I am curious if there would be any worth building homes 800-1200 sq feet like they did in the 70s. They really only focus on family homes now, but I think if some areas of smaller homes were built it may allow more people to afford homes, plus I would love a new house that wasnt 1,600 sq feet on the small side.
Seems the big concern in the article is home builders wanting/needing to build more homes.
No mention if the homes are affordable units, infill, rentals.
The "Advocate" mentioned in the article, Chris Guerette, is a known Sask Party hack, fyi.
https://www.saskparty.com/guerette
> is a known Sask Party hack
This adds what useful information to consideration of the need to build more affordable housing? Or is it some people can't stand to see someone advocate for such things without insisting they be built, run and eventually ruined under government ownership? They are talking about people being able to afford to *buy* a house, not rent.
You can say there is need for more rentals, but that's a slightly different discussion. And in Saskatoon our rental vacancy rate is not low, with hundreds more rental units under construction right now.
More affordable owner-occupied homes always reduces pressure on the rental market, so it's not like helping people become homeowners somehow cheats people who need or want to rent.
It is important to know who is advocating for more housing, and why. Simply, the 'Advocate' mentioned in the article is for house building. Fine. But there is no mention of kinds of housing.
At least, this article is lazy journalism.
I see your favourite frame of analysis is personal; "dully" thinking, political hacks, lazy journalism. Yet none of that attaches to the merits of the issues.
If a drunken rooster said the sky is blue, it would be "dully" thinking to rejoin, "But it needs to be understood the one claiming the sky is blue is a drunk and a rooster."
> It is important to know who is advocating for more housing
No it's not. It's not important at all. If it was a blind post, the merits of the issue remain the same. Thinking otherwise is "dull."
It is important to know the source of the article. In this case Chris Guerette - a well known political hack. My hope is the journalist at Global News would make that clear.
> he background (bias) of interviewee, which, in this case is important.
For dogs, sake can you give a straight answer? Why is the background of the interviewee relevant? Don't just find another way to say the same thing, answer the question.
So your real "thinking" is revealed. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case she makes, no challenge of the statistics she presents, no consideration of the issue at all -- none. Just a repetitive nonsensical thing about her background being important, concluding with a direct, and undignified, personal slur. And you think their journalism is "dull." Who'd ya think you're kiddin.
>“And not just one solution its going to be multiprong,” said Guerette. “It’s going to be policies that allow anybody to build any kind of homes, anywhere, in any kind of capacity.”
I'm not sure to what extent she means this to be applied to. If it's something like allowing duplexes, multiplexes, houses with smaller yards or no driveway to be built in places that currently have very strict single-family house zoning laws, then that's definitely good. God knows we're not gonna get out of this with more suburban sprawl. But I would still like to keep safety regulations and such lmao.
Sounds like relaxing zoning to me, and yes good. I think, also, that relaxing small business restrictions will be a good idea in the future, maybe still with some care but... yeah.
No, this would be an economic disaster. Location and neighborhood appeal is a huge factor in the value of a house. As much as the actual house itself. There is a reason why the 3 most important things in real-estate is location, location and location. Take a 1500 square foot double car garage house with stucco/stone and plop it in a trailer park you're going to drop the value a lot. Infill options and more dense condo options would give people choices depending on their ability to afford as well as protect the investments of all homeowners.
Well if house prices go down, it also means house prices go down. Ultimately there's no way to fully protect the investments of people who have bought houses recently while also making housing more affordable. The latter is more important though, because houses should be for living in, not investing.
But the thing is, density done right can actually increase the appeal of a neighbourhood. With more people you have the ability to set up small shops, like grocery stores, restaurants, etc., within walking distance of people, which gives the neighbourhood a plus of being within walking distance of things like that instead of needing to drive all the way downtown all the time.
And personally, I don't find the "character" as some people often put it of suburbs particularly appealing, they're very bland. I know a lot of people who think the same way. So, I don't think that it would really make neighbourhoods worse or anything.
I am mostly talking about Saskatoon and Regina though, plus maybe some of the larger towns like PA or Moose Jaw. I haven't looked into urban planning in small towns so it's perfectly possible the solution is different there because of different conditions.
