04-23-2024, 10:52 PM
(04-23-2024, 01:05 PM)Kodra24 Wrote:(10-25-2021, 08:17 PM)nms Wrote: One could argue that asking for any number of nuisance additions to a development could cut into a developer's profits. Fire safety systems for one. When was the last time a high density building actually burnt to the ground? So obviously those are just useless. And elevators, very expensive. Why should buildings have more than one? That just cuts into profits. And mail rooms? Why not force Canada Post to put community boxes out front instead? You could squeeze another unit in the mail room space.
If a building is to become a complete community, then I think that there is definitely grounds to encourage affordable housing within buildings.
This particular development is creating 253 units and barely providing enough funding for 1.5 units of affordable housing. The Region's current waiting list for affordable housing is somewhere between 5000 and 6000 units. At this rate, we will need 4000 new buildings built to collect enough affordable housing funds to support new affordable housing in Waterloo Region. While the development pace is quick in town, I doubt we're going to get there any time soon. I am also not convinced that building 4000 new buildings, skewed heavily towards luxury, single bedroom units is going to solve the housing problem either.
Maybe a bit off-topic but this comment got me thinking in regards to affordable housing - is that something that is feasible? As in, would the wealthy or upper middle class want to live in a building where a fairly high proportion of units is designated as affordable housing? Given the choice, would they choose that particular building or one that does not have affordable housing? Just putting myself in the developer's shoes, and again I'm just thinking out loud and could be 100% wrong here, but how would I market a building that has a mix of units like that...in any case this is a great discussion to have
Paris, France has come up with a plan, called mixité sociale, residents from a broad cross-section of society and do avoid economic segregation (NY Times article, May 19, 2024). The current goal is to create 30 percent public housing for low-income residents and 10 percent for middle-income residents by 2035. Currently, 25 per cent of all Paris residents live in public housing.
Often when affordable vs market housing is debated, it's assumed that "affordable" means the very, very low end of the economic scale that may or may not be living on government assistance, and "market" means someone super-rich. This framing ignores probably 95% of our society. The reality is that "affordable", as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Housing (2023) is anyone who spends no more than 30 per cent of household income on annual accommodation costs (rent or mortgage or whatever). The average price of house in Waterloo Region hovers around $800,000. To keep the mortgage within 30 per cent of the household income, the average household income would need to be somewhere around $150,000 and monthly payments of $4000-$4500. The CMHC reports that 2023 2-bedroom rents in Waterloo Region averaged $1600 in 2023 (likely a conservative figure), which would require a minimum household income of $64,000.
What kind of full-time job (2000 hrs/year) fits in the neighbourhood of a $64,000 salary? A quick look at the Federal government job bank (which is not limited to federal government jobs) includes the following job postings on April 23, 2024:
- Art Director
- Bricklayer
- Conveyor belt splicer
- Dental hygienist
- Electrician
- Family physician
- Financial officer
- Millwright
- Restaurant Manager
- Store Manager
- Painter
- Physiotherapist
- Salon manager
- Software developer
- Speech-language pathologist
- Truck technician
- Etc etc
The current housing market has encouraged properties to sell for too much which in turn encourages developers to squeeze every last penny out of the units that they wish to build on that property. How would the market change if instead government (municipal, regional, provincial, or federal) were to buy up properties that are either vacant, or neglected and build housing on them (as happens in Paris and elsewhere)? Suddenly, developers would not be encouraged to buy property and sit on it, waiting for the market allow them to build what they want to build rather than what the community needs.
(mods: feel free to bump this to a new thread to avoid sidelining this one)