As someone not from the GTA or the lower mainland / Vancouver area I find, rightly or wrongly, that much of this home shortage conversation is driven solely by the problems in these two geographic areas. It appears to be more of a big city problem which therefore needs big city solutions. Those typically revolve around densification as the solution and ramming as many people as possible into the smallest possible area. What frequently gets lost is even when these social engineering projects proceed unless they are funded to a large extent by tax payer dollars and subsidies the end result still does not result in any great improvement.
Peter, I accept what you say for it's limited application. What do I mean by that? Quite simply the problems are scarcity of supply (see GTA, etc.) but also, very, very importantly, high cost which is nationwide.
The solution that David has proposed certainly deals directly with the scarcity of supply but, as I read it, by dealing with the various friction costs it can also reduce the cost of that supply.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the various (unrealistic?) proposals that suggest that by doing "X" we can actually reduce the cost of housing. Consider the following: a new house/apartment/etc. will cost $500 to bring to market and that cost increases by 10% annually. If costs to produce that housing are reduced by, say, 2% so that the cost is now $490, then those folks who stretched and bought at $500 are underwater and their banks may well decline to renew mortgages.
By contrast, if we can bring the ongoing inflation in housing costs from 10% annually to 1% annually by the methods that David suggested then, to me, that is an immense win. Further, using David's suggestions, it seems to me that there could be additional supply of housing outside of the GTA / etc. So, perhaps a pretty good win, no?
My point, ultimately, is that housing supply and costs are a) immensely complicated; b) terrifically inter-related; c) very resistant to improvement; and d) likely changeable - at least in the short to medium term - only at the margins.
Well, as long as the developers hired for that housing incubator app aren’t anyone who had anything whatsoever to do with ArriveCan. Because that could end up being waaaay more expensive than you suggest.
As with ever so many of your posts, David, you provide very useful food for thought.
Now, you may wish to be included out but it seems to me that this thought process that you identify and, particularly, the software concept is ripe for a startup business. Of course, it would need to be a startup that is sponsored by someone with deep pockets because there would be noticeable upfront costs which would include needing to have appropriate lobbying to get the various governmental players to allow access to data.
So, as I say, very useful food for thought.
Now, if only some appropriate business or similar organization will be appropriately hungry for this food for thought.
As someone not from the GTA or the lower mainland / Vancouver area I find, rightly or wrongly, that much of this home shortage conversation is driven solely by the problems in these two geographic areas. It appears to be more of a big city problem which therefore needs big city solutions. Those typically revolve around densification as the solution and ramming as many people as possible into the smallest possible area. What frequently gets lost is even when these social engineering projects proceed unless they are funded to a large extent by tax payer dollars and subsidies the end result still does not result in any great improvement.
Peter, I accept what you say for it's limited application. What do I mean by that? Quite simply the problems are scarcity of supply (see GTA, etc.) but also, very, very importantly, high cost which is nationwide.
The solution that David has proposed certainly deals directly with the scarcity of supply but, as I read it, by dealing with the various friction costs it can also reduce the cost of that supply.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the various (unrealistic?) proposals that suggest that by doing "X" we can actually reduce the cost of housing. Consider the following: a new house/apartment/etc. will cost $500 to bring to market and that cost increases by 10% annually. If costs to produce that housing are reduced by, say, 2% so that the cost is now $490, then those folks who stretched and bought at $500 are underwater and their banks may well decline to renew mortgages.
By contrast, if we can bring the ongoing inflation in housing costs from 10% annually to 1% annually by the methods that David suggested then, to me, that is an immense win. Further, using David's suggestions, it seems to me that there could be additional supply of housing outside of the GTA / etc. So, perhaps a pretty good win, no?
My point, ultimately, is that housing supply and costs are a) immensely complicated; b) terrifically inter-related; c) very resistant to improvement; and d) likely changeable - at least in the short to medium term - only at the margins.
Well, as long as the developers hired for that housing incubator app aren’t anyone who had anything whatsoever to do with ArriveCan. Because that could end up being waaaay more expensive than you suggest.
As with ever so many of your posts, David, you provide very useful food for thought.
Now, you may wish to be included out but it seems to me that this thought process that you identify and, particularly, the software concept is ripe for a startup business. Of course, it would need to be a startup that is sponsored by someone with deep pockets because there would be noticeable upfront costs which would include needing to have appropriate lobbying to get the various governmental players to allow access to data.
So, as I say, very useful food for thought.
Now, if only some appropriate business or similar organization will be appropriately hungry for this food for thought.
Ha. I was waiting for AI to be mentioned in this article. Sure enough, there it was.