this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
133 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

11469 readers
527 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I am going to need some explanations. First, they say there are 510 dwellings per 1000 adults, and then they say there are 1017 dwellings per 1000 households. In the first number, that requires more than two adults per dwelling. That deems like we haven't hit demand yet, let alone surplus. The second numbers are only possible if there are hundreds of thousands of extra adults beyond a couple in most households. Or hundreds of thousands of homeless adults. None of those imply to me any kind of surplus. So I don't see a source of downward pressure based on over supply. If those 17 dwellings per thousand households are sitting empty, and we have homeless people, then either those 17 are uninhabitable, or they are unaffordable relative to the mode or median incomes.

Why doesn't increasing affordable supply help solve that issue?

The solution suggestions do make sense, it is the argument that there isn't a supply shortage that has missing pieces.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

Increasing affordable supply will always help. The argument is that increasing supply regardless of type, does not. It's how you get empty condos being held as investments.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because the only viable way to increase supply is to have a public construction company that builds at cost.

And thanks to Alberta and US media, that will never fly.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You dont even need that. Just public policies that encourage affordable housing. Example

If you just have policies and leave it to private companies, you end up with Vancouver.

Where we have tons of policies and initiatives for affordable housing that only result in private developers stopping construction until the price has increased enough for them to profit, and then abusing loopholes to reduce/remove the amount of affordable housing in the actual building.

E.g. during the post-covid boom, Vancouver was a world leader in housing starts. Now that the price has cooled, starts have plummetted, so cons and US-Media are crying out about regulations. But no new regulations exist.