This was supposed to fix the housing crisis… 

What are some good neighborhoods for missing middle in edmonton? I need to do some looking around

Same for Quebec city, since forever has allowed multi-units up to 4 stories high in residential areas, no parking minimums, and lots of mixed zone usage making stores always available nearby without the need for a car.

@@F4URGranted Oliver is very mixed. Old homes, duplexes. Townhomes, 4plexes, 8plexes. 3-5 story apartments, high rises. All the stuff. Garneau, Strathcona, Ritchie, westmount, inglewood, west jasper place. Tons of new suburbs also have a lot of density. Not as good on walkability and other urbanist ideas. But tons of stacked townhomes, garage suites, 5 story apartments, duplexes, basement suites, etc.

It's incredible to see Edmontons transformation and the fact they're leading I'm truly changing regularly measures its incredible

Doesn't matter when you add massive immigration.

If anything, it'll get worse. Very soon, affordable housing will no longer be affordable. So anything anyone want to do, I will advise they do it now because the prices today will look like dips tomorrow. Until the Fed clamps down even further, I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. You can't halfway rip the band-aid off.

Home prices will come down eventually, but for now; get your money (as much as you can) out of the housing market and get into the financial markets or gold. The new mortgage rates are crazy, add to that the recession and the fact that mortgage guidelines are getting more difficult. Home prices will need to fall by a minimum of 40% (more like 50%) before the market normalizes.If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now its best you seek an independent advisor who knows about the financial markets.

Impressive can you share more info?

Certainly, there are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’Colleen Rose Mccaffery” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive.She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.

Thanks a lot for this suggestion. I needed this myself, I looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

Sure, but more important is that functionally the majority of reliable voters are NIMBY boomer conservatives and neoliberals who don't really understand the world, and sure as fuck don't care to, and they absolutely do not want to see the value of their only meaningful "investment" (their property values) decline. As far as they're concerned the world is a confusing place and one of the few things that makes sense is that they own property and it's "theirs." These are the average cishet caucasian boomer, so that's who government kowtows too, when they're not bending over for and licking the boots of capital owners (that own actual capital, shareholders). TL;DR: Capitalism.

They don't want any traffic in front of their home, so they live in the suburbs where they can't do anything, so they drive to denser areas to do daily errands, bringing their suburban traffic to communities where families without a car are living. And they wonder why we are sick of it all.

Exactly the disgusting "trickle down" mafia pull up the ladder behind me "my my my all mine screw society" "home 'values'" nimbies are criminals as far as I'm concerned

which is why they'll never make housing affordable or fair.

@ohiasdxfcghbljokasdjhnfvaw4ehr exactly. It's disgusting the media, tv, internet, etc. everywhere even much of the public, falsely call it a "housing market." When you really look at it, it's layer upon layer of syndicates and completely artificial sky high "pricing" from rents to houses, it's all rigged as they say and gets ever worse every single year.

You're not doing anything wrong; the problem is that you don't have the knowledge needed to succeed in a challenging market. Only highly qualified professionals who had to experience the 2008 financial crisis could hope to earn a high salary in these challenging conditions.

@@hasede-lg9hj Please pardon me, who guides you on the process of it all?

I won't pretend to know everything, though. Her name is Vivian Carol Gioia but I won't say anything more. Most likely, you can find her basic information online; you are welcome to do further study.

Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I just looked her website up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

​@@hasede-lg9hj I smell a scam. Noone drops a name and then "but I wont say any more you'll have to look them up!" Like that. I bet you don't give any details because you couldn't think of any, or because you didn't want to write something that would scare people off.

It's ridiculous that part of the reason these units are so prohibitively expensive is because the developer HAS to add parking, when so many of us can't afford a car anyway

Agreed. It's frustrating to see narratives that new residents in an area will intrinsically result in a 1:1 proportional increase in vehicle use. That isn't necessarily the case, and even if it is, it doesn't need to be, and that needs to be changed.

So true. But I don't think they are trying to promote the use of cars. I think the City of Coquitlam Zoning Bylaw requirement to provide 2 parking spaces per unit is a tactic to reject multiplex housing without actually saying 'No'. They know they can't say 'no' but if they intoduce laws that make it impossible to meet building regulations they will get what they want i.e. no multiplexes.

Why do you feel such a strong need to impose your will on others?

​@@RichieD_21Because our country is in a housing crisis, and you never watched the video.

That's fascinating. How can I contact your Asset-coach as my portfolio is dwindling?

Credits to 'Natalie Lynn Fisk' she has a web presence, so you can simply

She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran an online search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.

So true. And look at Florida, where insurance companies are increasing homeowners insurance rates over 100%. They are also dropping clients who have paid on time for years.

Can’t slip in California

And how do you go to work? dedicate 4 hours a day for the commute?

