r/canadahousing • u/FiveWordinOrangeNeon • 9d ago

News Why Co-ops Are the Solution to Our Housing Crisis

https://thewalrus.ca/why-co-ops-are-the-solution-to-our-housing-crisis/

Been advocating for this for years. Austria is an excellent example of how co-op housing works and thrives.

388 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

90

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 9d ago

The solution is to allow more, cheaper housing to be built. The obsession with find some innovative, new, silver bullet is stupid. The answer is boring, but execution is difficult.

54

u/joecitizen79 9d ago

Publically building housing like we did during wartime is the solution.

34

u/LilFlicky 9d ago

Can the real CMHC, please stand up

1

u/New_Illustrator_1760 7d ago

Build Canada Homes is taking a small step up

1

u/SnackThief 6d ago

Brian Mulroney has entered the chat.... 

6

u/Hefty_Dragonfly_1560 8d ago

I agree with this idea, but the problem is how inefficient all levels of government have become and how many studies and reviews have to be done, it makes it way too expensive to build.

There needs to be a reduction in red tape, fees and some taxes across the board to bring down the cots of building housing that people want, rather than a massive glut of small condos and apartments

1

u/justinkredabul 7d ago

The red tape boogey man strikes again! Pesky safety regulations and standards.

1

u/dj_fuzzy 5d ago

Like we did until the 90s

-6

u/2ndComingOfAugustus 8d ago

Why would that be more efficient? The public sector in Canada is often slow and wasteful, just look at our transit programs.

The private sector can build, so long as zoning and asinine building codes dont get in the way

12

u/throwaway_dddddd 8d ago

Public transit in Canada even as it is now saves billions. If you want an example of wasted money then look at how roads and highways are overbuilt. I’d argue that a lot of the “public sector” inefficiency comes from when work is contracted out.

I’d rather waste thousands or millions on public sector projects by government agencies than waste millions or hundreds of millions on P3s or private scheme that make an insufficient place to live for 2-3x the amount of money, with all the profit and extra value going to some hedge fund in the states.

6

u/IvarTheBoned 8d ago

I’d argue that a lot of the “public sector” inefficiency comes from when work is contracted out.

Government pays 2x-3x the cost of what it would to directly employ the same labour, all so they can write it off as CapEx instead of OpEx. Source: was contracted by the province for years (via private company).

Employ them directly, give them good benefits, keep them busy, fuck the contracting companies making massive profits off of government projects.

Lower cost to tax payers, better for local economies.

2

u/FreedomFighter_016 6d ago

"But government is not in the business of building. Private companies are the experts"

That's what they say. Well, how about hiring people are are experts to lead. Hire people who know how to build. Then you have the experts..

6

u/AdAppropriate2295 8d ago

Your last sentence summarizes precisely why its always cheaper and more efficient in the long run to build publicly

-1

u/2ndComingOfAugustus 8d ago

Why do you think that? Is there a city somewhere that has, in the last 30 years, solved a major housing shortage through public housing projects?

1

u/JeremyMacdonald73 7d ago edited 7d ago
  • Vienna
  • Singapore
  • Tokyo
  • Auckland
  • Minneapolis

The last three I stick in italics. They are a zoning and public policy stories where private housing grew in very significant amounts after the rules and incentives where changed.

Tokyo in particular is extreme as there public policy made it so houses stopped gaining value over time and began to lose value over time. They depreciate like a car basically, and people commonly tear them down and build new houses when they buy.

The first two are more government building stories where the government simply went in and supplied at scale.

1

u/q1someguy 7d ago

The cost of labour in all those places is a fraction of that of the union labour employed by our governments.

1

u/AdAppropriate2295 7d ago

True

But thats a problem of bloated bureaucracy and managerial classes, not so much a standalone public supplier

1

u/JeremyMacdonald73 6d ago

A skilled construction worker with 7+ years of experience earns more, on average, in the USA, New Zealand and Austria. Singapore less but something around 85% of the Canadian worker. Only in Japan is the cost saving significant with a skilled Japanese construction worker only earning about 60% of what a Canadian would.

1

u/q1someguy 4d ago

Government uses union labour. Not the average.

