So Canada has 38 million people and 16 million houses, about 2.4 people per house. Average household size in Canada is 2.5, so there is some slack to allow for second homes and vacancy.
Perhaps more houses are needed in the areas where people want to live, but it doesn’t seem like that big of a shortage.
Up to 30% of Canadians are domestic speculators. Doesn’t matter how much we build when people just buy it up to increase their portfolio. We need a ban on this activity or a very very heavy tax to force them to sell.
that seems a bit self fulfilling, most people aren’t homeless, so of course the average household size is greater than the number of people per house. That doesn’t mean that they are in a happy or affordable position.
That is a 100% indisputably correct assumption. Vacancy taxes worked where they’ve been implemented to incentivize the occupancy of empty homes and the overwhelming majority of homes have people living in them.
No… one house too few can also mean two people somewhere have to become roommates, or a couple that wants to separate holds on a little longer, or someone lives with their parents, or etc etc.
So Canada has 38 million people and 16 million houses, about 2.4 people per house. Average household size in Canada is 2.5, so there is some slack to allow for second homes and vacancy.
Perhaps more houses are needed in the areas where people want to live, but it doesn’t seem like that big of a shortage.
I wonder how many of these are vacation homes or air b&b rentals that sit idle for most of the year?
Up to 30% of Canadians are domestic speculators. Doesn’t matter how much we build when people just buy it up to increase their portfolio. We need a ban on this activity or a very very heavy tax to force them to sell.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/speculators-30-homeowners-provinces-statscan-143600364.html?_guc_consent_skip=1694666705
that seems a bit self fulfilling, most people aren’t homeless, so of course the average household size is greater than the number of people per house. That doesn’t mean that they are in a happy or affordable position.
That’s exactly my point.
It’s not about a lack of houses in general, but a lack of housing in specific places and a lack of affordability in housing.
And yeah, facts have a way of being kind of obvious when you look at the figures.
You’re working under assumption most homes have people.living in them…
That is a 100% indisputably correct assumption. Vacancy taxes worked where they’ve been implemented to incentivize the occupancy of empty homes and the overwhelming majority of homes have people living in them.
Just one house too few is enough to create an endless bidding war.
No… one house too few can also mean two people somewhere have to become roommates, or a couple that wants to separate holds on a little longer, or someone lives with their parents, or etc etc.