That sounds promising. I'm, naively, hoping it will have an impact on the prices for all and not a certain group of people w/ certain income ranges.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
37 points (97.4% liked)
Vancouver
1431 readers
1 users here now
Community for the city of Vancouver, BC
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I truly hope this works for a significant number of people-- I do love the pre-fab angle to speed things up -- but if they're building for denser occupancy than before, is there a plan to prevent private interests from buying up the units to resell them?
The pessimist in me thinks that it won't be approved if "they" don't have a plan to buy them all up.
The only thing that works is they have to be owned by an organization and not a person.
And that organization can't be a for-profit.
And, since it's using public money, it's ours. So it's going to need management as a resource like any other resource.
It's government housing, kids. Maybe we'll have the voting fortitude to keep it from becoming like government housing.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about government housing; are there any decent examples of that throughout modern history at all?
It may work after all - honestly, I don't know. But the first thing that crosses my mind is that government owned property blocks (to control the rental/sales prices) is just patching up the symptom and not addressing the root cause.
Ironically, I'm not even sure what the root cause is besides unfair distribution of wealth and how to address it besides thinking taxing done right may make it less unfair.
The root cause is quite literally profiteering by the private sector, combined with rigged zoning that makes it cheaper to build inefficiently.
Government or other not-for-profit housing of some kind (such as renter co-ops, which would be even better to have more of) are the only thing that make solid sense when considering available options, because anything else is routinely being bought up so it can be flipped for profit or rented at high rates few can afford.
Precisely. That's the thing that I've been thinking.
The other thing, which I've seen in other countries happen, is to aim for speed and quantity at the cost of quality which can have plenty of nasty safety and social impacts.
I'd have elaborated more on the "social side" but I just can't find a way to talk about that w/o sounding like a condescending a-hole, esp given my little knowledge on the topic 😂
In theory, quality wouldn't have to be sacrificed. The efficiencies gained from construction/assembly in a dedicated facility would be what reduces costs and increases production.
Mobile homes have a poor reputation, but that's not inherent to the concept of off-site construction. Of course I suspect "unique" one-off on-site homes will still enjoy a certain prestige, combined with increasing competition in the off-site construction space, probably leading to some cost conscious shoppers for these homes.
These have been "right around the corner" for over. decade it seems. With no real world impact.
It absolutely is promising! You too can have your very own 300x300 ft. space all for a jaw dropping $1500 a month (heat and hot water only)! What a deal! Who needs a "house" when you can live in a shoebox for twice the price! Order today and we'll throw in nothing because fuck you and your need to live over my moneys!
300x300 ft. space all for a jaw dropping $1500
<> Yeah, I'd rent 90,000 sqft for $1500/mo. My 900 is twice that.
$750 per acre doesn't sound bad, to be honest.
Just do it start yesterday. we need pre-approved up zoning to allow people to upgrade their homes into multiplexing similar to the old Vancouver special
Why will this have a tangible impact on home prices when it is the land that is driving up all the costs?