Population and Housing

[plam]

This is U.S. centric, but applies just about anywhere. I know that many here would agree with this point of view. 

Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
"Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

For sure the author is correct regarding HVAC and insulation benefits of newer homes. But I wonder how overall build quality is, in comparison.  A co-worker of mine had purchased a newer home (about 4 years old) and had issues with pipes freezing and other problems. My semi-detached is about 57 years old, and we never had any issues.

Though I highly doubt anyone with fetish our home...LOL

Have you lived in that house for 57 years? How do you know that the pipes didn't freeze in year 2?

[danbrotherston]

For sure the author is correct regarding HVAC and insulation benefits of newer homes. But I wonder how overall build quality is, in comparison.  A co-worker of mine had purchased a newer home (about 4 years old) and had issues with pipes freezing and other problems. My semi-detached is about 57 years old, and we never had any issues.

Though I highly doubt anyone with fetish our home...LOL

Have you lived in that house for 57 years? How do you know that the pipes didn't freeze in year 2?

I had a house that was 100 years old, and I took out two door frames, one that was original, one that was built about 10 years ago. The original one took hours of hacking at it with crowbars by three of us to take out. The one from 10 years ago, literally fell apart when I pulled on it to test its strength.

That being said, the new door frame that fell apart was never going to last 100 years. There is some survivorship bias.

But I don't think age is much of a heuristic about quality, in most cases. With the one clear exception that in North America it is the case that ONLY old places (but not all old places) have good urban design (well almost, I'm sure there are a handful of counter examples, which really just prove the rule).

[the_conestoga_guy]

This is U.S. centric, but applies just about anywhere. I know that many here would agree with this point of view. 

Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
"Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

This is very anecdotal, but I felt incentivized to purchase my 1940's home BECAUSE it was old and crappy compared to modern builds. Personally speaking, I consider the climate crisis to be the largest issue facing our generation, we need a wartime-like effort to mitigate it, etc.. So when I was looking to buy for myself and my partner, we were naturally drawn to modern condos as they're built to (reasonably, not exceptionally) high insulation standards, thus our personal "carbon footprint" would be its lowest possible.

However, taking a step back, I realized that by moving into one of these drafty houses, I could renovate it to a much higher standard and replace the gas-consuming appliances with electric variants, among other upgrades. (As an aside, the REEP website is a great resource and we don't talk about it enough!)

I realize that this is very idealistic and not a scalable long-term solution compared to ripping out old homes in favour of mid-rise developments. But the house we bought is in a neighbourhood that likely will never experience a zoning change to permit those kinds of builds. And to be perfectly clear, I'm an advocate for allowing mid-rise buildings in my neighbourhood - I'd be very happy to see all of my neighbours turn into 3-storey walkups!

[ijmorlan]

I realize that this is very idealistic and not a scalable long-term solution compared to ripping out old homes in favour of mid-rise developments. But the house we bought is in a neighbourhood that likely will never experience a zoning change to permit those kinds of builds. And to be perfectly clear, I'm an advocate for allowing mid-rise buildings in my neighbourhood - I'd be very happy to see all of my neighbours turn into 3-storey walkups!

As long as fundamentalist accessabilitarians don’t prevent the construction of such housing! I’m pretty sure we had a discussion here where somebody said that both units of a duplex should be required to be accessible…I’m hoping I was misunderstanding them.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I realize that this is very idealistic and not a scalable long-term solution compared to ripping out old homes in favour of mid-rise developments. But the house we bought is in a neighbourhood that likely will never experience a zoning change to permit those kinds of builds. And to be perfectly clear, I'm an advocate for allowing mid-rise buildings in my neighbourhood - I'd be very happy to see all of my neighbours turn into 3-storey walkups!

As long as fundamentalist accessabilitarians don’t prevent the construction of such housing! I’m pretty sure we had a discussion here where somebody said that both units of a duplex should be required to be accessible…I’m hoping I was misunderstanding them.

I'm definitely not qualified to talk about accessibility as it pertains to housing, other than opining "it's important." But I've always liked the utilitarian appeal of a 3 or 4-storey walkup, with the ground floor designed and reserved for those with accessibility concerns, mainly because elevators are expensive and always have the potential to fail. 

I really do wonder if developers and small-scale land owners would be attracted to building more infill walkups if the zoning rules were relaxed, and if they didn't need to waste land/resources on parking spaces. Or is there something else holding them back? I'm new to this game, so I apologise if this is an obvious question.

[danbrotherston]

This is U.S. centric, but applies just about anywhere. I know that many here would agree with this point of view. 

Stop Fetishizing Old Homes
"Whatever your aesthetic preferences, new construction is better on nearly every conceivable measure."

This is very anecdotal, but I felt incentivized to purchase my 1940's home BECAUSE it was old and crappy compared to modern builds. Personally speaking, I consider the climate crisis to be the largest issue facing our generation, we need a wartime-like effort to mitigate it, etc.. So when I was looking to buy for myself and my partner, we were naturally drawn to modern condos as they're built to (reasonably, not exceptionally) high insulation standards, thus our personal "carbon footprint" would be its lowest possible.