@acarriere8534 No, I work local, and my commute is about 30 minutes each way. I've done an hour long commute before each way, and that just stressed me out cause I wasn't making any money by the end of it.

Sounds like those 15 min cities

You sort of need the density first though; there's no point allowing shops if there aren't enough people to shop in them to keep them open... sort of a chicken and egg problem

@Owwliv agreed, the problem is that many single family zoning explicitly makes it so you can't change a plot into a shop at all. That way, even if there is the density already there people wouldn't be able to open up shops anyway.

This phenomena is called "Pulling the ladder up behind you" or "Fuck you, got mine". These people got what they want and they don't want anything to change. Everyone else can get fucked in their mind.

Exactly

Tent cities are a leftist invention. They didn't exist when the laws were enforced or before the left convinced people they should stay in places they can't afford.

Yeah, we're being slowly "priced out" and returned to our feudalistic beginnings.

​@@southerncyan4098 When people were sane we lived in places we could afford. Demanding to live in a four star city with a 1 star income is stup!d.

We've got high density housing being built aplenty, but if we could incorporate Auckland's success with middle density housing developments on land not suitable for high density, we'd be doing much better.

@@downhillupside Good point

Vancouver has lots of old housing too, but with high land prices, and restrictions & extra costs on additional density, the people paying $2M+ for a smaller home that needs asbestos remediation are going to replace it for something bigger rather than build multiple units. There's some hope on the horizon particularly around the province's transit-oriented-development areas allowing up to 8 stories at their limits, where a small land assembly of those older homes that wouldn't pencil for a fourplex could actually be built up to provide more homes.

Don’t assume that’s not true in Canada too! Tons of $1M+ houses in Toronto are actually super old and substandard

@@rlwelch I never claimed to know about housing quality in Canada. I just said I was surprised to see Auckland used as an example

Having an investment advisor is the best way to go about the stock market right now. I was going solo, but it wasn't working. I’ve been in touch with an advisor for a while now, and just last year, I made over 80% capital growth minus dividends.

Amber Dawn Brummit is the licensed advisor I use. Just research the name. You’d find necessary details to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.

It’s scary to me that these people can buy thousands of bots just to shill on RU-vid.

​@@hithere5553You don't buy thousands of bots. You make or buy one and just copy it. That's very cheap to do. Low initial cost, pretty much no running cost, potential reward if someone is dumb (and there are dumb people) ... And one bot can be diversified to make easy to debunk investment advisor but same time easy to debunk cryptocurrency sale and easy to debunk conspiracy bot that get paid to promote chaos

Personally i would advise you to sell the stocks and give the money to me. Imagine the good karma 🙂

Amsterdam has beautiful architecture, reliable public transport, vibrant neighbourhoods, and tons of cultural activities. Saying a city is becoming like Amsterdam is a compliment in my book ;)

Oh no! Not Amsterdam! What could be a better fate Lmao

Yeah, but parking now sucks there.

@@merelk.9530 Then move to Amsterdam if that's what you want and leave our communities alone.

​@@computernerdtechmanI'd be in favor of the government confiscating your community, and creating a replica of Amsterdam. If someone were to campaign on that I'd vote for them.

I do like the model Seattle is implementing. Narrow and tall, and with parking! Just wish they all didn't look so ugly, and were actually affordable

Flat roofs would be a bad idea in Minnesota. If you didn't keep up shoveling off the snow during the winter you'd run the significant risk of the roof caving in from the weight.

@@Devin_Stromgren I agree. In Minnesota the top floor should probably have an open design with a steep angle metal roof that would both last a long time and be smooth enough for snow accumulation to more readily slide off. You could have a balcony on one side that could be cleared with a snow pusher but you definitely wouldn't want a flat roof in any area that can have heavy snow accumulation. There are some expensive systems for keeping a flat roof clear of snow (heating coils, automated rake systems, etc.) but that would not be practical for a smaller building.

@@brianh9358 It doesn't necessarily have to be steel. The wind still blows the snow off of shingled roofs as long as they're 45 degrees or steeper. Also, at -30 heating coils have an tendency to just turn snow into ice.

What do you mean by ‘flat roofs for outdoor space’?

Not about housing laws, but this is basically the arrangement I have with my mother regarding her basement suite, lol--only way I'll ever be able to own a home is to co-own with her 😅

I like the idea of having a basement apartment to rent out and living in the upper two stories. I don't have a lot of parking and i don't want to park on the street,so id probably get rid of my car and just use a bike. Id have to fix up my basement though.

Then you are lucky. First rule of relationship. LIVE FAR AWAY FROM YOUR INLAWS AND PARENTS. Do never, EVER, live in their property with your family.

​​@@suiyan6297Hah. Hahahahaha. No. Lots of people live with grandma and grandpa.

