this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
251 points (98.8% liked)

Canada

9400 readers
1179 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

double Canada’s rate of residential construction housing over the next decade to nearly 500,000 new homes per year.

So it sounds like the goal is 500k houses a year at the end of a decade. I assume that means 230k-ish this year, slowly ramping to 500k in 2035. It only needs to be an extra 27k/year to make that goal.

CMHC says we need ~3.5 million houses by 2030 to get housing costs back to reasonable levels. I really want this proposal to be good, but it doesn't seem like it will be enough.

Is it better than nothing? That depends on who controls the final prices, and how much gets built.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Do you know if the CMHC analysis considers decreasing the housing costs by increasing supply till the market is forced to decrease prices, or whether it's considering public intervention like building low cost housing and selling it at cost?

The article says it'd oversee "affordable housing construction" so we'll have to wait and see how they intend to make it affordable.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm under the impression that it's simply increasing supply to flood the market and meet demand. I don't believe that CMHC analysis included price controls. It's been a while since I read it though.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Assuming that they've only looked at that, then by introducing useful, at-cost units on the market (rental or real estate), it might be possible to depress prices through fewer units. E.g. units like the 2-3 bedroom ones in cheap, brown multistorey buildings the CMHC used to build before condos became popular. A smaller flood of such units would bid prices down directly.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Definitely, but I don't think the CMHC study distinguishes between unit types, nor do housing start stats. I believe we had 225k starts for the last couple years. We need to increase those numbers dramatically to improve affordability.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

with this one?