However, taking a step back, I realized that by moving into one of these drafty houses, I could renovate it to a much higher standard and replace the gas-consuming appliances with electric variants, among other upgrades. (As an aside, the REEP website is a great resource and we don't talk about it enough!)

I realize that this is very idealistic and not a scalable long-term solution compared to ripping out old homes in favour of mid-rise developments. But the house we bought is in a neighbourhood that likely will never experience a zoning change to permit those kinds of builds. And to be perfectly clear, I'm an advocate for allowing mid-rise buildings in my neighbourhood - I'd be very happy to see all of my neighbours turn into 3-storey walkups!

This is nice in theory, but you're right about scalability.

I once had a dream of turning my house into a 3 storey walkup.  I'm glad I didn't invest any effort into it, my "neighbours" almost certainly would have killed the ideas, and my finances, and my spirit. Until we're willing to, as a society, tell those folks to collectively go shove it, we're not going to solve our problems.

I moved into a condo (even an older one) because I felt that the value of density was greater than the value of a more efficient single family home.

[ijmorlan]

As long as fundamentalist accessabilitarians don’t prevent the construction of such housing! I’m pretty sure we had a discussion here where somebody said that both units of a duplex should be required to be accessible…I’m hoping I was misunderstanding them.

I'm definitely not qualified to talk about accessibility as it pertains to housing, other than opining "it's important." But I've always liked the utilitarian appeal of a 3 or 4-storey walkup, with the ground floor designed and reserved for those with accessibility concerns, mainly because elevators are expensive and always have the potential to fail. 

I think this is a great way of ensuring the existence of lots of accessible units without imposing unreasonable elevator costs on small buildings. It should be possible for one floor of every building to be reached from outside without stairs.

I really do wonder if developers and small-scale land owners would be attracted to building more infill walkups if the zoning rules were relaxed, and if they didn't need to waste land/resources on parking spaces. Or is there something else holding them back? I'm new to this game, so I apologise if this is an obvious question.

Definitely. Eliminate parking minima and allow triplexes in all residential zones and watch the City’s density increase gradually.

[ac3r]

Where new home prices have shot up the most in Canada: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/where-...42814.html

New home prices in Canada are shooting up as buyers continue to snap up real estate.

Statistics Canada says prices rose 11.6 per cent year over year in December. The biggest increases weren’t in the country’s biggest cities.

Kitchener–Cambridge–Waterloo took the top spot with a 30.7 per cent year over year jump, breaking its previous record set in October 2021. Supply is the tightest it’s ever been, with only 0.2 months of inventory.

"The Tri-Cities' year-over-year growth is an indication of a larger upward trend we're seeing in markets across southern Ontario, including Hamilton and London,” Mary Johnson, Vice-President of StreetCity Realty, told Yahoo Finance Canada.

“As supply remains low, the search for affordable housing is pushing homebuyers to look beyond the Greater Toronto Area."

The area is also home to a strong high-tech sector, which didn’t bear the brunt of other types of job losses during the pandemic.

No surprise here...

[nms]

Here's a housing conundrum that I don't know the answer to:

Previously, a lot would have one house. When the owner of that house wanted to move, they sold their house and bought a new house elsewhere so the housing stock was 1 sold : 1 bought. At most there would be two houses needed to replace the one had been sold to have two homeowners were previously there had been one. The supply of home buyers was limited to those who had access to a previous house, or those who had saved up enough money to enter the market. Geography also played a role as there was only so much space for building.

Now, a plot of land that might previously have held four houses to the half acre can hold a tower with 100 housing units. When the individual owners of those 100 units want to move (say to a house), there are now 100 home buyers who are looking for 100 units of housing. Unless another 100-unit tower is built, those existing owners are going to wash into a low rise development and increase demand. In theoretical terms, a tower can be built infinitely high and where previously there had only been 4 houses, there could be 100, 200 or more homes that serve as capital to climb the housing ladder. Many of those owners moving from towers do not want to move into another tower. They would like a single-family home or a row house. This then puts an incredible pressure on everyone involved in the housing industry to build more single-family homes or other low-rise buildings. On the other hand, if the 100-unit condo tower wasn't built, that would keep 96 potential home buyers from entering the home buying pool (I deducted the 4 original houses that were on the lot). Some would find other accommodations (eg rentals), others would look elsewhere.

We have heard the complaint from developers that they cannot afford to build larger units that could serve as a proxy for a single-family home, which results in a large amount of 1-bedroom apartments, and not much for families to graduate into as they need more space.

Will a city like those in Waterloo Region ever get to a state where all the housing needs are met regardless of income or station in life? Greater minds than mine will likely still be struggling with this long after everyone here is gone.