Is it possible that since you live in a rural area, it’s the county that regulates your house’s zoning code instead of the city’s? Maybe the flexible zoning code that allows more housing space with less land is subject to a different set of rules?

Nothing like live right next to your inlaws so much fun lol

Yeah after living in Germany for the last 4 years, I can definitely say the US needs to get rid of this obsession with house uniformity in neighbourhoods. I live in a suburban style neighborhood in a fairly decent sized village. All the houses look radically different, and it's great. If US homeowners could learn to appreciate it (or at least tolerate it), you could easily put more of the missing middle in existing neighbourhoods.

​@@knocksvillee germany has literally cities covered with identical apartment buildings street by street.

@@V8_screw_electric_cars you talking about the old commie housing?

@@knocksvillee not just that every city is full of tenement buildings they're all exactly the same also have no trees it's a concrete ghettos, way worse than nice suburban houses in america with tree lined streets and backyards.

Why aren't you doing anything about the homeless crisis?

​@@notsans9995same reason why no-one else in America is doing it: there's no profit in doing so.

@@sirnonapplicableThere’s a ton of people making millions off homelessness, almost exclusively Democrats. The cuomo family makes a fortune.

@@notsans9995making housing more available and lowering costs will help that (wow shocking!)

No Vancouver doesn't have "all these regulations" he is using examples from all over different cities and restrictions.

Parking will be a real issue in a place like Edmonton. If new developments are freed from a requirement, it will push parking to streets that aren't well equipped to handle it. You can see this in some neighborhoods that have just had a couple of infills go in where there was previously just one house.

@@gordosomewhere816 Vancouver still has many of the regulations he discussed…. But yes, some are not related to Vancouver and just other cities. But Vancouver has significantly more red tape than Edmonton, be it units per lot, development fees, approval processes, zones, etc. The recent changes the province announced were a good step though.

@@Hyperpandas I think people should pay to store their private goods on private property. Hopefully the new curb side management strategy Edmonton is developing will bring in permits than limit or charge fees for using street parking overnight/continually. If you have a car, you should need a garage. But similarly, if you don’t have a car, you should be able to buy homes or apartments that are built without parking that increases the unit price by 50-80k. Choice and variety is good. Lots of different needs for different households. People need to stop feeling entitled to street parking for their homes though. It should be for visitors, deliveries, and temporary use (retail/business, etc)

​@@Hyperpandascities should not be required to regulate the storage of private vehicles.

Could you have a lawyer dissolve the HOA for negligent governance? Something like, HOA has 6 months to vote to remain in effect, else it is assumed the HOA does not have ability to function? I wonder if that would hold up in court.

If they have to pass a vote to remain in effect and cannot do so, especially with 6+ months notice, seems like they would not be able to govern the neighborhood effectively

@davidyalacki2599 I don't think so. From what I have read online since the cost of upkeep of common areas (e.g. road and sidewalk maintenance (including tree trimming), trash removal, snow removal, etc) would revert to the local government you actually need the approval of local government to dissolve an HOA. Given how this increases their expenses it would probably require good lobbying to pull off. Also, you generally need buy in from mortgage companies (who may sue over the possible fall in property values especially if you're not following normal procedure for dissolution), and finally the governing documents normally require a supermajority approval for dissolving an HOA. It would be hard for me to imagine a judge voiding that contract just because there was insufficient voter participation. At minimum it sounds like an extra long legal battle and these dissolution at minimum cost $50k for clean dissolution where there are no issues. This could easily run into the 6 figures, so are people going to vote for dissolving the HOA and being slapped with a special assessment for the cost?

Time to dump tea in the harbor and declare independence from the HOA.

A State Government can circumvent HOAs really easily. Problem is most politicians probably got their start in HOAs so they probably don't see them as the leeching dead-weight that they can be.

The local politicians should have been thinking about that and planning for it 40 years ago.

It´s true there is an overhead, but not always that much. Compare a single family of four to four single person households. Plus, families used to be larger in the past, so on average now are less people living in each house.

The public that wants it fixed is all the people who currently cannot even think about affording a home. The ones that don't are the people who worry they might lose a million dollar evaluation on the home they don't plan to sell anyways, absolute morons. If they actually put some effort into fixing this a decade ago we wouldn't be absolutely fucked. The government needs to resolve this issue instead of pretending it doesn't exist while allowing more and more immigration which is only compounding the already existing issue. I don't hate immigration into Canada, but we don't have homes for the people who are already here bringing more people in isn't helping, maybe fix the housing crisis first.

@@DiviNazuphusAmerica has a housing crisis too yet nothing is being done to fix the problem. It’s sad because I want to be able to buy a house at some point.

@@DiviNazuphus Immigration is a necessity to prevent the aging population from bankrupting the government. But agreed, something desperately needs to be done about housing. I'm in a medium sized city 2 hours away from Toronto and still you need a 5-figure salary to afford a home.

