Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were 15.3 million households in Canada in 2021. Say 70% of them are lower or middle class. That’s 10.7 million households (homes to be built). Say it costs $100,000 to build a home on average (house or apartment) - this cost is probably a gross underestimate.
Total cost for government to build (or buy existing private housing) = 10.7 million x $100,000 = $1.1 TRILLION.
If the cost to build a home was $200,000, then the total cost would be $2.2 TRILLION.
If the cost to build a home was higher, well you do the math.
I'm not following.
Why would all 10.7 million homes need to be built? I don't think the goal is to build new housing for every Canadian who is middle-class or lower.
Why would all 10.7 million homes need to be built? I don't think the goal is to build new housing for every Canadian who is middle-class or lower.
I was responding to PDW’s wish - “If there was public housing available for the middle class”
For that to happen, the public housing would have to be built or existing private housing would have to acquired by the government to turn into public housing. I did assume that if public housing was made available to the middle class it would also have to be made available for those in poverty.
If I was paying full rent and I learned my taxes were being used to subsidize the rent of others who earned the same income as I did, I would be angry.
To add to this, in this country we actually have a shortage of people that are willing to do those jobs. The type of immigrants Canada has placed all their focus on are also not wanting those types of jobs.
Here we bring in tradies and labourers as well as skilled workers. But still have the issues with housing. One problem is the construction times are much longer than in years past. Partly as there is not a surplus of tradies and so they schedule their work so they do not have down time. Understandable, but that means the builders cannot arrange to have the work proceeding without gaps when nothing is happening.
Don’t know about Canada but another issue here is that old people are staying in their homes for longer. People are on,y entering aged care at an older age and when they really need to medically. A lot of support is available to keep them in their homes, but one outcome of this is that these homes are not available for sale or rental.
There were 15.3 million households in Canada in 2021. Say 70% of them are lower or middle class. That’s 10.7 million households (homes to be built). Say it costs $100,000 to build a home on average (house or apartment) - this cost is probably a gross underestimate.
Total cost for government to build (or buy existing private housing) = 10.7 million x $100,000 = $1.1 TRILLION.
If the cost to build a home was $200,000, then the total cost would be $2.2 TRILLION.
If the cost to build a home was higher, well you do the math.
Somewhere the point I was trying to make didn’t come across properly.
I think the cost will be probably 4-4.5x higher per unit truthfully. Probably $300k-450k per unit for small developments but could come down if built on a large scale. 10 million houses would be way too much, I’m not advocating for that. Right now the number of new public housing built is close to 0. Back in the 70s thousands of units were being built. Let’s get back to that, is my point. The really low income people will need to rent below cost, but even being rented at cost would be a huge step up for people earning middle incomes of like $50k-90k/year. Those units could be rented at cost, not as a charity endeavour. It will just stimulate competition in the rental market which is extremely scarce right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene
If I was paying full rent and I learned my taxes were being used to subsidize the rent of others who earned the same income as I did, I would be angry.
I agree, that’s not what I support. Low income units could be subsidized, but middle class units could be rented out on the open market at cost. These market rentals would still be cheaper rent than the profit-driven rentals on the private market, but will over time cover the cost of building.
Somewhere the point I was trying to make didn’t come across properly.
I think the cost will be probably 4-4.5x higher per unit truthfully. Probably $300k-450k per unit for small developments but could come down if built on a large scale. 10 million houses would be way too much, I’m not advocating for that. Right now the number of new public housing built is close to 0. Back in the 70s thousands of units were being built. Let’s get back to that, is my point. The really low income people will need to rent below cost, but even being rented at cost would be a huge step up for people earning middle incomes of like $50k-90k/year. Those units could be rented at cost, not as a charity endeavour. It will just stimulate competition in the rental market which is extremely scarce right now.
I agree, that’s not what I support. Low income units could be subsidized, but middle class units could be rented out on the open market at cost. These market rentals would still be cheaper rent than the profit-driven rentals on the private market, but will over time cover the cost of building.
Portage Place mall will be demolished and a residential tower installed on one side of the site and a medical tower on the other. Half the residential space is to be affordable housing. The middle section of the current mall would be converted into community centres, offices, and retail or food services.
We have a city-provincial program that offers tax rebates for downtown residential housing if the projects build affordable units.
They are turning portage ave into a hub for social services. They did the same thing to Selkirk Avenue. That didn't turn out very well.
I guess the city has given up on trying to bringing people and businesses back to downtown.
I don't understand why you said that. Are you saying that Portage Place where the new development will be happening to do just those things is not part of the downtown area? The article says it is downtown.
They are turning portage ave into a hub for social services. They did the same thing to Selkirk Avenue. That didn't turn out very well.
I guess the city has given up on trying to bringing people and businesses back to downtown.
I was born and raised in Winnipeg. I’ve heard talk about the need to revitalize the downtown core since I was a teenager. There was a lot less reason to travel downtown once suburban malls began to be built. That was a long time ago.
Hopefully more medical facilities downtown will ease pressure on the Health Sciences Centre Emergency room.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why you said that. Are you saying that Portage Place where the new development will be happening to do just those things is not part of the downtown area? The article says it is downtown.
