Comments on: OPINION: It’s not an affordability crisis, it’s a cost-of-delivery crisis

By: Jonathan Stewart

Jonathan Stewart — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:22:52 +0000

If we end up with more supply of building materials in Canada with Trump’s tariffs, let’s take an oversupply of material in Canada as an opportunity to solve our housing crisis. As you have aptly pointed out, the real issues are bureaucracy, development charges, and the high cost of building materials. Keep preaching this message and solutions!

By: David

David — Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:58:59 +0000

It’s clearly a crisis of both. Well-presented perspective with important take-aways – thanks Brad. Can’t personally vouch for the numbers.

By: Gerald Tostowaryk

Gerald Tostowaryk — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:30:53 +0000

Great article, well thought out with some rather interesting suggestions. I do not know if all are reasonable, it would be great to hear a few different points of view, though I think it is almost a foregone conclusion that costs of all sorts are getting out of control.
I was surprised to not hear more on governmental project approval time frames.
I guess the one question that I would like to know is, why is 2004 the target for affordability? What is it about 2004 prices that make them the “ideal” pricing for homes, given all the economics involved.

By: peter barbati

peter barbati — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:02:03 +0000

Good points overall. If the cost of land is the largest component (aside from building costs), then, perhaps a new form of land co-ownership should be considered. Consider that, in my area, a typical townhouse on a 19×96 ft lot may come in, new, at $850,000. A 1-acre lot, subdivides into approximately 14 lots, allowing for corners, ends, possibly a municipal corridor between the yards for emergency access, etc. So, that 1 acre lot, which may have sold for $1m is now worth 14x $300k (numbers will depend on area as land cost varies considerably). If the lot is developed for the same number of homes BUT retains single lot status for tax purposes, with each resident/home paying their share of the tax bill, still retaining full enjoyment of their lot and the ability to sell the home and the enjoyment of the lot, as if the lot was a typical freehold, the home should be priced lower as cost component of their lot would be lower and the value of the home, as freehold tend to be more desirable than a similar condo, would be lower than a freehold and less than a condo as it is not a condo, which would have those associated costs (registration, condo fees, etc.). The builder, and developer would be selling the unit on a freely enjoyable, unbound by condominium restrictions lot and the owner would have that unfettered enjoyment and right to transfer ownership, which would include proportional use of their portion of the entire area (lot). The caveat is the Municipality would still have their DC fees and charges based on the DC fees for a townhouse but would receive lower tax inputs. Seeing that EVERY Municipality in Ontario is in debt, don’t expect anything more than the usual leg-humping rhetoric though.

By: Kerry Nagy

Kerry Nagy — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:42:26 +0000

Well said Brad!

By: Jeff Miller

Jeff Miller — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:28:56 +0000

Interesting article. A big part of the housing problem is overbuilding. Housing over the decades has increased in size and accessorization – need to scale back and reduce costs. As to “hard costs” need to look at better sourcing and efficiencies. Soft costs seem astronomical – $102,000 (7%) per unit? That would translate to say $10 million for a 100 unit complex. Marketing – needs improvement It’s ironic that government worries about housing supply/costs yet costs upped by taxes and fees. Are there other sources of revenue? As to profits what’s realistic?