A storm is brewing that cannot be ignored. A lot of millennials and gen z are rightly pissed off. We are almost at the tipping point where millennials will take the majority of leadership roles in politics. That's when real change is going to happen and it's going to happen fast. I just wish it would come sooner.

Japan is depopulating fast and homes are not seen as a good long term investment. Bullet trains also allow you to avoid the middle housing need by enabling farther commutes. Too many differences at the cultural fabric to ever work in North America. Sadly, we have more flat buildable land than Japan several times over. Yet we continue this nonsense of overbulding suburbs in the same overpriced markets

I recently sold my home in the Boca Grande area and am considering investing a lump sum into the stock market before the anticipated rebound, couple of folks have been discussing a potential rally, speculating on which stocks may experience substantial growth during the festive season. Do you have any insight into which stocks these might be?

With the help of an experienced coach, I made some changes in my investments. I started with $321k, and now I have more than $750k by investing in stocks, ETFs, and bonds. I think housing prices won't go down much until there are more houses available.

How can I reach this adviser of yours? because I'm seeking for a more effective investment approach on my savings?

Yeah stormwater management alone makes this a nightmare. These videos have good intentions but don't realize our current regulations take a number of things into account.

Better than doing nothing.

@@claudiadarling9441 I don't under your reply. I'm stating that if the system capacity can't handle a subdivision doubling in density, then it can't handle it. Perhaps rain-water collection, if that wasn't red-taped.

@@mrcompisawesome Expand the system's capacity as the population increases? Sure it might be costly, but if it needs to be done then it should be done without question. These are utilities after all, not luxury cars and handbags.

@@Aquatarkus96 again, stating that quite often regions simply can't without an overhaul. Said overhaul is so ludicrously unrealistic and expensive it's more feasible to just build a new economy near another supply. This kind of work is literally my career.

So you want your property value to go down.

@devengudinas1649 if keeping my property values up means kicking dirt in my neighbors face and spitting on their pursuit of happiness that I have achieved then the system is broken. Property values do not decrease because affordable housing, apartments, or hotels happen to be nearby. What's the point of million dollar homes being the average if no one can afford to live in them? California much?

​​@@devengudinas1649 The "value" of your home going up alongside everyone else's due to poor supply means you're not actually profiting when equity becomes bigger number. It's just a bubble. Sorry u were stupid enough to think that tho.

@@JUGGERNAUT____ Unfortunately, yeah... California sucks that way. There are too many people who are defensive about their home value here, so that's going to drag onto whatever place those people end up moving to. There are far too many things in California that are broken. We've had homeless shelters shut down before -- and guess what, we had a homelessness issue for decades and still do. There are numerous different things that can be done and need to be done to help resolve these big issues - and we just... brush them off on the floor and sweep them under the rug. "Deal with it some other day, or leave someone else to pick up the mess" was apparently the mentality

@@devengudinas1649 Yes. That's a reasonable solution. Today's home construction is based based largely on labor cost, rather than material cost. Because of this difference, a $2,000,000 mansion is built with the exact same standard as any $100,000 home you can find on the market today. Yes, they are "bigger" and "more complex" in layout, but the materials and construction are the same. Should they really be valued so highly? That's a bigger picture. The value is in the land, rather than the home. And that is the reason the homes are grossly overvalued. The land is an investment, meaning the home becomes a fixture to increase its price, rather than have value of the home itself. However, the conflation of home value and land value has caused a home affordability crisis. However, basic economics dictate supply and demand, therefore there should be enough supply that the local blue-collar worker (whose support maintains society) be not homeless. If housing density doesn't increase, then property value must decrease. That's an idea of how to help the situation. What are your opinions on the subject?

i moved here from europe 2 years ago. And this housing crisis seems ridiculous to me. There is so much space here. It's not like Paris or something where there is literally no more space left and it's all historic multi-story buildings.

vancouver is not dense. lots of single family detatched homes

It's the nimbys who are preventing real housing reforms.

