The materials cost of stick frame construction is likely the least expensive part of a modern house. An average 1200 sq ft bungalow uses about $35,000. worth of lumber and can be framed to lock-up in about 6 weeks. Materials savings are miniscule and labor costs could be reduced by perhaps at most by 5 to S10,000 by modular preconstruction. Like everything else promised by Carney and marketed by his subsidized stenographers, the sanctity of leviathan remains unaltered on the alter. The feudal nation remains with a shortage of private developable land around the most expensive cities, and planning, fees, delays, taxes, zoning and energy-obsessed codes do the rest.
At the end of the day, governments cannot escape the reality that any moves to make more housing units available at more affordable prices will bring out the pitchforks and torches of those who already own and see their equity being shrunk. For many baby boomers in particular, their family home is their largest single asset and one they intend to (and must) leverage heavily to fund their retirement years. Any politician who insists they can maintain the value of some houses but magically lower the value of others on the same street is getting high on their own supply.
Pulling off that trick on a very modest scale (somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 5-10% drop in prices for focused properties) might be possible. But I definitely can't see the current creativity-deficient government successfully threading that needle.
The materials cost of stick frame construction is likely the least expensive part of a modern house. An average 1200 sq ft bungalow uses about $35,000. worth of lumber and can be framed to lock-up in about 6 weeks. Materials savings are miniscule and labor costs could be reduced by perhaps at most by 5 to S10,000 by modular preconstruction. Like everything else promised by Carney and marketed by his subsidized stenographers, the sanctity of leviathan remains unaltered on the alter. The feudal nation remains with a shortage of private developable land around the most expensive cities, and planning, fees, delays, taxes, zoning and energy-obsessed codes do the rest.
At the end of the day, governments cannot escape the reality that any moves to make more housing units available at more affordable prices will bring out the pitchforks and torches of those who already own and see their equity being shrunk. For many baby boomers in particular, their family home is their largest single asset and one they intend to (and must) leverage heavily to fund their retirement years. Any politician who insists they can maintain the value of some houses but magically lower the value of others on the same street is getting high on their own supply.
Pulling off that trick on a very modest scale (somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 5-10% drop in prices for focused properties) might be possible. But I definitely can't see the current creativity-deficient government successfully threading that needle.
Who exactly are these homes supposed to be built for?