There also needs to be a pluralism in the architecture. The vast majority of the grand public prefer traditional looking buildings whilst brain washed architects prefer modern design aided and abetted by their architectural education.
To get widespread public acceptance for housing expansion the style, quality of design, appropriate density (over time) needs to be addressed.
So I just reread this post because of your "single staircase" post to get the proposed number of housing units from here to check against the 5.2 mil there. This caught my eye in a bit slower reading (reformatted to better show my question):
"Rethink URBAN planning to make sustainable and healthy lifestyles the norm for all projects:
- Seek to PREVENT urban sprawl and car dependency by optimizing urban form, density, and low-carbon transport connections."
So was it your intent that all of this building ONLY within urban areas? That such funding would not be allowed in suburban and rural areas under this idea?
Great article Lloyd, thinking back to the WW2 approach makes so much sense. Bold visions and swift execution, value added manufacturing within Canada.
In another substack I opined that the old "hewers of wood and drawers of water" adage needs to be retired. In that particular thread it was with regard to exporting bitumen. I recently learned through the Energi Talks podcast, that the tar sands bitumen is far better suited for use in the manufacture of carbon fibre for instance, so instead of creating massive pollution and waste diluting and exporting raw bitumen, we could be processing it into carbon fibre, which is much more valuable and with a huge potential market worldwide.
Equally, cutting down and exporting raw lumber is a wasted opportunity to add value and build wealth
Modest, well insulated homes, well built, in cohesive neighbourhoods, with most services close at hand can be very pleasant communities. Producing such homes in Canadian factories using Canadian lumber, mass lumber, insulation and all the other components would create many positions requiring skilled labour. The CMHC catalogue shows some great examples of plans, which should be easily customisable.
As you say, we have the capacity and educated workforce to do it, as well as the history of having done so in the past.
Finally, I completely agree with the walkable, bikeable, easy public transportation model. Most of our cities are already beyond capacity for cars. It does not matter how many times we rebuild or how many more lanes we add, we cannot fit any more cars in. What we spend on decent, effective and reliable public transit, will be easily covered by what we do not spend constantly trying to squeeze in more vehicles.
Yes, I'm well aware that tradespeople, delivery services and some individuals cannot be accommodated in the active transit, public transit model. Fewer cars will significantly improve life for those users, as well as emergency services.
"Just as long as they make houses that everyone can afford..."
Well, since Lloyd is alluding to massive government subsidies to make housing affordable, the words of Oprah ring loudly: "YOU get a house and YOU get a house, You get a house, and..."
Problem is, a house (of whatever type) still has a fixed cost. Remember, subsidies against that fixed cost is being paid by EVERYONE. You know why: TANSTAAFL (the MOST overriding philosophy). While govt is supplying that subsidy to YOU, it is taking $$$ from others to give you that subsidy (and you are helping to pay everyone else's subsidy).
3.5 million houses; over how many years and what is the average cost of each house to be? Lloyd, per usual, never supplies those details. Thus, I am given to wonder - which is the highest priority, Lloyd - all the new train railways and transit or housing?
After all, Canada's national debt is $1.52 Trillion USD and a relatively low 70% of GDP (adding in Provincial numbers makes that $2.3 Trillion and 76% or much higher based on ratio measurements. Even at a low $250K per home, that $875 Billion USD that govt would have to subsidize.
What will that do to individual taxes?
And remember, there more rumbling (grumbling) in Alberta and Saskatchewan about leaving over the results of the election and its policies (especially over energy); even Premier Smith wants to make it easier for Alberta go its own way. How would that effect that 3.5 million nut to be cracked with other peoples' money?
All of the programs since the war had these things called mortgages. CMHC guaranteed the mortgages, much like your Fannie Mae does but with better credit checks. They are not on the books as national debt other than the actuarial estimate of the cost of insuring the loans. It’s not a free lunch, the buyers pay. I suspect they will even like them in Alberta.
I figured as much that Canada would have a Fannie Mae (although that is being looked at just like everything at the Federal level as well as in many States (such as my own).
However, debt is debt even if not officially on the books - builders aren't going to build unless sufficient credit is available upfront before consumer mortgages. And if what you say is true, that while CMHC is a govt-sponsored entity/Crown corp, it IS backed by taxpayer monies for $277 Billion CAD.
Sorry, but ANY govt entity (directly or indirectly) should have that debt noted as part of that national debt - any process to not show it is, IMHO, an accounting slight of hand as taxpayers will take it in the shorts if things go sideways (like both Freddie and Fannie Mae did to the tune of over $200 Billion during the Great Recession).
The question for you, with your last remark, is whether they will value that over the energy job losses that are in its future given Carney's continued Labour intentions.
Brian Wang does a number intensive exercise on Alberta's energy pricing on staying in Canada or secede. On the general, would folks wish to stay at $77K per capita or $110K, respectively? $30K per person/yr would go a long way on housing.
