As someone who was raised in one of those CMHC houses and who now occupies a prefab, I feel eminently qualified to voice an opinion. ;^)
I wasn't there at the time, but I think the social and economic environment during and immediately after WWII was different from today, so, while nostalgia is powerful electioneering, will it fit into to…
As someone who was raised in one of those CMHC houses and who now occupies a prefab, I feel eminently qualified to voice an opinion. ;^)
I wasn't there at the time, but I think the social and economic environment during and immediately after WWII was different from today, so, while nostalgia is powerful electioneering, will it fit into today's market? Besides, who the devil will work the details? - there is no C.D.Howe in the Cabinet.
The problem is that everybody wants/needs proximity, but there isn't enough of it.
Pushing cities to densify won't work because cities are run by people who are elected by those who don't want density. Maybe, over several generations of succumbed apartment living, a new urban-tolerant population will evolve like exists in the large centuries-old cities, but right now, we're new at this.
Someone owning expensive land doesn't want to build cheap houses. If you want to socialize house-building, you have to socialize land ownership and servicing. Right now, cities are surrounded by land owned by housing developers, and (in the case of Ottawa, at least) are called up a few at a time. If you were sitting on valuable land and your name came up, you would make the most of it, not sacrifice your holdings for some 800-sq.ft. CMHC designs.
One way to solve the pricing problem is to reduce demand. Demand for city housing, I mean. Why do populations flock to the cities? Because that's where the jobs are. But, (I heard this estimate from decades ago) 6 out of 7 jobs are secondary jobs that serve each other and the 7th job - the primary one. So, stop those primary jobs from being moved/created in the cities, and move some of them out. Governments could do this easily.
I think those are all valid points, but there's a tension in them: Cities are the most economical and efficient, and if we don't have cities then we'll need to convince people to decamp elsewhere.
But I think the crux is: Ok, how do we make cities work? I'm not so fatalist that our municipal leaders are *that* intransigent. (Though, believe me, I'm close!)
Toronto electing Olivia Chow is a good sign. Growing urbanist movements everywhere also bode well.
I chuckled over the past few years, watching some people scare-monger about 15 minute cities, and finding out that they ended up doing good PR for urbanism ("having work, school, and services within a 15 minute car-leas commute? Where do we sign up?!"
I actually think there's a policy that could flip the switch immediately: Deamalganation. Make cities into cities again. Return political power to those who want efficient housing.
Anyway, you're totally right that it won't be as easy as just imposing this housing plan onto the public. But I think we've got the momentum behind these ideas now, and there's no use hesitating.
As someone who was raised in one of those CMHC houses and who now occupies a prefab, I feel eminently qualified to voice an opinion. ;^)
I wasn't there at the time, but I think the social and economic environment during and immediately after WWII was different from today, so, while nostalgia is powerful electioneering, will it fit into today's market? Besides, who the devil will work the details? - there is no C.D.Howe in the Cabinet.
The problem is that everybody wants/needs proximity, but there isn't enough of it.
Pushing cities to densify won't work because cities are run by people who are elected by those who don't want density. Maybe, over several generations of succumbed apartment living, a new urban-tolerant population will evolve like exists in the large centuries-old cities, but right now, we're new at this.
Someone owning expensive land doesn't want to build cheap houses. If you want to socialize house-building, you have to socialize land ownership and servicing. Right now, cities are surrounded by land owned by housing developers, and (in the case of Ottawa, at least) are called up a few at a time. If you were sitting on valuable land and your name came up, you would make the most of it, not sacrifice your holdings for some 800-sq.ft. CMHC designs.
One way to solve the pricing problem is to reduce demand. Demand for city housing, I mean. Why do populations flock to the cities? Because that's where the jobs are. But, (I heard this estimate from decades ago) 6 out of 7 jobs are secondary jobs that serve each other and the 7th job - the primary one. So, stop those primary jobs from being moved/created in the cities, and move some of them out. Governments could do this easily.
I think those are all valid points, but there's a tension in them: Cities are the most economical and efficient, and if we don't have cities then we'll need to convince people to decamp elsewhere.
But I think the crux is: Ok, how do we make cities work? I'm not so fatalist that our municipal leaders are *that* intransigent. (Though, believe me, I'm close!)
Toronto electing Olivia Chow is a good sign. Growing urbanist movements everywhere also bode well.
I chuckled over the past few years, watching some people scare-monger about 15 minute cities, and finding out that they ended up doing good PR for urbanism ("having work, school, and services within a 15 minute car-leas commute? Where do we sign up?!"
I actually think there's a policy that could flip the switch immediately: Deamalganation. Make cities into cities again. Return political power to those who want efficient housing.
Anyway, you're totally right that it won't be as easy as just imposing this housing plan onto the public. But I think we've got the momentum behind these ideas now, and there's no use hesitating.