• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Cost of housing in Canada

I’m rural/semi-rural…lots of land and the smell of cows with a SE wind. There is no shortage of residential land where I live, and only people who want to be this far away from a city are…some big SDHs, some medium-sized SDHs, some small SDHs…even a few trailer parks nearby. No buses, no fire hydrants, no sewers. There actually is a sub-development of townhomes in the middle of the country nearby…weirdest thing I’ve seen, but no NIMBY thing going on…developers don’t feel restricted from building whatever they want. You seem bent on making SDHs shrink in suburban and urban areas to solve the problem. I don’t see a lot of mansion type houses going on inside downtown Ottawa, just apartments, condos and in suburbia it’s waves of townhomes for the most part. My point remains that where there is remaining residential development land in urban and suburban areas, emphasis should be made on efficient, higher-density housing biased towards vertical development. If someone wants to build a larger SDH out from the city where there is relatively plentiful land, let them, not impose some kind of Mother/Government Knows Best kind of restricted home size.
I've multiple (literally every single) time specified that this would be an objective for production homes in large scale developments- the majority of the 20k SDH's built annually in Ontario. Rural / semi rural custom SDH's on one off lots are a drop in the bucket, and not part of this discussion.

Take a drive from Toronto, through York Region, up to Barrie, across Dufferin Country, Dundalk, down through the tri-cities. Increasing numbers of townhomes (especially for infill).but still A LOT of greenfield land going to phases of 2400sqft SDH's, and comparably sized duplexes/ luxury townhomes. Places that wanted to densify and maintain their farmland until Father Government (knowing best) rolled over for his belly scratches and decried that we need suburbs that the locals can't afford.

I'm on a rural half acre. An hour from any "city".

We need a mix of houses. Part of that mix should be/will be subdivisions of SDH's. All large scale developments should be densified- including those that will be SDH's (and luxury townhomes).
 
Last edited:
building costs in Toronto in 2022 were 165 per sq. ft. which puts a 2000 sq. ft. house cost at 330,000. The rest is greed, profit, land costs and taxes. Making the land ava/ilable to build (they had a great chance at that in Downsview and blew it) would certainly help. Restricting the build size and luxury add-ons another plus. Auction off the lots to new home owners/current area residents again is good but how to prevent opportunists from jumping in I don't know. P|erhaps maintain ownership of the land and rent out the lots only. Oh, and forget the really high density tiny lot thing, you want families to move in and kids need a place to play. Consider Hawaii, the city is devastated and luxury money is there buying current owners out.

This. A lot of that is developer driven though.

Developers set rules pertaining to fit and finish, paint colours, types of roofing, kerb side appearance and size.

When we moved to Lethbridge we found a lovely subdivision, with a lovely lot and a lovely view and we liked the standard of build in the area. The only thing we couldn't agree on was affordability. We were willing to buy a smaller house from the developer, from his catalogue, but he was unwilling to sell that house on the lot that we wanted because he felt that he could upsell the lot with a larger house.

We did the other thing.
 
Reference the multi-family dwelling debate:

Is there any good statistical data on consumer preference economics that compares you SDHs, duplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, low rise apartments and high rise apartments? How many people are content with a balcony vs how many are content with a small private yard vs how many want a lawn for the kids to play with the dog?

And how many people are willing to start off in one "substandard" house if there is hope of something better in the future?
 
Reference the multi-family dwelling debate:

Is there any good statistical data on consumer preference economics that compares you SDHs, duplexes, fourplexes, rowhouses, low rise apartments and high rise apartments? How many people are content with a balcony vs how many are content with a small private yard vs how many want a lawn for the kids to play with the dog?

And how many people are willing to start off in one "substandard" house if there is hope of something better in the future?
AFAIK this level of granularity of the housing supply-demand quandary is not nearly as mature. Total numbers of demand/needed units vs supply units seems known (like an oft quoted 20% of houses are SDHs), but the breakdown of the sub-types needed/avail down to the municipal level doesn’t seem to exist in any meaningful measures. If it does, I’d look forward to seeing it to be able to comment more definitively on the mix of housing categories thing.
 
AFAIK this level of granularity of the housing supply-demand quandary is not nearly as mature. Total numbers of demand/needed units vs supply units seems known (like an oft quoted 20% of houses are SDHs), but the breakdown of the sub-types needed/avail down to the municipal level doesn’t seem to exist in any meaningful measures. If it does, I’d look forward to seeing it to be able to comment more definitively on the mix of housing categories thing.

