• SkepticalButOpenMinded
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I agree that’s also good, but I’m in the camp that thinks we rely too much on big developers to build supply. Up to now, we only really allowed super tall glass towers or super low density detached homes. But these are the two most expensive forms of housing to build.

    Instead, strategies like what the NDP are doing emphasize “missing middle” construction. Row houses, quadplexes, 4 story walk-ups, etc. That size also happens to be the most affordable to build and maintain.

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Per capita yes. Obviously, a small bungalow is cheaper to build than a quadplex. But that quadplex shares the cost of the roof, walls, foundation, roads and utilities. You get diminishing returns with skyscrapers, which are complex technological marvels that take half a decade or more to build on average in Canada.

        This is why all the cheapest rental and housing stock are those older 3 story apartments along arterial roads. They are the most affordable housing in the country, and we keep destroying them because it’s the only place density is “allowed”.

        • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I remember growing up and thinking I’d see such varied environments: I would come across a skyscraper in an enclave in the forest, a lot of people living in a very small spot in the middle of nowhere because they all liked the natural environment and didnt want to spoil it with a huge town. Ha.