Multiple good ideas here, but these solutions are not meeting the level of the problem. Transit adjacent development needs to be allowed even more density than this.
I agree that’s also good, but I’m in the camp that thinks we rely too much on big developers to build supply. Up to now, we only really allowed super tall glass towers or super low density detached homes. But these are the two most expensive forms of housing to build.
Instead, strategies like what the NDP are doing emphasize “missing middle” construction. Row houses, quadplexes, 4 story walk-ups, etc. That size also happens to be the most affordable to build and maintain.
Per capita yes. Obviously, a small bungalow is cheaper to build than a quadplex. But that quadplex shares the cost of the roof, walls, foundation, roads and utilities. You get diminishing returns with skyscrapers, which are complex technological marvels that take half a decade or more to build on average in Canada.
This is why all the cheapest rental and housing stock are those older 3 story apartments along arterial roads. They are the most affordable housing in the country, and we keep destroying them because it’s the only place density is “allowed”.
I remember growing up and thinking I’d see such varied environments: I would come across a skyscraper in an enclave in the forest, a lot of people living in a very small spot in the middle of nowhere because they all liked the natural environment and didnt want to spoil it with a huge town. Ha.
This will be great for small towns and communities trying to grow into small towns. I live in Cowichan and while there are an insane amount of condos going in near the highways and Duncan itself, we could use a density bump everywhere. The newer (90s?) half of my neighbourhood is 100% duplexes and it doesn’t feel significantly more crowded than the older half (which are mostly SFH with basement suites anyways). As it is, the transit and roads aren’t there to handle major increases in density (cars or pedestrians) but a doubling or in some cases tripling would be viable and possibly attract that missing infrastructure.
Multiple good ideas here, but these solutions are not meeting the level of the problem. Transit adjacent development needs to be allowed even more density than this.
I agree that’s also good, but I’m in the camp that thinks we rely too much on big developers to build supply. Up to now, we only really allowed super tall glass towers or super low density detached homes. But these are the two most expensive forms of housing to build.
Instead, strategies like what the NDP are doing emphasize “missing middle” construction. Row houses, quadplexes, 4 story walk-ups, etc. That size also happens to be the most affordable to build and maintain.
Wow, I didnt know these are also cheaper to build and maintain!
Per capita yes. Obviously, a small bungalow is cheaper to build than a quadplex. But that quadplex shares the cost of the roof, walls, foundation, roads and utilities. You get diminishing returns with skyscrapers, which are complex technological marvels that take half a decade or more to build on average in Canada.
This is why all the cheapest rental and housing stock are those older 3 story apartments along arterial roads. They are the most affordable housing in the country, and we keep destroying them because it’s the only place density is “allowed”.
I remember growing up and thinking I’d see such varied environments: I would come across a skyscraper in an enclave in the forest, a lot of people living in a very small spot in the middle of nowhere because they all liked the natural environment and didnt want to spoil it with a huge town. Ha.
This will be great for small towns and communities trying to grow into small towns. I live in Cowichan and while there are an insane amount of condos going in near the highways and Duncan itself, we could use a density bump everywhere. The newer (90s?) half of my neighbourhood is 100% duplexes and it doesn’t feel significantly more crowded than the older half (which are mostly SFH with basement suites anyways). As it is, the transit and roads aren’t there to handle major increases in density (cars or pedestrians) but a doubling or in some cases tripling would be viable and possibly attract that missing infrastructure.