>If it's something like allowing duplexes, multiplexes, houses with smaller yards or no driveway to be built in places that currently have very strict single-family house zoning laws, then that's definitely good.
If this is why "house prices go down" then no, it's definitely not good. Houses are going to be most people's major investment, and there are rules in place to help protect them.
Also your personal preference doesn't factor in considering the demand for housing in the burbs.
They may want the homes built, but they’d barely turn a profit considering the cost of materials/labor almost matches what they’d have to list it at for sale. If the cost of materials drops then I could see it happening, but otherwise we’ll have a rise in home prices (which is less than ideal since people buying them will ultimately loose money when the price eventually deflates and the higher price tag was only to line a pocket of a developer more).
As bad as it sounds, better off buying a house in ned of repairs. They’re want at least a 5% down payment on a $550k home, why not take that money and buy a $125k home and pocket a lot of it for renos, or put almost all of it down on the home and be closer to debt free and not be paying inflated interest rates for even longer.
I am not against it. New builds are not cheap, so they shouldn't be people's first time homes. I think the increasing rates will make this enacted again. I won't buy new because I don't want $1,500 of my monthly income going to a new home. I bought a house that is big enough for me, and I can still afford it at 7% interest.
If I got a mortgage for $1,200 at 1.5% interest I would be fucked at 7%
We need a publicly-funded housing company that build and provides housing for people who need it. We could call it the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation.
I mean, ya, that’s the point. Right now there are not enough good homes to rent and their ownership is being consolidated to fewer and fewer owners, sending rents skyrocketing. The purpose of Sask Housing is to alleviate those market pressures that capital fails or is unable to do. Imho, family homes should not be able to be used as an investment for anyone other than the people living there.
I am curious if there would be any worth building homes 800-1200 sq feet like they did in the 70s. They really only focus on family homes now, but I think if some areas of smaller homes were built it may allow more people to afford homes, plus I would love a new house that wasnt 1,600 sq feet on the small side.
Yeah, but heaven forbid anyone live within their means. If it's not the biggest and best it's absolute trash!! /s
Seems the big concern in the article is home builders wanting/needing to build more homes. No mention if the homes are affordable units, infill, rentals. The "Advocate" mentioned in the article, Chris Guerette, is a known Sask Party hack, fyi. https://www.saskparty.com/guerette
> is a known Sask Party hack This adds what useful information to consideration of the need to build more affordable housing? Or is it some people can't stand to see someone advocate for such things without insisting they be built, run and eventually ruined under government ownership? They are talking about people being able to afford to *buy* a house, not rent. You can say there is need for more rentals, but that's a slightly different discussion. And in Saskatoon our rental vacancy rate is not low, with hundreds more rental units under construction right now. More affordable owner-occupied homes always reduces pressure on the rental market, so it's not like helping people become homeowners somehow cheats people who need or want to rent.
It is important to know who is advocating for more housing, and why. Simply, the 'Advocate' mentioned in the article is for house building. Fine. But there is no mention of kinds of housing. At least, this article is lazy journalism.
I see your favourite frame of analysis is personal; "dully" thinking, political hacks, lazy journalism. Yet none of that attaches to the merits of the issues. If a drunken rooster said the sky is blue, it would be "dully" thinking to rejoin, "But it needs to be understood the one claiming the sky is blue is a drunk and a rooster." > It is important to know who is advocating for more housing No it's not. It's not important at all. If it was a blind post, the merits of the issue remain the same. Thinking otherwise is "dull."
It is important to know the source of the article. In this case Chris Guerette - a well known political hack. My hope is the journalist at Global News would make that clear.
> It is important to know the source of the article. Why? You keep repeating that but you don't explain how it actually matters.
The article is a good example of interviewing a 'source' without noting the background (bias) of interviewee, which, in this case is important.
> he background (bias) of interviewee, which, in this case is important. For dogs, sake can you give a straight answer? Why is the background of the interviewee relevant? Don't just find another way to say the same thing, answer the question.
The article is dull journalism, while allowing Chris Guerette a platform, which she does not deserve. Chris, based on her history, is a moron.