[taylortbb]

Now, a plot of land that might previously have held four houses to the half acre can hold a tower with 100 housing units. When the individual owners of those 100 units want to move (say to a house), there are now 100 home buyers who are looking for 100 units of housing.  Unless another 100-unit tower is built, those existing owners are going to wash into a low rise development and increase demand.  In theoretical terms, a tower can be built infinitely high and where previously there had only been 4 houses, there could be 100, 200 or more homes that serve as capital to climb the housing ladder.  Many of those owners moving from towers do not want to move into another tower.  They would like a single-family home or a row house.  This then puts an incredible pressure on everyone involved in the housing industry to build more single-family homes or other low-rise buildings.

I think the issue with your analysis is that it ignores all the reasons people downsize from houses. Empty nesters looking for a smaller place may choose to move into a tower, especially as they get older and the maintenance of a house becomes more of a problem.

I believe the expectation of boomers downsizing was a key part of our provincial housing plan, but it's turned out they're doing it slower than expected. That said, at some point they will have to, and the effect on the housing market will likely be significant.

[ac3r]

Why a 4-storey apartment could be coming to a residential street near you: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/dr...-1.6324869

[jwilliamson]

I like that their photo introducing the section on 4 storey, 4 unit buildings is probably 6-8 storeys and 50+ units.

[jeffster]

As you know, some census information has been released; here are some highlights of this region.

Kitchener: 2021) 256,885 2016) 233,222 an increase of 10.1%
Waterloo: 2021) 121,436 2016) 104,986 an increase of 15.7%
Cambridge: 2021) 138,479 2016) 129,920 an increase of 6.6%

Metro for Kitchener is: 2021) 575,847 2016) 523,894 and increase of 9.9%

The above does not includes Wellesley. This sets the regional population at 586,466

The economic population (Kitchener-Guelph-Barrie) is: 2021) 1,427,617 2016) 1,299,250 an increase of 9.9%

The economic region is now the 3rd largest in Ontario, behind Toronto and Hamilton/Niagara. We're now ahead of the Ottawa region.

[danbrotherston]

As you know, some census information has been released; here are some highlights of this region.

Kitchener: 2021) 256,885 2016) 233,222 an increase of 10.1%
Waterloo:  2021) 121,436 2016) 104,986 an increase of 15.7%
Cambridge: 2021) 138,479 2016) 129,920 an increase of 6.6%

Metro for Kitchener is: 2021) 575,847 2016) 523,894 and increase of 9.9%

The above does not includes Wellesley. This sets the regional population at 586,466

The economic population (Kitchener-Guelph-Barrie) is: 2021) 1,427,617 2016) 1,299,250 an increase of 9.9%

The economic region is now the 3rd largest in Ontario, behind Toronto and Hamilton/Niagara. We're now ahead of the Ottawa region.

This is a very strange conglomeration, as far as I'm aware, we have few economic ties to Barrie, there are no direct transportation routes between the two areas, and no social connection that I'm aware of.

I can believe this is a stats can grouping of some type, but it makes little sense to me IMO, it is certainly not in any way comparable to Ottawa region which is a highly centralized and integrated area. And, further, if you include the metro area of Ottawa (which includes parts of Quebec) which is more representative of the population of economic region, we are also still smaller.

[jeffster]

As you know, some census information has been released; here are some highlights of this region.

Kitchener: 2021) 256,885 2016) 233,222 an increase of 10.1%
Waterloo:  2021) 121,436 2016) 104,986 an increase of 15.7%
Cambridge: 2021) 138,479 2016) 129,920 an increase of 6.6%

Metro for Kitchener is: 2021) 575,847 2016) 523,894 and increase of 9.9%

The above does not includes Wellesley. This sets the regional population at 586,466

The economic population (Kitchener-Guelph-Barrie) is: 2021) 1,427,617 2016) 1,299,250 an increase of 9.9%

The economic region is now the 3rd largest in Ontario, behind Toronto and Hamilton/Niagara. We're now ahead of the Ottawa region.

This is a very strange conglomeration, as far as I'm aware, we have few economic ties to Barrie, there are no direct transportation routes between the two areas, and no social connection that I'm aware of.

I can believe this is a stats can grouping of some type, but it makes little sense to me IMO, it is certainly not in any way comparable to Ottawa region which is a highly centralized and integrated area. And, further, if you include the metro area of Ottawa (which includes parts of Quebec) which is more representative of the population of economic region, we are also still smaller.

A lot of Census information doesn't make sense.

Take London for example, it's "metro" population includes places far outside the city, and also outside the region/county. Same applies with Hamilton (includes Burlington) and Toronto, of course.

Take this area, the metro population doesn't even count all of the region, let alone anything outside the region (and most fair comparison is London -- which, as I had mentioned, includes population base far outside the city and region).

As for the economic region, I have no idea how they came up with it. It would make sense if it was Kitchener-Guelph-Brantford-Stratford, for example. But I guess this is the way the government wants it split up.