It’s interesting to perspectives from elsewhere. The Netherlands is also facing a housing crisis, and they’re also talking about significant increases in construction. Part of that will be to limit local control.
Interestingly, they’re also talking about changing the type of construction: fewer rooms.
There isn’t quite enough context to explain why that would help, but it’s something I haven’t really heard politicians saying here in Canada.
What changes would you make to speed up housing growth here?
And we are looking for the cause why people aren’t starting families…
You are only thinking one step at a time.
A lot of people who would move into these units live in 2 and 3 bedroom units with roommates. That would free those larger units up for couples and families.
Why shouldn’t families be able to live close to transit?
They should, how does what I suggested prevent that?
I understood your text as saying that we should flood the areas close to transit with studio apartments. If that’s the type of accomodation that’s mostly available close to transit that would make it so that families (who tend to need multiple bedroom apartments) would not have enough options close to transit.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but that reminds me of the adage of loosening laws to get companies to build condos and houses, even if most development consists of luxury housing units because somehow there is more on the market, ergo more supply. I am not sure how far either calculi hold true.
A) most development marketed as “luxury” are not actually luxury in any sort of way. It’s just a marketing tactic.
B) I wouldn’t expect this to be built by for profit developers. The government should be the one building it.
“Luxury” means “market value”, i.e., will be rented/sold for maximum profit margin.
I think this is a wholly sensible wish. The thing is however that the governments are building nothing in this political climate and would rather wait for people to die off to make room.