@@nicktankard1244 I was just talking a couple months ago with a friend, while we were driving across BC, that it's crazy how much space there is and we have a housing crisis going on, and yet there's so many small towns and endless stretches of unsettled lands, yet so much of our population is crammed into MetroVancouver. We don't have a frontier spirit anymore to actually build up new cities, we just keep cramming more into existing cities. The positive is that a lot of nature is preserved. And we don't need to tear down more nature to balance out development between smaller towns and the already-big cities. I mean, why are Hope and Merritt still as small as they are, when Hope is so close to MetroVan, but still has so much potential for growth... and Merritt is so central at the four-way juncture of major routes in the province. It should be way bigger than it is by now. But I feel like it's a situation where because it's still so small, a lot of people don't want to live there. I think it's a "If you build it, they will come." situation, where if you built up some big city-like developments and some towers, etc... a lot of people would suddenly be like, "Oh wow, I'd live here! It doesn't feel like the middle of nowhere anymore!" But the problem, at every turn of this issue, is the whole "Return on Investment" issue... where if we leave this matter in the hands of for-profit developers and capitalist investment interests... then of course anything that isn't immediately seen as profitable is not going to happen. Regardless of where we decide to build it, we NEED to have more government-built development and it needs to be built and operated at-cost, not for-profit. It could even be at a loss, as it's our tax dollars paying for it anyway... as long as it benefits us, we shouldn't see the government "losing" that money as a bad thing... the money just goes to the people working on the projects anyway. As long as you pay decent wages to attract Canadian workers, you won't have to use TFWs that will take the money out of the country. The money will just come back to us taxpayers, having been used to make good things happen in the meantime. That's the way things are supposed to work. That's why properly run and funded government programs will always be better than private businesses when it comes to the essential needs of the people. We just need to be vigilant against corruption, which begins by getting money out of politics. Donations to politicians should be outlawed completely, and every running candidate gets a set, equal amount of money from the government for their campaign. There's no reason we should be using money as a form of political support. It just gives the edge to whichever candidate pleases the most monied interests that are willing to donate. It's an inherently corrupting system. We need better conflict-of-interest prevention, so that people are not allowed to work in government concerning matters that involve any financial/business interests of theirs, and they can't go into after they leave office either, so there's no revolving door. We need to start seriously tackling these corruption issues and get the corrupting factor of money and self-interest out. This is the main reason we can't trust politicians and therefore the government. We get rid of money in politics, and it will prevent the greedy from being attracted to becoming politicians. Only people who actually want to serve the people, while making an average wage (tie politicians' wages to the average or mean wage of Canadians, giving them a self-interest to help all Canadians) would want to do the job. So if your issue with putting things in the hands of the government is "But how can we trust the government to do the job properly when we can't trust politicians and they're all greedy selfish assholes who don't care and are incompetent and... blah blah blah" (as though that isn't all true of private business owners as well)... Then THIS is how you fix that problem. Money is the corrupting culprit that you seek... not government itself. Government by the people, for the people... works. But we have to be vigilant about keeping the corruption out. So yeah... a lot to do. Shall we get started?

@@AWSVids building new cities is much much harder than adding density to existing big cities. All the jobs, entertainment and infrastructure is here in Vancouver. If you build houses somewhere in rural BC very few people would want to live there. You can adopt policies to help with that but it’s a very slow process. For example I work remotely so I can live anywhere in BC but all the stuff I like is only available in Vancouver.

Food for thought, sometimes when companies are 100% remote, the companies find that the employees would rather not even live in the general area in the first place. Not a problem with that to me. I love wfh structures when possible. The thing I've seen is in my life circles when people have 100% wfh, many look to move to way more remote/ rural areas where their money stretches further, better access to nature and a lot less of the stresses of living in a city. For better or for worse, most high income jobs in the US require being in geographic proximity of cities

@@theempirestrikesback "Employment requires that you must live within state and county limits. Must be able to attend in office events, meetings, etc..." Companies can do it.

@Ameion They can do it. I'm just saying when companies have gone full remote, I've seen a lot of people move to more rural places because they aren't required to show to an office.

UN Agenda 21/30.

This is what they're doing in Utah and Idaho, but especially Utah. If you look at western Salt Lake County and Utah County, there are whole developments that just consist of hundreds of townhouses or thousands of new low-rise apartments, with new shopping centers popping up as the area fills out. It's pretty amazing, frankly -- where I live was just alfalfa farms 5 years ago, and now there's a neighborhood with multiple thousands of people living here, with more than 4/5 of the housing units being townhouses, with a small sliver of single family homes along the edges. It's way more cost effective than infill development.

I was thinking the same thing. I've been in neighborhoods where there's limited parking (because no one has a driveway), and it totally sucks. I know someone who had to get a designated handicap spot established on the street in front of their house just to ensure they had a place to park when they got home every day. A neighborhood that's already densely packed is probably not the right place for a 4-unit building.

Removing parking requirements doesn't imply zero parking. It implies the developer can choose how much parking to provide. It would make no sense to build car-dependent apartments without any available parking, but it would also make no sense to require parking for a building right next to major bus and rail lines. Better to have a roof over your head in a relatively undesirable place than to be on the street. If you're increasing population to the point where grocery stores and schools can't keep up, in theory you have a lot more tax revenue with which to fund your schools and there's a lot more demand that can be met by a new (or expanded) grocery store. Cities are constantly expanding and they're able to meet demand for this sort of thing. This isn't a realistic reason not to build housing.

The problem then is you get the complaints about gentrification and destroying "historic" neighborhoods. You just can't win. Best to just leave it alone, especially as the suggestions in this video are basically set to ruin you financially.