There also needs to be a pluralism in the architecture. The vast majority of the grand public prefer traditional looking buildings whilst brain washed architects prefer modern design aided and abetted by their architectural education.
To get widespread public acceptance for housing expansion the style, quality of design, appropriate density (over time) needs to be addressed.
Just as long as they make houses that everyone can afford...
So I just reread this post because of your "single staircase" post to get the proposed number of housing units from here to check against the 5.2 mil there. This caught my eye in a bit slower reading (reformatted to better show my question):
"Rethink URBAN planning to make sustainable and healthy lifestyles the norm for all projects:
- Seek to PREVENT urban sprawl and car dependency by optimizing urban form, density, and low-carbon transport connections."
So was it your intent that all of this building ONLY within urban areas? That such funding would not be allowed in suburban and rural areas under this idea?
Great article Lloyd, thinking back to the WW2 approach makes so much sense. Bold visions and swift execution, value added manufacturing within Canada.
In another substack I opined that the old "hewers of wood and drawers of water" adage needs to be retired. In that particular thread it was with regard to exporting bitumen. I recently learned through the Energi Talks podcast, that the tar sands bitumen is far better suited for use in the manufacture of carbon fibre for instance, so instead of creating massive pollution and waste diluting and exporting raw bitumen, we could be processing it into carbon fibre, which is much more valuable and with a huge potential market worldwide.
Equally, cutting down and exporting raw lumber is a wasted opportunity to add value and build wealth
Modest, well insulated homes, well built, in cohesive neighbourhoods, with most services close at hand can be very pleasant communities. Producing such homes in Canadian factories using Canadian lumber, mass lumber, insulation and all the other components would create many positions requiring skilled labour. The CMHC catalogue shows some great examples of plans, which should be easily customisable.
As you say, we have the capacity and educated workforce to do it, as well as the history of having done so in the past.
Finally, I completely agree with the walkable, bikeable, easy public transportation model. Most of our cities are already beyond capacity for cars. It does not matter how many times we rebuild or how many more lanes we add, we cannot fit any more cars in. What we spend on decent, effective and reliable public transit, will be easily covered by what we do not spend constantly trying to squeeze in more vehicles.
Yes, I'm well aware that tradespeople, delivery services and some individuals cannot be accommodated in the active transit, public transit model. Fewer cars will significantly improve life for those users, as well as emergency services.
"Just as long as they make houses that everyone can afford..."
Well, since Lloyd is alluding to massive government subsidies to make housing affordable, the words of Oprah ring loudly: "YOU get a house and YOU get a house, You get a house, and..."
Problem is, a house (of whatever type) still has a fixed cost. Remember, subsidies against that fixed cost is being paid by EVERYONE. You know why: TANSTAAFL (the MOST overriding philosophy). While govt is supplying that subsidy to YOU, it is taking $$$ from others to give you that subsidy (and you are helping to pay everyone else's subsidy).
3.5 million houses; over how many years and what is the average cost of each house to be? Lloyd, per usual, never supplies those details. Thus, I am given to wonder - which is the highest priority, Lloyd - all the new train railways and transit or housing?
After all, Canada's national debt is $1.52 Trillion USD and a relatively low 70% of GDP (adding in Provincial numbers makes that $2.3 Trillion and 76% or much higher based on ratio measurements. Even at a low $250K per home, that $875 Billion USD that govt would have to subsidize.
What will that do to individual taxes?
And remember, there more rumbling (grumbling) in Alberta and Saskatchewan about leaving over the results of the election and its policies (especially over energy); even Premier Smith wants to make it easier for Alberta go its own way. How would that effect that 3.5 million nut to be cracked with other peoples' money?
All of the programs since the war had these things called mortgages. CMHC guaranteed the mortgages, much like your Fannie Mae does but with better credit checks. They are not on the books as national debt other than the actuarial estimate of the cost of insuring the loans. It’s not a free lunch, the buyers pay. I suspect they will even like them in Alberta.
I figured as much that Canada would have a Fannie Mae (although that is being looked at just like everything at the Federal level as well as in many States (such as my own).
However, debt is debt even if not officially on the books - builders aren't going to build unless sufficient credit is available upfront before consumer mortgages. And if what you say is true, that while CMHC is a govt-sponsored entity/Crown corp, it IS backed by taxpayer monies for $277 Billion CAD.
Sorry, but ANY govt entity (directly or indirectly) should have that debt noted as part of that national debt - any process to not show it is, IMHO, an accounting slight of hand as taxpayers will take it in the shorts if things go sideways (like both Freddie and Fannie Mae did to the tune of over $200 Billion during the Great Recession).
The question for you, with your last remark, is whether they will value that over the energy job losses that are in its future given Carney's continued Labour intentions.
Brian Wang does a number intensive exercise on Alberta's energy pricing on staying in Canada or secede. On the general, would folks wish to stay at $77K per capita or $110K, respectively? $30K per person/yr would go a long way on housing.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/05/alberta-could-hold-independence-referendum-late-in-2025-become-an-energy-superpower.html