic activity, which in turn attracts even more people and even more economic activity.
And this is why people are drawn to existing population centers instead of starting new communities in the middle of nowhere. We are extending existing communities, because people are drawn to the economic opportunities and infrastructure and services that already exist in these places.
The cost of living might be much lower in Flatbush Saskatchewan than in the BC Lower Mainland, but if you're an immigrant arriving in Canada you might have trouble finding work in Flatbush. You might also have a hard time finding a mosque or halal groceries in Flatbush. If you go to a larger center, you're more able to find work and find services you require as well.
When we want to extend existing communities, that extension has to pay its own way. This is not the same as an existing community deciding they want to have more local services, say a theatre or arena, then the exiting members should pay for that. The community has built the infrastructure, and should benefit from it. That has nothing to do with personal mobility, you are welcome to join the community by buying a house from an existing family that has supported it and the house price will reflect that level of service.
Now we come to developers. They see two communities (different sides of the track so to speak). They decide to build in the one that has the better services, because they know they will be able to sell the house for a higher price. They are the ones that should be paying extend the community, not those who built it in the first place.
But much of the need for the new laborers coming to Canada is in existing large communities. These Tim Hortons' crying out for more workers, the construction laborers, and all the rest, these are happening for the most part in big cities, not in Flatbush. To the extent that "we" "need" more workers to fuel our economic growth and pay taxes and all the rest, we need these new workers to be in existing communities. So if "we" "need" growth, then "we" have to help make it possible for our communities to expand.
-k