I live in a very big neighborhood and my home is a two-story home. There are only two more like mine but in different parts of the neighborhood. I never go around looking at my neighbor's yards even though I could easily. And I have a 10 ft fence so they can't see in mine. I'm glad nobody can do this stuff to our neighborhood where I live in Florida. I think it sucks.

I disagree. People can live in tents or homeless shelters, I don't care, but my $150,000 Tesla Model X REQUIRES proper and safe parking.

Except you're limiting people on where they can work, where they can shop, etc. Until a city has the transit system where anyone can reach any corner of town within a hour or less, and/or a supermarket within 5 minutes of walking.... car will always be a necessity.

There should be reduced parking space requirement for high density housing near major transit routes.

@@xylo5750 cringe

​@@bentencho You tackle both problems simultaneously, obviously. You add housing, don't add parking, and expand transit service. It's not that hard.

Your insights on diversifying the investment portfolio are on point. Combining traditional assets with dynamic options like cryptocurrencies makes strategic sense in today's economic landscape.

Thank you for sharing, Your coach was simple to discover online. I unwillingly copied and pasted his complete name into my browser, and now his page is at the top! And I wrote to him. He appears knowledgeable based on his online resume,incredibly great and helpful, far above expectations

In navigating the economic landscape, a diversified portfolio blending traditional and dynamic assets proves to be a strategic choice. The successful portfolio managed under the guidance of Samuel Peter Descovich exemplifies the impact of well-informed decisions, underscoring the significance of expert advice in today's financial landscape.

Exactly! Which is why I appreciate giving a financial advisor the power of decision-making. Giving their specialized expertise and education, as well as the fact that each and every one of their skills is centered on harnessing risks for its asymmetrical potential and controlling it as a buffer against certain unfavorable developments, it's practically impossible for them to underperform. I have made over $1million working with Samuel Peter Descovich, for more than five years.

Building a good investment portfolio is more complex so I would recommend you seek Samuel Peter Descovich support. This way you can get strategies designed to address your unique long/short-term goals and financial dreams

As a follow-up, you might be interested to hear that in Florence SC, the local neighbors found out about an agreement between the city and a developer to infill with affordable housing. The local community rose up in anger, stopped the project, and killed any new attempts to build affordable housing in their community. Google "Developers Got Backing for Affordable Housing, Then the Neighborhood Found Out".

Not to mention the privacy issue of high-rise neighbors staring straight into your yard from their second or third-story window.

So. Much. This. ☝🏻👏🏻

I don't fully understand what you are saying, but you sound right. I think that people putting out these videos are looking for a simple push-button solution, and aren't thinking about the consequences of pushing the ideology too far. Having more units sounds great, but what happens when people move out of their 1 home into 2 new homes? Also, what kind of a neighbourhood would it be like after? Those new New Zealand homes look ugly and car friendly. Will visitors to a new neighbourhood just park near by and clog up the streets? Surrey BC tried reducing parking minimums, and people bought the houses, but invites tons of friends for family gatherings? Are they just going to circle the block all night long?

Just to give some numbers to support my statements, for my census tract, in 2000 there were 1859 housing units and a pop. of 4540. In 2021, there were 2311 housing units and pop. of 4427. So a huge win for increasing housing density, but no corresponding change in population density. And no, that is not a COVID effect - in 2018 there were 1921 housing units and a pop. of 3575 (this is when the redevelopment was in full swing, so probably didn't capture all the new people moving in but already accounted for everyone who moved out). Once all the redevelopment is finished and the new residents make their babies, it'll probably be a 25% population increase but at the cost of the average home going from maybe $100-150k in the mid-2010s to $700-900k now. To some degree, over-building has blunted the rise in housing cost, and certainly not building any new housing would have made things even worse. But just handing the keys to developers is also not the solution.

@@symphwindThank you for the numbers.

@@symphwind Our City Hall is owned by developers, who've managed to make this narrative dogma. So you've got the poors convinced that edging feudalism and living in a garage while eating the middle class boomers - not the rich - is the answer. Divide & conquer.

Edmonton has a fun new rule along those lines. If you add a basement suite, all the plumbing stacks for the fixtures in the lower suite have to be separate from the existing plumbing stacks in the original primary residence. That's make-work for plumbers and building inspectors.

That's cool

The key here is THEY WERE DONE NEW AND TOGETHER. Which means people bought into the concept knowing what was around them. This is very cool. What's not cool is going into exiting single family zones, where people bought in with the expectation of only having other single family homes as neighbors, and changing thte zoning - thereby fucking over existing homeowners.

@@bikebudha01 I can certainly be sympathetic to that point of view, and you’re correct that cities like Portland can still expand outward some before they become excessively sprawling like Los Angeles. I can still get to downtown in maybe 20 minutes. Do you have any thoughts for larger, established metro areas where decades of single family housing policies and redlining have lead to the housing shortages they currently experience?