Short form:

1694810951413.png

;)
 
And here is a Course of Action under consideration by 40 of the world's greatest cities. Sadiq Khan bends towards the Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau end of the spectrum. Never met a government plan he didn't like.

The reason some folks prefer to keep their distance from cities.

It just seems easier to organize city folks and have them dressing by the right.

No meat, no dairy and three outfits a year: Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s plan for London​

C40, a global group of city mayors chaired by Sadiq Khan, has a radical vision of net zero that critics say will restrict personal choice

ByTim Sigsworth15 September 2023 • 11:38am

Sadiq Khan

Picture the scene. You have just made it through the door from work, although not by car because private vehicles no longer exist. You change out of your work clothes into something more comfortable, perhaps one of three new items of clothing you are allowed to buy every year.
Then it is downstairs for dinner, since all this virtue is hungry work. But don’t forget that meat and dairy are off the menu, so instead you might like to daydream about getting away from it all – only to remember that you used up your quota of one short-haul return flight every three years last summer.
This is the radical vision of a net zero future dreamed up by C40, a global collective of city mayors chaired by Sadiq Khan, which advocates extreme measures to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and limit global temperature increases to 1.5C.
The Mayor of London is, of course, no stranger to pushing the dial on climate change. His unrelenting expansion of the Ulez ultra low emissions zone in August faced down major criticism from affected businesses, disadvantaged citizens and vigilante vandals.
Khan is showing no signs of slowing down: this week, plans were unveiled to lower the speed limit to 20mph on a further 40 miles of roads in London, the capital’s largest-ever rollout to date.

Khan’s influence on C40 goes beyond his chairmanship CREDIT: Victoria Jones/PA Wire
Since December 2021, he has led C40, which is made up of the mayors of 96 cities from six different continents. It spends its time conducting research, holding conferences and drawing up “climate action plans” and was originally founded by the then-Labour mayor of London Ken Livingstone in 2005.
It merged the following year with a similar body set up by former US president Bill Clinton, and its current board president is Michael Bloomberg, the US billionaire. Its website lists the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as a “major funder”, among several other governments, charities and multinational companies.
In 2019, when Khan was vice-chairman, C40 commissioned a startling study by the University of Leeds and Arup, a consultancy, about how cities could slash their emissions by 2030. Citizens’ consumption habits were its central focus as it set out a range of “progressive” and “ambitious” targets.
Its more radical suggestions involved no less than: the abolition of private vehicles; the prohibition of meat and dairy consumption; the rationing of new items of clothing to three each per year; and the restriction of short-haul return flights to one every three years.
It also proposed slashing the use of steel and cement in construction and significantly increasing the proportion of buildings made from wood, disregarding the major restrictions this would place on attempts to solve the housing crisis by building more homes.

Khan has not proposed implementing any of these suggestions. But to his critics, the report is emblematic of C40 as an unelected, self-appointed body which holds radical positions on net zero and climate change that the public could not bear.
Howard Cox, the motoring campaigner and Reform candidate for next year’s London mayoral elections, dubs it an undemocratic “global quango” which, if elected, he would pull London out of.
For Andrew Montford, director of Net Zero Watch, it is “divorced from reason”, and Graham Stringer, the Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, holds that its policies would disproportionately affect the poorest in society.
Yet at the same time as presenting these “ambitious” targets, the report itself insists that it “does not advocate for wholesale adoption” of them because they would not even be feasible unless production processes became much more cost- and resource-efficient.
They are instead “reference points” for cities to “reflect on”, and it is “ultimately up to individuals” to decide their own consumption habits. To some, this suggests the very advocates of net zero policies that would completely transform the way we live our lives accept that they would not actually work.
“Fresh from imposing misery on motorists through his draconian Ulez expansion, Sadiq Khan appears to be conspiring new ways to make people’s lives miserable,” says Craig Mackinlay, the Tory MP who chairs the net zero scrutiny group in parliament.

Tory MP Craig Mackinlay: ‘Fresh from imposing misery on motorists through his draconian Ulez expansion, Sadiq Khan appears to be conspiring new ways to make people’s lives miserable’ CREDIT: Yui Mok/PA
“I’ve really had enough of this authoritarian, miserabilist approach to net zero. What we need is for technology and innovation to allow people to become more prosperous and greener at the same time; not poorer, colder and hungrier.”
Khan’s influence on C40, moreover, goes beyond his chairmanship: five of its 11-strong management team are alumni of London mayoral administrations or the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Anna Beech, managing director for governance and executive engagement, helped draw up London’s first climate change action plan under Boris Johnson, while Cassie Sutherland, managing director for climate solutions and networks, was a City Hall project manager on a London environment strategy in 2018.
Juliette Carter, managing director for corporate services, used to work in human resources at the GLA and deputy executive director Kevin Austin was its external relations chief, both before Khan’s election. Executive director Mark Watts was once a senior advisor to Ken Livingstone during his time as Mayor of London.
According to staff profiles on C40’s website, it employs 279 people outside of this management team, all of whom are subject to a stringent eco-friendly office regime. Internal staff documents ban the use of paper, even for note-taking and to-do lists, as well as printing using coloured ink or on just one side.

