Love this, and especially the point about it not being an individual problem or having individual solutions. But, the part about trailer parks being an affordable option because you don't own the land really stood out for me! The land costs that might make that necessary didn't just happen. Part of the context for that in Waterloo region is that most municipalities (including Wilmot) are coming up against the area that is allowed to be built on, even as the population is growing fast and there are no plans to expand the boundary in the foreseeable future. (See here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Regional-Official-Plan/Map_7-The_Countryside-access.pdf ). I feel like there's a lot of surprising reluctance among fellow young(-ish) people I know to admit that similar policies in many regions have increased housing costs, maybe because they feel it would undercut support for policies they recognize are otherwise beneficial. But admitting those costs is the only way you can recognize that policy has meant young people have had to do more than our fair share of adaptation, while people who already owned homes *before* it was decided cities are as big as they can get have not had to do any. Is it fair to expect young people to give up the stability of having a home they can be confident they can stay in because (whatever it's other benefits) the costs of restricting land for housing have disproportionately fallen on them? It's a great point that GenSqueeze often makes that capturing some of rising home values could help pay for some of the unpaid bills for older generation's care as they age, but in regions that have gone hard on restricting urban expansion it's also arguably a way of having home owners share at least a little of the cost of those policies.
And even more relevant for Waterloo Region, hard boundaries make population growth costly for people who already live somewhere: if you don't let cities and towns expand (even slowly or with density requirements for new developments) as the population grows, more people means less space. Tons of the housing conversation focuses on the number of units, but I think there also has to be some conversation about what's 'enough' space, especially for people who want to start families, and whether land-use policy (including zoning but also growth boundaries) is getting in the way of that for a growing population even if you can technically build enough smaller and smaller units. It was great to see the point about living with parents being more palatable if everyone has enough private space, although I don't personally agree that multigenerational-by-necessity households are a good solution.
Love this, and especially the point about it not being an individual problem or having individual solutions. But, the part about trailer parks being an affordable option because you don't own the land really stood out for me! The land costs that might make that necessary didn't just happen. Part of the context for that in Waterloo region is that most municipalities (including Wilmot) are coming up against the area that is allowed to be built on, even as the population is growing fast and there are no plans to expand the boundary in the foreseeable future. (See here: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Regional-Official-Plan/Map_7-The_Countryside-access.pdf ). I feel like there's a lot of surprising reluctance among fellow young(-ish) people I know to admit that similar policies in many regions have increased housing costs, maybe because they feel it would undercut support for policies they recognize are otherwise beneficial. But admitting those costs is the only way you can recognize that policy has meant young people have had to do more than our fair share of adaptation, while people who already owned homes *before* it was decided cities are as big as they can get have not had to do any. Is it fair to expect young people to give up the stability of having a home they can be confident they can stay in because (whatever it's other benefits) the costs of restricting land for housing have disproportionately fallen on them? It's a great point that GenSqueeze often makes that capturing some of rising home values could help pay for some of the unpaid bills for older generation's care as they age, but in regions that have gone hard on restricting urban expansion it's also arguably a way of having home owners share at least a little of the cost of those policies.
And even more relevant for Waterloo Region, hard boundaries make population growth costly for people who already live somewhere: if you don't let cities and towns expand (even slowly or with density requirements for new developments) as the population grows, more people means less space. Tons of the housing conversation focuses on the number of units, but I think there also has to be some conversation about what's 'enough' space, especially for people who want to start families, and whether land-use policy (including zoning but also growth boundaries) is getting in the way of that for a growing population even if you can technically build enough smaller and smaller units. It was great to see the point about living with parents being more palatable if everyone has enough private space, although I don't personally agree that multigenerational-by-necessity households are a good solution.