@@bikebudha01 They're screwed either way. If you tackle density, you betray their wishes. If you don't tackle it, you betray their needs. With insane housing prices, if you need a nurse or a lawyer or a car repair or even a grocery clerk/barista, guess what? You're going to pay for it. Everyone has to live somewhere, and now the lower mainland is all absolutely insane. At the end of the day, services are just going to cost tons more, so that you can still have access to stuff within a reasonable amount of time/distance. Those extra costs slamming into those home owners - that's screwing them over too. Probably more than whether they live next to a single family home or 4 townhouses.

@@bikebudha01 Cities arent fixed never changing entities, they change and grow as the needs of the populace and demand changes. Trying to fight that change is misguided and a big reason why we have this conversation. Maybe they could just stick it out and not be cowards? I'm sorry but you provide no good argument, just hand wringing

Too much prejudice??? not enough of it if you ask me. Humans are not designed to be stacked on top each other like the at. I was raised in a Single family home in suburbia and apartments and townhomes make me shudder at the thought. I felt outright pity for the people who had to live like that when I did deliveries to them. I would rather be homeless than live in an apartment like they had to.

Seriously?

@@jalend9974 The "humans were also not meant to" argument is hilarious. You think humans were meant to drive cars? Work in offices? Live in climate controlled dwellings? Watch youtube videos? It's all artificial.

Translation: the original owners don't want to live there, either.

@@andyiswonderful Oh they might want to, just not with a family of 6 living upstairs...

I thought you guys vilified corporations buying houses? Just pick one side to hate

The idea is that they don't want entities other than occupant owners soaking up and maximally exploiting properties. It's a problem because occupant owners don't always have the capital to make those changes but that's more of a macroeconomic problem that people don't or can't build up any savings. Stopping corporations from overly commoditizing housing is a step toward fixing that problem.

How to not solve the housing crisis: letting investors buy what they will never visit.

Vancouver made a slight improvement, in that they actually reduced the maximum Floor Space Ratio for new single family development (0.65 IIRC, and correspondingly increased it for laneway houses), while increasing it for multiplexes. However, the 1.0 limit for multiplexes still limits the units to likely be small and expensive like he outlined in the video. Some estimates were that it needs to be at least 2.0 for rental multiplexes to be viable. It would be great if there was an incremental policy, that any new development on the block can be a limited multiple of the height and/or floor space of the median property on the block, but individual units can only be so large so that building taller requires building more units. Building bigger incrementally over time couldn't be stopped, but each step wouldn't be "out of scale" with the existing properties.

They do that to protect "property values" - and eventually created a situation where actually resolving the housing shortage is now politically toxic, because most families own their own home, and resolving the shortage will wipe out more than 50% of people's property values. 51% of the population is voting to make property values go to the moon, and fucking over the other 49% in the process.

Municipalities will do literally anything to cater to rich property owners.

The outright density penalty is even worse.

They would be appalled if they were transported back to a late 19th century or early 20th century American city such as Detroit, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York City, Brainerd, Philadelphia, Denver or even little Lawton, Oklahoma.

Freakin Historical Get an Evo account and compass and stop being silly

only companies are willing to build giant buildings maybe abolish all housing reulations

Great idea, but that is one of many things that should be done to even make a dent. I'd also tax second homes at substantially higher rates than primary residences and put that tax money into things like affordable housing construction.

@@notstarboardsecond homes are often not near high jobs areas also second homes allow more of ones kids to have a home too. apartments need developers. Cant we just deregulate housing capacity/ abolish lawn mandates, home occupancy limits and construction restrictions? Rather then just mess with markets?

@@neocortex8198 sadly, no. This is because in the market we have players with disproportionate powers; in addition the same entities with greater buying power are also making profits out of homes, meaning they are also willing to pay more, since they plan to recover that money. Until you level out the playing field, normal people will have trouble to buy homes. Deregulating the building construction will not solve the problem and instead open a completely new can of worms, especially in countries that are already densely populated. First of all, it doesn't solve the issue I discussed above, meaning people would still have problem buying houses; second, it would wreak havoc in the city structure, creating places where people don't want, or even can't, live.

Stop allowing in 2 million fresh invaders each year into Canada would go a long way to reducing the demand on housing.

I lived in a corner rental that had street parking spaces for five cars. I parked in my garage. Friends had trouble finding parking because of one house across the street that had a bunch of pickup trucks that never parked in their driveway or garage. Big family that all had extended cab trucks that never had a spot on them or a work box in the back. Plus they would have a giant "toy" trailer dirt bikes that blocked even more spots. The dad was a cop so the city never did anything about the trailer (illegal to have on the street more than a few days here). Super stereotypical Americans.