Measures advocated by C40 include imposing a quota of one short-haul return flight every three years CREDIT: AFP/Getty Images
Flights and taxis can only be justified in “exceptional circumstances”, additional time off in lieu is given to staff who are forced to travel long distances by train instead, and conferences and events should aim to only provide vegetarian and vegan catering. C40 declined to comment on these policies.
“There are two fundamental problems with Sadiq’s approach,” explains Stringer, despite sharing a political party with him. “It relies on regressive charges and taxes, and it restricts personal choice. It will damage the poorest people and that is who Labour should be representing. The report’s policies are at one with many net zero policies that punish low-paid and disadvantaged people and put damaging burdens on industry.”
A spokesperson for the Mayor of London, said: “This report was published well before Sadiq became Chair of C40. The ideas mentioned are not proposals let alone recommendations and the Mayor is certainly not suggesting to anyone that they shouldn’t eat meat, or that they shouldn’t fly. It is for cities to determine the most effective implementation pathway for them.
“Sadiq has set an ambitious target for London to reach net zero by 2030, and London is leading the way by insulating homes, electrifying our bus and taxi fleets, and expanding electric vehicle infrastructure to the extent that our capital has the most public rapid charging points of any European city.”
A spokesman for C40 said: “The report is a generic analysis of emissions not looking at any specific C40 city. It is not a plan for cities to adopt. It’s up to individuals to make their personal lifestyle choices, including what type of food to eat and what type of clothing they prefer.”

 

Attachments

  • 1694811159009.png
    1694811159009.png
    53.6 KB · Views: 0
I’m rural/semi-rural…lots of land and the smell of cows with a SE wind. There is no shortage of residential land where I live, and only people who want to be this far away from a city are…some big SDHs, some medium-sized SDHs, some small SDHs…even a few trailer parks nearby. No buses, no fire hydrants, no sewers. There actually is a sub-development of townhomes in the middle of the country nearby…weirdest thing I’ve seen, but no NIMBY thing going on…developers don’t feel restricted from building whatever they want. You seem bent on making SDHs shrink in suburban and urban areas to solve the problem. I don’t see a lot of mansion type houses going on inside downtown Ottawa, just apartments, condos and in suburbia it’s waves of townhomes for the most part.
Alta vista area seems to have a lot of tear downs and mansion style homes being built. The value there is definitly the property and not the homes. Not quite downtown but close enough. There is some NIMBY stuff in some neighbourhoods like Alta Vista, Glebe, old south Ottawa etc. There was some of it when we looked at Manotick. Not that it has stopped development.
My point remains that where there is remaining residential development land in urban and suburban areas, emphasis should be made on efficient, higher-density housing biased towards vertical development. If someone wants to build a larger SDH out from the city where there is relatively plentiful land, let them, not impose some kind of Mother/Government Knows Best kind of restricted home size.
I suspect we’ll see a lot of density builds by the south end LRT stations. Pretty open spaces there ready to be developed.
 
I suspect we’ll see a lot of density builds by the south end LRT stations. Pretty open spaces there ready to be developed.
Yup. My mother-in-law lives near there and 90% of what I see are townhomes and small single detached. No monsters other than Manotick (Rideau Forest and Manotick Ridge) from what I can see. My mother-in-law is in a townhouse, but would have preferred something in a single-floor low-rise type building which is in very short supply in Ottawa, hence perhaps the source of my bias against screwing with single-detacheds while there is a dearth of higher-density housing in the city.
 
Alta vista area seems to have a lot of tear downs and mansion style homes being built. The value there is definitly the property and not the homes. Not quite downtown but close enough. There is some NIMBY stuff in some neighbourhoods like Alta Vista, Glebe, old south Ottawa etc. There was some of it when we looked at Manotick. Not that it has stopped development.

I suspect we’ll see a lot of density builds by the south end LRT stations. Pretty open spaces there ready to be developed.
Vanier manages to have NIMBYs, though here it tends to be the "what will the poor people do?", and anti-gentrification crowd...