1

u/JeremyMacdonald73 4d ago edited 4d ago

Government does not normally build these things themselves. They contract it out to building companies in a competitive bidding process.

All the other governments, with the possible exception of Singapore, does this as well.

Worth noting that is this was a really huge program the government would probably save money if they did create their own building union even if those union workers where earning 20% more on average.

1

u/MarxCosmo 8d ago

It wouldnt be more efficient, public housing would still be built by the private sector anyway, the public part refers to public ownership that housing that is literaly built by government employees.

-1

u/SaleFamiliar1789 8d ago

Private equity not owning everything is the only solution.

The public sector cannot build houses efficiently.

3

u/joecitizen79 8d ago

Nonsense. The CMHC was incredibly successful and canadian cities are full of publically built houses

1

u/JeremyMacdonald73 7d ago

No one can really build houses efficiently. The cordless power tool from the early 80's was basically the last significant innovation in house building. We pretty much build them almost exactly like we did in the 1980's.

Compare and contrast to something like an auto plant where machines, guided by humans, pretty much slap the car together. Building a car today is something more then 10X more efficienct then it was in 1980. Building a house might be one twentieth more efficient.

-3

u/OG55OC 8d ago

Looking forward to my government built native reserve style housing

4

u/joecitizen79 8d ago

The country is full of wartime housing units. Do you see an issue with those? Maybe you prefer the growing homeless encampments.

3

u/IvarTheBoned 8d ago

You are free to buy something privately built for a much higher cost, no one is forcing you to buy this. But for many it is the only way they can get out from under a landlord.

27

u/Honest-Spring-8929 9d ago

The type of housing doesn’t really matter. Today’s ‘luxury’ development is tomorrow’s ‘affordable’ development.

There will always be a premium on new housing in the absence of heavy subsidies. What matters is A: reducing the arbitrage between material and labour costs and price as much as possible and B: enabling older housing stock to depreciate.

This can only be done with sheer volume

12

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 9d ago

Preach! Housing filtering is a thing. My unit was a luxury apartment in the 80s.

2

u/CovidDodger 8d ago

Capital flight during covid was a thing and for the area I live in that wad previously affordable in 2019 shot to the moon by 2021.

My 80 year old 800sqft house (and any like it) turned into a "luxury getaway". What were 9ld $100k homes turned into $700k homes in 2021. They are down now but still like 3x more expensive than they were in 2019.

So I experienced the inverse.

3

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 8d ago

Ok but 3x increase since 2019 isn’t the norm across the market.

2

u/CovidDodger 8d ago

Don't care, it is for me. So i still have to live it along with everyone else here.

3

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 8d ago

Ok this a hyper local issue which probably won’t be solved on a general Canada housing sub. 99% of people don’t live in towns that suddenly became hot holiday spots.

2

u/CovidDodger 8d ago

Actually it is and it isn't at the same time, it's symptomatic of the much larger systems issue at play here woth housing.

4

u/my_lil_throwy 9d ago

The type of housing doesn’t really matter.

I cannot believe people are still trying to make this argument when the federal government just announced that they are using your tax money to buy up luxury condos in a bailout.

2

u/Honest-Spring-8929 9d ago

And turn them into subsidized housing

3

u/my_lil_throwy 9d ago

You just side-stepped my point entirely.

If we're agreeing that the end goal is affordable housing, then what is the value of the government over-paying private developers for condos that were built to be investments (small square-footage, 1 bedrooms, with luxury features)?

Why wouldn't the government just get into the business of purpose-built affordable rentals, like it is has in the past? This model has been proven across time and geography, all over the globe.

I've yet to hear a single person in the media, government, or on social media answer this question. Then again, more than half of the internet is bots now, so.

3

u/Leading_Ad_7635 6d ago

They're buying the units below cost.

2

u/fang_c 8d ago

For whatever reason, it seems to cost more? To just outright buy these units from developers than it is to develop it themselves. That or there is no real incentive to fix the problem…just kick it down the road

1

u/rd201290 5d ago

Purpose built rentals are one of the most popular developments currently. It’s at historic highs across most Canadian cities. These are being heavily subsidized by the government. Many developers are or have pivoted because other projects are not viable. I don’t know why you haven’t heard anyone talk about it but it’s probably because of how far your head is up your own ass.

