Canada’s population is booming – and we aren’t building nearly enough homes

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
I doubt you could get the planning permits done in 90 days. I seriously question if you could even get the architect drawings done in that time.

According to some of the local regina custom home builders it takes between 10 - 16 months just for the construction, and that does not take into account "a number of factors" which can add an undetermined additional time. I would assume that being local builders they would know. And that still doesn't cover the permit process.


4 plexes would be even more complicated.'

As it is, in total there are not enough homes. Reports done show that canada wide we built 100,thousand fewer homes PER YEAR than we needed to from at least 2016 onward just to keep pace, and we were already low to begin with.


And that's canada wide - so in other words, even if we evened out the people with the homes and magically made them all match up - we still wouldnt' have enough.

And construction has slowed down again.

now - remember home building for developers is about a 3 year cycle. so stuff getting started today is usually stuff they committed to some time ago. Sometimes they can decide not to start right away but - the bottom line is with interest rates volatile and a recession being predicted we'll likely see more slowdowns before we see things pick up. ANd - at the same time our population increase is accelerating.

And again we haven't touched on medical or schools - most of the provinces are already strained to the breaking point with not enough doctors or nurses or facilities. So - adding ANY people until that changes further puts massive strain on the system that's already at the breaking point.

This is a very serious problem.
Did you miss these crucial words..."if there is a will"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Did you miss these crucial words..."if there is a will"?
"will" has nothing to do with it. If you mean "If the gov't completely changed and there was no red tape or planning and if there were no code requirements and if you had an unlimited labour pool" or something, that might make more sense but even then - having been involved in my share of building you're not throwing up a quad in 90 days in practical terms with any degree of safety or quality except possibly in near fantastical conditions. And i don't even want to THINK about what the cost of that would be. Or how many deficiencies there would be.

In real world practical terms for developers we would be performing a miracle to go from about 3-4 years for the whole process down to 1. THat would actually be a huge breakthrough in most places. And honestly even going down to 18 months - 2 years would be a huge leap forward and a more reasonable goal.

But it seems like we're having a hard time coming up with the political 'will' to even do that much.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
You're waaay waaay out of the loop on building construction. Yes red tape but as for time to build or code you're out to lunch. The projects I work on have 80% of wood frame buildings manufactured off site. Joists, walls stairs are all flown (craned) into place. Even forming is lightning quick with form systems like Peri.

Get with the times.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,580
8,284
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
"will" has nothing to do with it. If you mean "If the gov't completely changed and there was no red tape or planning and if there were no code requirements and if you had an unlimited labour pool" or something, that might make more sense but even then - having been involved in my share of building you're not throwing up a quad in 90 days in practical terms with any degree of safety or quality except possibly in near fantastical conditions. And i don't even want to THINK about what the cost of that would be. Or how many deficiencies there would be.

In real world practical terms for developers we would be performing a miracle to go from about 3-4 years for the whole process down to 1. THat would actually be a huge breakthrough in most places. And honestly even going down to 18 months - 2 years would be a huge leap forward and a more reasonable goal.

But it seems like we're having a hard time coming up with the political 'will' to even do that much.
Like this “Remove the Gatekeepers” thing we’ve been hearing lately?
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,699
5,334
113
Olympus Mons
400K per year is doable in Canada,
Actually, it's not. The closer you get to importing 1% of your total population every year (in a welfare state), the less the benefits outweigh the costs. At 1% and higher the costs outweigh the benefits, and more than just financially. Seriously, there are European immigration experts AND lawyers who use Canada as the prime example of how NOT to do immigration to a welfare state.
At 400,000 per year we need approx. 100,000 new housing units every year just to keep pace with immigration. We're not even close to that.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Taxslave2

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
Actually, it's not. The closer you get to importing 1% of your total population every year (in a welfare state), the less the benefits outweigh the costs. At 1% and higher the costs outweigh the benefits, and more than just financially. Seriously, there are European immigration experts AND lawyers who use Canada as the prime example of how NOT to do immigration to a welfare state.
At 400,000 per year we need approx. 100,000 new housing units every year just to keep pace with immigration. We're not even close to that.
Nobody dies anymore? Boomers and Gen X are dropping like flies and 1.5 children per couple isn't going to keep the population growing. If Vancouver Toronto and Montreal were verboten immigration destinations the picture changes dramatically.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
You're waaay waaay out of the loop on building construction. Yes red tape but as for time to build or code you're out to lunch. The projects I work on have 80% of wood frame buildings manufactured off site. Joists, walls stairs are all flown (craned) into place. Even forming is lightning quick with form systems like Peri.

Get with the times.
Well this is why construction workers aren't developers.

If they're building pre-forms off site, that reduces the amount of time on site for construction BUT it doesn't actually radically change the overall build time. Some of it is just taking place at another location. Those forms and such all have to be built BEFORE they are shipped to that location and inevitably they have to be built to plan. So just because YOU don't see it on site doesn't mean it isn't happening. Whether the framing happens on site or off it's still part of the time cycle.

Further - the wood framing is easily the shortest time component when it comes to the build. The wiring, the finishing, the plumbing, etc etc etc all consume huge amounts of time.

I'm actually QUITE knowledgeable about the latest in this field. Pre constructing components does save some time, mostly because you don't have weather issues in the same way. And there ARE some companies that are basically creating entire housing 'kits' where it's like a lego house and you just put it all together at the end and all the work is done already. However - while i do believe that will be the eventual future of homebuilding so far it hasn't saved massive time or money in practice. And the bigger the project (like a quad) the more you lose in efficiency with that.

I mean we've had modular and pre-built homes forever But you can't just drop one on a property and pretend all the work that went into building it before it got there didn't happen.