Vanier needs a solid dose of gentrification via low rise apartments and condos.
 
Alta vista area seems to have a lot of tear downs and mansion style homes being built. The value there is definitly the property and not the homes. Not quite downtown but close enough. There is some NIMBY stuff in some neighbourhoods like Alta Vista, Glebe, old south Ottawa etc. There was some of it when we looked at Manotick. Not that it has stopped development.

I suspect we’ll see a lot of density builds by the south end LRT stations. Pretty open spaces there ready to be developed.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a land use planning thing, at least in Toronto. High(er) density (re)development around rapid transit stations.

As far as I'm concerned, the cost of land and infrastructure are the big drivers in housing costs, at least in the GTA. The house I grew up in was built in the early 1950s; in North York, storey-and-a-half, probably 1500 sf, 60' lot, on septic. Nothing fancy, formica counter, plywood railing to upstairs, still on coal. It was brick veneer, but back then exterior cladding options were limited and Toronto had lots of clay and lots of immigrant skilled layer to install it.

I don't know, but I'll bet all the stone counters, 9' ceilings and all the other 'must-haves' in modern homes add, maybe, $20K to the cost of a home to a builder. So a 'plain Jane' new build isn't going to be that much cheaper than a 'fancy house' down the road.
 
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a land use planning thing, at least in Toronto. High(er) density (re)development around rapid transit stations.

As far as I'm concerned, the cost of land and infrastructure are the big drivers in housing costs, at least in the GTA. The house I grew up in was built in the early 1950s; in North York, storey-and-a-half, probably 1500 sf, 60' lot, on septic. Nothing fancy, formica counter, plywood railing to upstairs, still on coal. It was brick veneer, but back then exterior cladding options were limited and Toronto had lots of clay and lots of immigrant skilled layer to install it.

I don't know, but I'll bet all the stone counters, 9' ceilings and all the other 'must-haves' in modern homes add, maybe, $20K to the cost of a home to a builder. So a 'plain Jane' new build isn't going to be that much cheaper than a 'fancy house' down the road.
You obviously have not renovated, lately. $20k is considerably light….
 
You obviously have not renovated, lately. $20k is considerably light….
I get that, but at the bulk developer-purchase level, the spread between basic and upgrade narrows. It can't be looked at from the perspective of granite vs no counter at all.
 
I don't know, but I'll bet all the stone counters, 9' ceilings and all the other 'must-haves' in modern homes add, maybe, $20K to the cost of a home to a builder. So a 'plain Jane' new build isn't going to be that much cheaper than a 'fancy house' down the roroad.
I'll take that action.
Looking just at the 9' ceiling- thats a minimum 12.5% spread on applicable material volume - wall insulation/ interior and exterior cladding, studs, before getting into the premium for non standard product- 54 inch sheetrock instead of 48, 9ft studs instead of 8.

The difference between exterior cladding, flooring, light fixtures, all adds up. Roof and foundation complexity can add significant material cost and build time, even in production homes.

It all adds up.

Take any estimate you can find for cost per sq ft. They vary, but theres almost always a 50+ dollar spread, even just looking at production rather than custom. 50 dollars x 2400 sqft = 120k.

A 2400 sqft @ 215 = 516k build cost
A 1600 sqft @ 165 = 264k build cost
 
I'll take that action.
Looking just at the 9' ceiling- thats a minimum 12.5% spread on applicable material volume - wall insulation/ interior and exterior cladding, studs, before getting into the premium for non standard product- 54 inch sheetrock instead of 48, 9ft studs instead of 8.

The difference between exterior cladding, flooring, light fixtures, all adds up. Roof and foundation complexity can add significant material cost and build time, even in production homes.

It all adds up.

Take any estimate you can find for cost per sq ft. They vary, but theres almost always a 50+ dollar spread, even just looking at production rather than custom. 50 dollars x 2400 sqft = 120k.

A 2400 sqft @ 215 = 516k build cost
A 1600 sqft @ 165 = 264k build cost
This is a super important point that lots of people forget. When you are building a house and trying to save money, for the love of god avoid weird shapes and avoid deviating from standard dimensional building supplies. Stay in multiples of 8 foot lengths and keep your ceiling heights at 8 feet (2 sheets of 48 inch gyproc) and you will save bagloads of money.
 
Cheap couple of of acres and a modestly sized RTM is all I need. DIY three car garage and I'm still well under $500k.
 
Back
Top