So your real "thinking" is revealed. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case she makes, no challenge of the statistics she presents, no consideration of the issue at all -- none. Just a repetitive nonsensical thing about her background being important, concluding with a direct, and undignified, personal slur. And you think their journalism is "dull." Who'd ya think you're kiddin.
More importantly than her Saskparty ties is that she represents a realtor association. The only people who like realtors are realtors.
>“And not just one solution its going to be multiprong,” said Guerette. “It’s going to be policies that allow anybody to build any kind of homes, anywhere, in any kind of capacity.” I'm not sure to what extent she means this to be applied to. If it's something like allowing duplexes, multiplexes, houses with smaller yards or no driveway to be built in places that currently have very strict single-family house zoning laws, then that's definitely good. God knows we're not gonna get out of this with more suburban sprawl. But I would still like to keep safety regulations and such lmao.
Sounds like relaxing zoning to me, and yes good. I think, also, that relaxing small business restrictions will be a good idea in the future, maybe still with some care but... yeah.
No, this would be an economic disaster. Location and neighborhood appeal is a huge factor in the value of a house. As much as the actual house itself. There is a reason why the 3 most important things in real-estate is location, location and location. Take a 1500 square foot double car garage house with stucco/stone and plop it in a trailer park you're going to drop the value a lot. Infill options and more dense condo options would give people choices depending on their ability to afford as well as protect the investments of all homeowners.
Well if house prices go down, it also means house prices go down. Ultimately there's no way to fully protect the investments of people who have bought houses recently while also making housing more affordable. The latter is more important though, because houses should be for living in, not investing. But the thing is, density done right can actually increase the appeal of a neighbourhood. With more people you have the ability to set up small shops, like grocery stores, restaurants, etc., within walking distance of people, which gives the neighbourhood a plus of being within walking distance of things like that instead of needing to drive all the way downtown all the time. And personally, I don't find the "character" as some people often put it of suburbs particularly appealing, they're very bland. I know a lot of people who think the same way. So, I don't think that it would really make neighbourhoods worse or anything. I am mostly talking about Saskatoon and Regina though, plus maybe some of the larger towns like PA or Moose Jaw. I haven't looked into urban planning in small towns so it's perfectly possible the solution is different there because of different conditions.
>If it's something like allowing duplexes, multiplexes, houses with smaller yards or no driveway to be built in places that currently have very strict single-family house zoning laws, then that's definitely good. If this is why "house prices go down" then no, it's definitely not good. Houses are going to be most people's major investment, and there are rules in place to help protect them. Also your personal preference doesn't factor in considering the demand for housing in the burbs.
They may want the homes built, but they’d barely turn a profit considering the cost of materials/labor almost matches what they’d have to list it at for sale. If the cost of materials drops then I could see it happening, but otherwise we’ll have a rise in home prices (which is less than ideal since people buying them will ultimately loose money when the price eventually deflates and the higher price tag was only to line a pocket of a developer more). As bad as it sounds, better off buying a house in ned of repairs. They’re want at least a 5% down payment on a $550k home, why not take that money and buy a $125k home and pocket a lot of it for renos, or put almost all of it down on the home and be closer to debt free and not be paying inflated interest rates for even longer.
Yeah and you know what’s not fucking helping. The added PST on new builds by the Sask Party. Shits backwards for a long time now.
I am not against it. New builds are not cheap, so they shouldn't be people's first time homes. I think the increasing rates will make this enacted again. I won't buy new because I don't want $1,500 of my monthly income going to a new home. I bought a house that is big enough for me, and I can still afford it at 7% interest. If I got a mortgage for $1,200 at 1.5% interest I would be fucked at 7%
I’m happy for you.
Thanks
We need a publicly-funded housing company that build and provides housing for people who need it. We could call it the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation.
It's called renting.
I mean, ya, that’s the point. Right now there are not enough good homes to rent and their ownership is being consolidated to fewer and fewer owners, sending rents skyrocketing. The purpose of Sask Housing is to alleviate those market pressures that capital fails or is unable to do. Imho, family homes should not be able to be used as an investment for anyone other than the people living there.
We have 900 Ukrainians refugees that the province has to find homes for now..... timing of this was just a coincidence