Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-19-2024, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Canada
7,680 posts, read 5,529,153 times
Reputation: 8817

Advertisements

Interesting Globe & Mail article for those who can read it (it’s behind a paywall):

Opinion: Pointe-Claire demonstrates the nonsense in Poilievre’s housing formula

Quote:
But even if all of the Conservative leader’s proposed policies did apply to Pointe-Claire, it would be bonkers. Its situation shows why his policy is a bad plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-19-2024, 10:56 AM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,674 posts, read 3,095,203 times
Reputation: 1820
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
Interesting Globe & Mail article for those who can read it (it’s behind a paywall):

Opinion: Pointe-Claire demonstrates the nonsense in Poilievre’s housing formula
I read the article. Sounds like a NIMBY homeowner complaining to me. The article is correct that it wouldn’t be fair how the law only applies to certain size municipalities, but the fact is being next to mass transit stations near a major city like Montreal should warrant a 27 storey building getting built. Our major cities are being bottlenecked by homeowners wanting to force their neighbours to stay low density but wanting all the amenities that come with big city living. I think the solution is redrawing municipal borders to bypass these types of anti-housing activists. Municipalities get forced amalgamations all the time. Forced deamalgamations should be on the table to solve these issues. If someone wants to live in a low density enclave, they shouldn’t have their property taxes subsidized by development fees from the other side of town where growth is actually being permitted
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,555,283 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
Interesting Globe & Mail article for those who can read it (it’s behind a paywall):

Opinion: Pointe-Claire demonstrates the nonsense in Poilievre’s housing formula
People can read it here.

https://archive.is/i80JL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,504 posts, read 15,555,283 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
I read the article. Sounds like a NIMBY homeowner complaining to me. The article is correct that it wouldn’t be fair how the law only applies to certain size municipalities, but the fact is being next to mass transit stations near a major city like Montreal should warrant a 27 storey building getting built. Our major cities are being bottlenecked by homeowners wanting to force their neighbours to stay low density but wanting all the amenities that come with big city living. I think the solution is redrawing municipal borders to bypass these types of anti-housing activists. Municipalities get forced amalgamations all the time. Forced deamalgamations should be on the table to solve these issues. If someone wants to live in a low density enclave, they shouldn’t have their property taxes subsidized by development fees from the other side of town where growth is actually being permitted
I'm not sure what we out in Metro Vancouver are doing differently, but our transit hubs, Skytrain Stations, are full of high-rise condo development.

Amalgamation seems not to be needed to build high-rise clusters here, our issue is building affordable housing, and for that, I would like to see more federal government involvement.

I'm not one for amalgamation, at least in the case of Vancouver. I'm not sure how it works in other cities, but here in civic elections, sometimes there are initiatives regarding funding different infrastructures on the ballot.

The majority of people don't live in Vancouver proper and may not support these initiatives. For example when the Burrard Street Bridge needed some sprucing up with new bike lanes, new lamp posts, benches and fencing. This bridge is one that is used a lot by locals, not so much by people living outside of Vancouver. They would probably not vote for money to be spent on a bridge they never use or possible even see. The people that use it almost daily, care and so that was voted in to be done.

As for transit hubs and towers, this is what exists, and is being built around Vancouver, and this isn't all of them.

https://marinegateway.com

metrotown* - Google Search

For this link, scroll down to see the development.

https://theamazingbrentwood.com

oakridge mall new condos - Google Search

burquitlam - Google Search
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 01:29 PM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,674 posts, read 3,095,203 times
Reputation: 1820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
I'm not sure what we out in Metro Vancouver are doing differently, but our transit hubs, Skytrain Stations, are full of high-rise condo development.

Amalgamation seems not to be needed to build high-rise clusters here, our issue is building affordable housing, and for that, I would like to see more federal government involvement.

I'm not one for amalgamation, at least in the case of Vancouver. I'm not sure how it works in other cities, but here in civic elections, sometimes there are initiatives regarding funding different infrastructures on the ballot.

The majority of people don't live in Vancouver proper and may not support these initiatives. For example when the Burrard Street Bridge needed some sprucing up with new bike lanes, new lamp posts, benches and fencing. This bridge is one that is used a lot by locals, not so much by people living outside of Vancouver. They would probably not vote for money to be spent on a bridge they never use or possible even see. The people that use it almost daily, care and so that was voted in to be done.

As for transit hubs and towers, this is what exists, and is being built around Vancouver, and this isn't all of them.

https://marinegateway.com

metrotown* - Google Search

For this link, scroll down to see the development.

https://theamazingbrentwood.com

oakridge mall new condos - Google Search

burquitlam - Google Search
Your premier Eby is one of the best when it comes to tackling housing issues. I’m envious as well of Torontonians with how aggressive Chow the mayor of Toronto is being.

I agree, subsidizing non-market housing is the best way forward. In an environment with high land cost and high interest rates, the private market will not build homes that are affordable to renters or buyers entering the market for the first time. We shouldn’t turn up our noses at the idea of tax money building housing our children can afford without getting six or seven figure gifts from their parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,680 posts, read 5,529,153 times
Reputation: 8817
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
Your premier Eby is one of the best when it comes to tackling housing issues. I’m envious as well of Torontonians with how aggressive Chow the mayor of Toronto is being.

I agree, subsidizing non-market housing is the best way forward. In an environment with high land cost and high interest rates, the private market will not build homes that are affordable to renters or buyers entering the market for the first time. We shouldn’t turn up our noses at the idea of tax money building housing our children can afford without getting six or seven figure gifts from their parents.
So rents for the middle class become more affordable but their income taxes get jacked up high to pay for it? How are they better off?

By the way, have you ever talked to anyone about their experiences living in public housing? My gut feeling is you are fantasizing about what it would be like. I have vague memories reading about all sorts of complaints.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 03:24 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 497,880 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
So rents for the middle class become more affordable but their income taxes get jacked up high to pay for it? How are they better off?

By the way, have you ever talked to anyone about their experiences living in public housing? My gut feeling is you are fantasizing about what it would be like. I have vague memories reading about all sorts of complaints.
Sadly much of Canadas existing public housing is crime ridden and drug infested. I remember in Halifax there was a housing project called uniacke square. I don't know what it's like now, but back in the late 80s and early 90s, if you didn't know anyone there you simply did not walk through there. Same with mulgrave park.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2024, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Canada
7,680 posts, read 5,529,153 times
Reputation: 8817
I googled and found this Sep 2023 CBC article about the state of public housing managed by the Manitoba government:

Housing in ruins - The state of public housing in Manitoba is crumbling, tenants and advocates say

The same issues would probably surface in time with new Federal public housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2024, 04:06 AM
pdw pdw started this thread
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
2,674 posts, read 3,095,203 times
Reputation: 1820
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
I googled and found this Sep 2023 CBC article about the state of public housing managed by the Manitoba government:

Housing in ruins - The state of public housing in Manitoba is crumbling, tenants and advocates say

The same issues would probably surface in time with new Federal public housing.
Whatever state of repair the buildings are in, it’s a lot better than living in a tent or your car, which is the future a lot of people are facing if nothing changes. No one is talking about forcing people to live in public housing. Even having it available as an option will reduce vacancy rates in market rentals and bring rents down. It’s good for everyone. We’ve just been conditioned by neoliberal economics to think any solutions from the past are now “socialism” therefore bad. It’s being done in my province with our healthcare system being privatized now too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2024, 08:36 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 497,880 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
Whatever state of repair the buildings are in, it’s a lot better than living in a tent or your car, which is the future a lot of people are facing if nothing changes..
In other words Canada is slowly becoming a third world country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top