Hacker News Reader

Comment by turnip1979 | Hacker News Reader

turnip1979

I am skeptical about the roofs over people's head argument. This is being used by buyers to rationalize mind boggling home values in Toronto and Vancouver. If the jobs keep being crappy, young people will just move away to better economic environments. Canada is constantly losing a lot of its top talent to the US because of this.

I think the true cause of the unaffordable housing is the insanely low interest rates. The people at the helm are attempting growth at all costs.

Edit: it is really interesting to contrast Toronto with SF. Both are really nice places to live without cost of living concerns. Both have insane home prices. Rents are relatively cheap in Toronto because of basic demand and supply. SF has great paying jobs, Toronto does not. Will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next decade in both cities.

View on HN

Lack of construction is certainly a problem in Toronto, which has a default 10 meter height limit for new residential construction. All new buildings taller than a house require municipal buy-in.

Between 2001 and 2011, the number dwellings in Toronto increased 11%, while areas 30km from the downtown core grew about 35%. You can clearly see the effects of the 10m restriction on urban sprawl at p. 11 of the city's census backgrounder:

http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/social_development_fi...

Detached homes and town-homes use twice as much energy as apartments, and people commuting 30km to the city generally drive. There has been an uptick in apartment construction recently, but these units are generally too small for families because developers find it more profitable to sell mini-suites to young bachelors.

Limiting high rise sounds like a good thing. Especially in places reasonably far from the equator. It's nice being able to get sunlight at the street level!

I don't think very tall buildings are the answer. More and better communal services and smaller more efficient properties. I think that would go a fair way.

This is NIMBYism at its finest. Those who immigrated to Toronto first own prime real estate near commercial centres. New working families have to move out and commute long distances so that retired folk living in Toronto houses can enjoy their land appreciation and sunshine.

It happens everywhere it seems, even in small resort towns, their success does not apply to everyone. If you have money, you can buy in. If you don't, you live in the next town, and pay for your own bus to get to work.

Back in the day, America, and even in Britain, housed their servant class.

Today, sure the servant class is "free" to the degree they're not literally called servants, but I think we're doing things worse when it comes to housing. This servant class is priced out of the employer's neighborhood market to be sure, but often all surrounding neighborhoods, and increasingly even the town, that their employer resides in. They're effectively exported at the end of their service day, and imported when needed again the next. I think it's disgusting.

There are ways to make it better. For example, when driving through Manhattan, you feel like you're in a canyon. In downtown Chicago, you don't get that same feeling because they have rules that buildings have to be so many feet from the street, and after a certain height must be set in even more. It's a real noticeable difference from cities that don't have such regulations, and it really makes the city feel much more sunny, friendly, and alive. I often felt like a troll walking through Manhattan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com