Can homes built in a factory fill Canada’s housing gap?
Factory-built homes are in the election spotlight as a fix for Canada’s housing crisis. It’s a faster, easier way to build, and less polluting than traditional construction methods. So why aren’t neighbourhoods packed with prefab homes?
您正在查看单个线程.
The answer to this has always been no, everywhere.
Not quite true. Many homes in Canada literally were ordered from the Eaton catalogue. Truck arrives with all the components, you assemble it yourself. We used to do these things.
Yeah. We actually already do prefab with roof trusses. They are precision manufactured in a factory, shipped to the site and then assembled. This is extending the same principle to other home components like wall assemblies.
Yeah, but it won’t fill the housing gap.
Those houses still have to be assembled somewhere.
The more likely solution is a big fibre optic rollout and getting all information workers out of the cities.
They would be assembled on site.
Yeah; in most of the places where there are housing issues, the problem isn’t skilled labour to build houses or a lack of building materials (although those can become issues) — it’s the cost and availability and accessibility of land. There’s no “on site” to assemble them on.
the problem isn’t skilled labour to build houses
Can you provide any references for this? My naive web searches find that most sources say there is a significant skill labour shortage, so if you can provide sources which I can learn from that would be helpful.
it’s the cost and availability and accessibility of land
Housing shortage is a multi-dimensional problems with what you mention here included. One plank in the BCH platform that attempts to address this is the release federal lands for new housing. I suppose it will remain to be seen how that works out, if Carney is elected.
We should give tax credit for wfh too perhaps.
Except our government doesn't actually want housing prices to fall, or for there to be less people in the city.
More people should be living in the city so the wilderness can remain the wilderness. Build up, not out.
I'm kind of on the fence with your opinion. Living in Montreal I've seen some old broken down neighbourhoods being turned into new condominium cities, but without enough city/social planning. (Griffintown) This caused incredible problems for the local infrastructure, commerce, and services. Sewers, aqueducts, electricity, roads, public transports, kindergartens, schools, medical clinics, etc. The concentration of people increased too much, too fast.
Instead, I think we need to increase density slowly, but spread it out over the city. Not everyone needs to live in 300 sq ft closets downtown. Having smaller apartment buildings with 4/5 storeys replacing old duplexes and triplexes in adjacent neighborhoods, with units that are better adapted to family life with several rooms and enough space to move around could be even more beneficial. And include social housing mixed in with regular housing would have a positive impact as well. But, that's a pretty Montreal-specific scenario. I know in Toronto it's very different and their needs are different, for example.
Frankly housing should be a right and everyone should have the same space for the same sized families and you can move as your family changes into different sized units.
The law of rent dictates the price of a house, there is no equitable way to give people housing. Its naive to think that there is, some problems are extremely complex and take much more nuance related to second order effects.
I don't block, but just know I am never going to have an actual conversation with you so I would suggest you quit wasting your time and mine spouting nonsense.
Absolutely. The way housing is treated as a financial investment vehicle instead of a basic human right is disgusting. Unless it turns a profit, there are no incentives to build social housing in this system. Or to build larger units, if instead you can build and sell more smaller ones.