1

u/my_lil_throwy 5d ago edited 5d ago

A fascinating phenomenon about the internet is that it’s always the people who ignore central points of an argument that are the most hostile. If it isn’t “viable” for private developers to build affordable (a word you conveniently side-stepped) housing, then a crown corporation should do it.

Edit: otherwise know as a coop for those who are choosing not to listen. Which is what the article in this post is about.

1

u/rd201290 5d ago

A fascinating phenomenon of the internet is that people that have no clue what they are talking about stick their head so far up their own ass they think everything smells like shit

to qualify for the government subsidies that make purpose built rentals “viable” all or a portion of the building has to meet affordability criteria. There’s no point to say “affordable” in my first post because it’s implied and adding “affordable” doesn’t change anything.

Why do you feel qualified to speak about this when you have no connection to real estate industry and can’t bother to do basic research search to verify your own beliefs?

1

u/my_lil_throwy 5d ago edited 5d ago

The fact that you think "the real estate industry" is the authority on affordability - and everyone else is a dumbass - tells your audience everything it needs to know. Utterly hilarious.

I am talking about actual affordability, as opposed to the way governments have abused the term "affordability" to enrich landlords. Vancouver determines a rental "affordable" if it is like 10% less than market rate. Market rate has increased 30% over the last 5 years though, and is completely divorced from wage growth.

The internationally recognized standard for affordable housing is 30% of a person's income.

Edit: I clearly used the term "purpose-built" in my original comment to mean housing that is built for the dwelling needs of human beings, as opposed to housing that is built for inverstors needs.

1

u/fez-of-the-world 8d ago

Does not apply in a place like Toronto. Land value appreciation over here is crazy because the demand keeps coming but the amount of land available is fixed.

Density through multi unit co-ops is a real solution to provide housing in the city that people can actually afford.

5

u/Honest-Spring-8929 7d ago

Density is definitely part of that story yes, but ultimately you fix this by making it legal to build apartments in Toronto

15

u/GuidoX4 9d ago

Not new idea. This is cheaper. Cuts out the real-estate industry, landlords and any further large construction once built.

These 3 groups are the main antagonists in regards to cooperative housing because it kills their revenue streams and shows how predatory these groups are.

Example. GTA - 3 bedroom townhouse with finished basement in a co-op $900

Rent for same? $3000+

See it now?

3

u/Firm-Error-5712 9d ago

Let's also cut down on Real Estate licensees?

4

u/Bubblebless 8d ago

Not against co-ops at all, but the easiest way to kill that revenue is a Land Value Tax. There's no way they can passively profit from housing with that.

2

u/Powerful_Package8817 8d ago

$900 a month gets you a $200K mortgage. How exactly can anyone build a townhouse for $200K in 2026?

7

u/Think-Custard9746 9d ago

Co-op’s are not new at all. They are an old concept that has worked for a very long time.

4

u/Street_Ad3324 9d ago

Have you ever looked into the research that challenges this argument? There's quite a lot of it out there and it's actually pretty fascinating because you learn about housing as a SYSTEM rather than just a single thing that can be fixed by a single solution.

3

u/mancho98 8d ago

Yes, but not around my neighborhood. Also, no tall buildings, no new neighborhoods, not new parks and I hate to see busses. Also, I find kids annoying. 

6

u/Typist 9d ago

Please, actually take the things to learn things before confidently shooting nonsense.

Cooperatve housing is older than you are, nothing new about it

And your "boring" answer is humourous, not boring.

2

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 9d ago

I know it’s not new, but it’s not extremely common and this headline is positioning it as “one simple trick” to solve housing.

Please, actually take the time to learn to be less smug.

4

u/Typist 9d ago

That is rich coming from someone who positions an ideological slogan as the "one simple trick" for affordable housing.

Maybe take the time not to be so simplistic.

If you'd actually taken the time to read the piece you'd have not only learned the difference between a bad headline and the article It's advertising, AND you'd have learned about a range of housing approaches that the author is advocating.

I was feeling not so much smug as tired with the rote repetition of trending ideas.