Sorry, you're just wrong here. That kind of thing has some promise but no, you still can't build a home to code from scratch and expect it to be a decent build in 90 days under normal circumstances when you take into account the total build time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Like this “Remove the Gatekeepers” thing we’ve been hearing lately?
Yes. If they can cut the red tape time and costs in half - it would radically improve the ability to build homes and offer them at more affordable prices. And for more reasons than might initially be apparant - it also takes some of the risk out for the builder. it's a lot easier to guess what the market will be like in 2 years vs 3 - 4
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
Well this is why construction workers aren't developers.

If they're building pre-forms off site, that reduces the amount of time on site for construction BUT it doesn't actually radically change the overall build time. Some of it is just taking place at another location. Those forms and such all have to be built BEFORE they are shipped to that location and inevitably they have to be built to plan. So just because YOU don't see it on site doesn't mean it isn't happening. Whether the framing happens on site or off it's still part of the time cycle.

Further - the wood framing is easily the shortest time component when it comes to the build. The wiring, the finishing, the plumbing, etc etc etc all consume huge amounts of time.

I'm actually QUITE knowledgeable about the latest in this field. Pre constructing components does save some time, mostly because you don't have weather issues in the same way. And there ARE some companies that are basically creating entire housing 'kits' where it's like a lego house and you just put it all together at the end and all the work is done already. However - while i do believe that will be the eventual future of homebuilding so far it hasn't saved massive time or money in practice. And the bigger the project (like a quad) the more you lose in efficiency with that.

I mean we've had modular and pre-built homes forever But you can't just drop one on a property and pretend all the work that went into building it before it got there didn't happen.

Sorry, you're just wrong here. That kind of thing has some promise but no, you still can't build a home to code from scratch and expect it to be a decent build in 90 days under normal circumstances when you take into account the total build time.
The time and cost saving are fucking phenomenal.

You are waaaaaay out of your element.

This is what does framing these days...

1663514812714.png


Have a look...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Nobody dies anymore? Boomers and Gen X are dropping like flies and 1.5 children per couple isn't going to keep the population growing.
The growth rate is the growth rate. It accounts for deaths and births and immigraiton and such. Prior to the pandemic it was about 1.32 percent NET if you will. It looks like we'll be back up to or over that shortly. By 2023 - 2024 we will probably exceed that.

New home construction is also slightly misleading, as often times old homes were taken down to put new ones in. There are three new homes in my immediate area but they're all tear downs of older homes - so while that's going to show as 'three new homes', it's actually zero net new homes. The majority of new homes are likely additions to the pool but not all, so that's always something to keep in mind.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
The growth rate is the growth rate. It accounts for deaths and births and immigraiton and such. Prior to the pandemic it was about 1.32 percent NET if you will. It looks like we'll be back up to or over that shortly. By 2023 - 2024 we will probably exceed that.

New home construction is also slightly misleading, as often times old homes were taken down to put new ones in. There are three new homes in my immediate area but they're all tear downs of older homes - so while that's going to show as 'three new homes', it's actually zero net new homes. The majority of new homes are likely additions to the pool but not all, so that's always something to keep in mind.
Is there no land in your area? Immigrants only buy houses?
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
The time and cost saving are fucking phenomenal.

You are waaaaaay out of your element.
They are not. Sorry. They may be on site (time wise) but as i said that doesn't take into account the time and construction off site. You're just wrong here. It's not even up for debate, this has been studied aplenty. There can be some costs savings but they are FAR from phenominal or even particularly impressive in the vast majority of cases, which is why most homes are still built the old fashioned way. (ish). If i wasn't right there would be no onsite construction these days - but that's how the vast majority is done.

At the end of the day the same number of nails have to be driven into the same amount of wood and it costs the same amount of labour to do so. And you haven increased transport costs. It's always more expensive to ship something prefabbed than a stack of lumber. You get some advantages when you do the work in a controlled environment but it's nothing earth shaking. At least not so far.

There's hope for some of the future techniques that some are working on but so far it's still loads of wood showing up and guys hammering nails onsite and no massive savings doing it off site except for a few components. Sorry.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,814
11,609
113
Low Earth Orbit
Off site construction time is fuck all. A machine can build a wall before two framers put their pouches on. Like I said, your out of you're element.

You don't have to pay machines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Is there no land in your area? Immigrants only buy houses?
Why would the existence of land be a factor? If you have a run down house and you want to build a new house that's perhaps a little larger and you own that property... why would you care about 'new land'?

And that doesn't account for zoning changes. For example there are a CRAPTONE of apartment/stacked town home buildings in greater Vancouver which were built when zoning only allowed for buildings to be so high and population densities to be xxx. Now - sky trains and such have been built near them and the cities are changing zonings to allow for much larger buildings and much denser populations. So developers buy up a 60 unit strata that's 4 stories and build a 200 unit strata that's 10 - which is great but that means that there's not 200 new units, there's only 160. You can't just "Build it on other land" because that's where the infrastructure already is.

it's really not that hard. Lots of new homes are built on new land, but lots are built by removing existsing buildings and homes first and so the 'new builds' number has to be taken with a slight grain of salt. This is simple reality - i was just pointing it out.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Off site construction time is fuck all. A machine can build a wall before two framers put their pouches on. Like I said, your out of you're element.

You don't have to pay machines.
Virtually none of that is true. BUt it's pretty easy to prove - a simple drive around will show that construction sites still have people hammering and nailing the wood frames together. So.. sadly you're wrong.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
So - that video proves you were wrong. The process is pretty involved - you had said they could build a wall before a framer could put on his pouch and that's clearly not true according to the video you posted.

In addition - the cost of the equipment they're showing is huge and still requires humans. The cost of a framer is a hammer.

Sure - advertising videos always make things look incredible. I can see if that was your source of information why you;d reach the wrong conclusion, But sadly - you're still wrong.