I built the last two houses that I've lived in, the most recent conforming to a building code of 2014 which was replaced a year later. I saved tens of thousands using the older code and likely ensured the structure would last longer than the more modern codes which essentially force people to live in well insulated hermetically sealed plastic bags with continual pumping of air exchangers. Wall cavities need to breath and polyolefin (TYVEK type) wraps do not allow breathing as well as old fashion tar paper. Energy obsessions drive the building codes in a country with more natural gas than brains. Feudal land ownership and central planning (energy fascism) at all levels of leviathan make "affordable housing" one the biggest delusions proffered by politicians.
There is something to be said about making these types of residences "more" affordable. I still think it's a good move, even if they cost more than having housing that is built to former standards. Using government incentives to boost adoption of these new standards should bring down some of those costs in the medium-long term by spurring new entrants, not only in construction but also in manufacturing.
Energy costs are inevitably on the rise. We still shouldn't be looking to build coal plants though, or at the very last, coal plants without stringent pollution controls. We should build housing to be as efficient as possible to offset those future increases. If the government doesn't want to build it itself, own and operate them, then they should at least participate in lowering the upfront capital costs.
I am in the middle of doing some retrofits on a home built to 2000 building codes (basement insulation, cold-climate heat pump, and solar), and the cost was not insignificant so I can just imagine doing it to all of the still older homes (at least this home was insulated to those standards - which have since been further enhanced). Building it right from the start will save in the long run (my upgrades should pay off in 7-10).
That's all well and good, but they have no business calling it "affordable housing". They have completely failed to address the immediate problem that's impacting millions of Canadians.
These will be affordable to some folks, and more so than without the support.
The extra supply would push prices down overall, especially for less efficient housing over time.
Do we want the government paying for substandard housing? Do we want fewer regulations on new developments overall? Why push to build homes that would need to be (or at least should be) retrofitted later?
In a market where most families can't afford anything, adding 50% to the construction costs will obviously miss the mark. The idea is to bring costs *down*. And construction that meets current building standards and passes inspections is - by definition - NOT sub-standard.
The article is talking about new construction built to pass inspection based on today's building code standards. That's the "base" construction cost I was working with in the article. Adding Tier 2/3 on top of that (along with the other add-ons) is what will add 50% to the costs.
Andre, you make a good point about the definition of "affordable" being more affordable for some folks than other folks.
Now, having said that, there seems to be a crisis in this country where there is pretty well nothing that can really be said to be affordable. Definitions be damned!
Now to change gears somewhat. You note that using government incentives brings down costs. Well, for you as a private homeowner doing retrofits that is true. By contrast, think about a not-for-profit that is getting government funding for a project: yes, the NFP's overall costs are decreased by those incentives but the overall cost to the government (that's you and me) is much higher. The higher the overall costs, the fewer project the government can fund.
I built the last two houses that I've lived in, the most recent conforming to a building code of 2014 which was replaced a year later. I saved tens of thousands using the older code and likely ensured the structure would last longer than the more modern codes which essentially force people to live in well insulated hermetically sealed plastic bags with continual pumping of air exchangers. Wall cavities need to breath and polyolefin (TYVEK type) wraps do not allow breathing as well as old fashion tar paper. Energy obsessions drive the building codes in a country with more natural gas than brains. Feudal land ownership and central planning (energy fascism) at all levels of leviathan make "affordable housing" one the biggest delusions proffered by politicians.
There is something to be said about making these types of residences "more" affordable. I still think it's a good move, even if they cost more than having housing that is built to former standards. Using government incentives to boost adoption of these new standards should bring down some of those costs in the medium-long term by spurring new entrants, not only in construction but also in manufacturing.
Energy costs are inevitably on the rise. We still shouldn't be looking to build coal plants though, or at the very last, coal plants without stringent pollution controls. We should build housing to be as efficient as possible to offset those future increases. If the government doesn't want to build it itself, own and operate them, then they should at least participate in lowering the upfront capital costs.
I am in the middle of doing some retrofits on a home built to 2000 building codes (basement insulation, cold-climate heat pump, and solar), and the cost was not insignificant so I can just imagine doing it to all of the still older homes (at least this home was insulated to those standards - which have since been further enhanced). Building it right from the start will save in the long run (my upgrades should pay off in 7-10).
That's all well and good, but they have no business calling it "affordable housing". They have completely failed to address the immediate problem that's impacting millions of Canadians.
What is "affordable" though? It's a bit relative.
These will be affordable to some folks, and more so than without the support.
The extra supply would push prices down overall, especially for less efficient housing over time.
Do we want the government paying for substandard housing? Do we want fewer regulations on new developments overall? Why push to build homes that would need to be (or at least should be) retrofitted later?
In a market where most families can't afford anything, adding 50% to the construction costs will obviously miss the mark. The idea is to bring costs *down*. And construction that meets current building standards and passes inspections is - by definition - NOT sub-standard.
I specifically said "former standards" which by today's standards would be sub-standard.
Current codes make home building more capital intensive than what they were 20 years ago. They just do.
So are you saying we should roll back standards to build cheaper homes? Or not move ahead with NetZ standards by 2030?
If it's simply to meet Tier 1 codes, why have the government finance those to the same levels?
The article is talking about new construction built to pass inspection based on today's building code standards. That's the "base" construction cost I was working with in the article. Adding Tier 2/3 on top of that (along with the other add-ons) is what will add 50% to the costs.
Andre, you make a good point about the definition of "affordable" being more affordable for some folks than other folks.
Now, having said that, there seems to be a crisis in this country where there is pretty well nothing that can really be said to be affordable. Definitions be damned!
Now to change gears somewhat. You note that using government incentives brings down costs. Well, for you as a private homeowner doing retrofits that is true. By contrast, think about a not-for-profit that is getting government funding for a project: yes, the NFP's overall costs are decreased by those incentives but the overall cost to the government (that's you and me) is much higher. The higher the overall costs, the fewer project the government can fund.