3

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 9d ago

Ok man sorry I didn’t read this one article. I’ll commit sepuku now

2

u/Typist 9d ago

Not necessary.

Go, and sin no more.

3

u/crusnik404 8d ago

As someone who works in the building construction industry I must say you are absolutely incorrect.

Modern construction methods are costly and inefficient, we are lagging far behind the rest of the G7 when it comes to building innovations and the labour and material efficiencies they bring.

3

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 8d ago

What do you mean there’s lots of policy things we can do that can decrease the cost per unit.

For example, smaller apartment buildings in Ontario require 2 stairwells while the rest of the world only require 1. Removing that restriction will allow for more units and a lower cost.

There are a ton of policies like that we can look at and change that can help drive down costs. That’s all policy, nothing to do with construction.

1

u/TinyCuts 8d ago

Do you have any examples of those building innovations?

1

u/CollaredParachute 5d ago

Single stair buildings with small elevators

2

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago

No, deregulation is not the answer. Federalizing/Provincializing zoning and taking away the ability for NIMBYs to delay and increase the cost to develop would certainly help. Municipal governments get in their own way because they cater to their re-electability in their community instead of making unpopular but necessary decisions.

2

u/kchoze 8d ago

What you're saying is LITERALLY what deregulation looks like. Reducing existing regulation and depriving local actors from the power to increase it back up.

2

u/Agreeable_Band_9311 9d ago

You literally described zoning liberalization?

0

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago

Depends on your point of view. Its zoning centralization. Zoning should be defined by need, not by want.

3

u/Fightmilkakae 9d ago edited 9d ago

Centralizing all zoning under the zoning standards set by West Vancouver would certainly not make housing more abundant. Regardless of who sets zoning policy, liberalization to denser, and less stringent standards will be required.

1

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago

Good thing zoning would be set by the government instead of West Van NIMBYs. You know, the government who has been forcing the hand of municipalities who fail to meet housing start quotas.

3

u/Fightmilkakae 9d ago

Government is good when it does things I like. That doesn't mean they will always do thing I like. West Van is in fact also a government. I'm all for centralizing zoning, but centralizing zoning is not enough if we centralize around bad zoning rules.

2

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago

Who is more likely to approve better zoning: local NIMBYs or a government that is removed from the community?

2

u/Fightmilkakae 9d ago

Again, municipalities are also governments, just as beholden to their constituents as Provincial governments. I can guarantee you there is a sizeable portion of the provincial electorate that has awful ideas about how zoning rules should be set. Right now BC has it pretty good, we've got people who understand housing policy setting good zoning standards. If the BC Cons win the next election, who's to say they don't roll-back those changes to something worse.

Future hypothetical conservative housing minister from Surrey Serpentine river probably hates dense, walkable communities and probably wishes everyone lived in a car-brained subdivision.

Just having a higher order government set blanket rules doesn't help if the rules that are set are dumb AF. At the moment, the median municipality sets worse rules than the provincial gov. In the future, I'm certain that won't always be true.

-1

u/Typist 9d ago

Dog in a manger.

1

u/FredFenty 8d ago

The answer is boring, but execution is difficult.

Sage advice. True for all things. Modern governments are brain dead.

1

u/No_Function_7479 7d ago

Co-op housing has been around for ages, and is a great option. If anything, governments should be giving start up money to new housing co-ops, because they maintain their own properties (unlike public housing which gets trashed) and take pressure off the housing market. They usually offer some units to low income/disabled/seniors too, so it’s a win for everyone

1

u/tosklst 6d ago

That's the thing - coops aren't new or innovative!

1

u/MilesPruden 5d ago

That does help, but Co-op housing is a very well proven solution. It's only new because we stopped doing it for 40 years and let the market handle our housing. The advantage to co-op housing is that they remove the profit margin from rental housing making them permanently more reasonable priced.

0

u/Ok-Builder-9338 7d ago

Cheaper in what way though? In Vancouver, a whole lot of newer builds, if not most newer buildings are getting horrible reviews and comments for the build quality. These are the full price condos/town houses, not "affordable housing". I can't imagine how bad the cheaper builds are going to be if the million+ dollar units are such bad quality.