I'm very glad to see the dots of how owning a house connects all the way down to the most vulnerable. I'd argue it goes further, affecting those with middle to middle-high incomes. If a late 40-something couple with kids can't afford a bigger house, the starter home they bought 15 years ago remains off the market. Same thing for empty nesters wanting to downsize but to a nicer, and more expensive, neighbourhood.
In Ottawa, the highest earners in the public service are affecting this. If the federal government has roles to play, part of it must be to clear the logjam at the top of the pay scale.
Why? When the pandemic hit, many senior executives were able to work from home, sparing them the commute. This made their jobs less objectionable, plus there was demand for their seasoned leadership, so they remained despite being eligible to retire. A few years later, some are now looking at financial goals they hadn't thought possible before the pandemic and intend to remain even longer. For others, they made renovations or purchased a larger home during the pandemic, incurring costs they don't want to pay off with retirement income especially as interest rates keep climbing.
Lack of turnover at the top keeps many in the middle. For younger workers, the inability to advance means financial stagnation. With inevitable cuts coming to the federal public service, rather than target the middle (and less financial established) the government should offer incentives for retirement to its highest earners at the very top, thanking them for their leadership during the pandemic but making room for new leadership, new ideas, and new opportunities.
The sweeping zoning changes being proposed by the City of Ottawa are not going to create more access to 15-minute neighbourhoods. These changes are not going to create more affordable middle class housing for more people in desirable family neighborhoods. It just means more, smaller luxury dwellings. The reason is simple: the high cost of land in Ottawa (the same in Vancouver and Toronto). The only way for a developer to make money is to subdivide very expensive single family lots into smaller luxury dwelling units (towns or triplexes). The alternative is to create "cities of spikes" in which affordable housing is created in the building form of high rise communities (with 3 bedroom family-oriented apartments). Here, the developers build configurations of 20, 35 and 40-storey towers connected to key public transit corridors. These ain't 15-minute neighborhoods but they will certainly 'densify' the inner cities. They will absorb the millions of new immigrants looking for housing. But it's not going to create real communities. Those new arrivals are eventually going to want their own yards with a trees. They are going find them in the exurban and suburban housing developments. That's the future of Canadian cities--spikes of residential skyscrapers. Is this really our collective vision for Ottawa and Canada's other major cities? Evan Potter
Clearly, we have an enormous challenge to build enough affordable housing by 2030 and all levels of government need to cooperate fully. Hopefully, the federal government will be major economic partner in this endeavour. Over a long period of time and with much deliberation, our federal, provincial and municipal governments have passed regulations to protect citizens' rights, the environment, the powers of municipalities and to provide sensible land use planning. Some call these regulations "red tape" and see them as a barrier to building more housing faster. In some cases, these regulations need to be brought up to date but not by using crude slash and burn techniques, all to satisfy the demands of developers and not necessarily to solve the housing problems. By all means let's take innovative approaches to housing more people, but let's also build on the wisdom of the past, not destroy it.
I'm very glad to see the dots of how owning a house connects all the way down to the most vulnerable. I'd argue it goes further, affecting those with middle to middle-high incomes. If a late 40-something couple with kids can't afford a bigger house, the starter home they bought 15 years ago remains off the market. Same thing for empty nesters wanting to downsize but to a nicer, and more expensive, neighbourhood.
In Ottawa, the highest earners in the public service are affecting this. If the federal government has roles to play, part of it must be to clear the logjam at the top of the pay scale.
The public service has never had more workers aged 60+ (https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2021.html#toc03-03) and the age of EXs is going up (https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2021.html#toc04-02). Retirement rates are at an all time low (https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2021.html#toc03-05).
Why? When the pandemic hit, many senior executives were able to work from home, sparing them the commute. This made their jobs less objectionable, plus there was demand for their seasoned leadership, so they remained despite being eligible to retire. A few years later, some are now looking at financial goals they hadn't thought possible before the pandemic and intend to remain even longer. For others, they made renovations or purchased a larger home during the pandemic, incurring costs they don't want to pay off with retirement income especially as interest rates keep climbing.
Lack of turnover at the top keeps many in the middle. For younger workers, the inability to advance means financial stagnation. With inevitable cuts coming to the federal public service, rather than target the middle (and less financial established) the government should offer incentives for retirement to its highest earners at the very top, thanking them for their leadership during the pandemic but making room for new leadership, new ideas, and new opportunities.
The sweeping zoning changes being proposed by the City of Ottawa are not going to create more access to 15-minute neighbourhoods. These changes are not going to create more affordable middle class housing for more people in desirable family neighborhoods. It just means more, smaller luxury dwellings. The reason is simple: the high cost of land in Ottawa (the same in Vancouver and Toronto). The only way for a developer to make money is to subdivide very expensive single family lots into smaller luxury dwelling units (towns or triplexes). The alternative is to create "cities of spikes" in which affordable housing is created in the building form of high rise communities (with 3 bedroom family-oriented apartments). Here, the developers build configurations of 20, 35 and 40-storey towers connected to key public transit corridors. These ain't 15-minute neighborhoods but they will certainly 'densify' the inner cities. They will absorb the millions of new immigrants looking for housing. But it's not going to create real communities. Those new arrivals are eventually going to want their own yards with a trees. They are going find them in the exurban and suburban housing developments. That's the future of Canadian cities--spikes of residential skyscrapers. Is this really our collective vision for Ottawa and Canada's other major cities? Evan Potter
Clearly, we have an enormous challenge to build enough affordable housing by 2030 and all levels of government need to cooperate fully. Hopefully, the federal government will be major economic partner in this endeavour. Over a long period of time and with much deliberation, our federal, provincial and municipal governments have passed regulations to protect citizens' rights, the environment, the powers of municipalities and to provide sensible land use planning. Some call these regulations "red tape" and see them as a barrier to building more housing faster. In some cases, these regulations need to be brought up to date but not by using crude slash and burn techniques, all to satisfy the demands of developers and not necessarily to solve the housing problems. By all means let's take innovative approaches to housing more people, but let's also build on the wisdom of the past, not destroy it.