Having spent 30+ years in Tokyo and experiencing sticker shock on coming back to Canada, I totally agree. I don't see it happening because of NIMBYs, but I can dream.

@@ryuuguu01 NIMBY's are not going to be too much of a problem anymore, as David Eby is here to make their lives a living hell. We have the TOD law, the missing middle law, and now all we need is some improvements on their local implementation along with a small mixed use law. I want to eat noodles out of some guy's garage that he converted into a local bar and ramen shop, dammit - I want several of those on every superblock.

I want a tiny neighbourhood bakery run by a grandma with her family recipes that have been passed down the generations.

@@geoff5623 Yes, exactly bro! This is what government has strangled out of the population. Real, entry level cottage industry that builds the culture of a space like a fragment of a mosaic. We need local governments to buzz off and allow people to redevelop their properties as they please, or else their strangling the population.

Hmm, I must have misplaced my magic wand.

You do a lot of what Edmonton is doing.

Easier said than done. Rich people who insist on driving their GMC tanks everywhere always complain when changes to parking are proposed. Gotta just exclude them from the conversation.

I think we're too late for walkable neighborhoods in many cities in North America.

They would have to be planned as walkable in advance. Difficult to retrofit that around a typical subdivision of single-family homes without tearing those homes down and starting from scratch. And that would require every single one of those homeowners to be willing to sell.

Cities and counties spend a lot more on police and fire personel, teachers, and hospital workers than they do on roads and sewers. Spending goes up with population, not land use.

@@HaldaneSmith sure spending on police services also goes up with population, but that doesn't mean it doesn't go up with land use. Also, if you're going to be spreading out the population and increasing the population, you're still going to have to spend that extra money on policing? Even if cities have to spend more on policing in dense cities, dense cities spend less in infrastructure so it's still a net benefit. Especially since the policing costs will increase anyhow with more population. Check out strong towns for more info on how costly expanding cities is. They have some really good articles/videos on it

@@HaldaneSmithpoor land use is still less efficient though; the $/person will definitely be higher in a sprawling community of the same population as a more compact, mixed-density community

@@HaldaneSmith Incorrect. Single family housing costs the government way more than denser housing.

Water and wastewater infrastructure and management is a huge cost when building new neighborhoods and developments. And roads are also a huge cost because not only is there the cost to build the roads, there's also regular maintenance. Most cities are slowly going broke on costs to keep current infrastructure (roads, water and wastewaste pipes, etc) functioning.

Except the housing crisis in Canada is real, mostly drivey by open-border policies that allow in 2M new invaders every year. Whereas "climate change" is eco-alarmist nonsense created to scare us while those same politicians redistribute my wealth to the shyythole countries (while taking a cut themselves).

That's why state (or province, if your a canuck) level zoning reform is paramount to this fight. Fighting city to city for these reforms is an inefficient time investment, better to go at it from a higher level where you don't have to convince individually NIMBY locals to "ruin" their suburbia with more kinds of housing.

My city has that problem. We past a bunch of big infill laws. But all our housing developers are moving to the neighboring county to build out the suburbs because it's so costly to get permits

Not to mention less dense housing costs governments MORE in infrastructure and maintenance. What an absurd / intentionally malicious rule!

Millions of people live in apartments where 2 or 3 times as many people live in a single building, and that is not really something you have to worry about in any consistent manner

Absolutely agree. Want to go in on homes for the homies with me?

@@anicecoldbepis With a stranger from the internet? Sure

They also have to remove minimum dwelling sizes.

You wouldn’t have to if Toronto hadn’t become an oversized Indian slum lmao. But that dump deserves it. What a stain on our beautiful country.

Hey great to see you here! I watch your videos as well. They mention underground parking in this video, and that it’d be cost prohibitive. Curious if you’ve look at this option yourself and if your pro formas have shown likewise

I'm one of those folks--I like being in a suburb because I have a yard. There's no incentive imaginable that'd get me to opt for *less* space than I already have. LOTS of people in these sorts of neighbourhoods would go "huh, okay cool I guess" and never give it a second thought because they don't want even more people close to them. Space is nice.

they could still add shops in your neighborhood so the single mom can walk 10 minutes to grab food instead of driving an hour both ways

This. Maybe people LIKE these beautiful older homes and don’t want to see them torn down so 6 brown families can be shoved in one lot. It’s a disgusting sort of plan.

You will not be forced to develop your yard, but your neighbour should be allowed to have a granny suite .

Adding density has a cost to the city. If you wave these fees you're using existing taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy developers.

@@zncon in a competitive market, reducing those taxes would definitely lead to lower prices in new builds. If DR Horton cuts their prices 50k or even 40k, Lennar is going to have a hard time padding their profits with the tax break

A city could exchange lower development costs for guaranteed and lower 🎉ower home prices. There could also be social housing quotas on larger developments.

Clogging on street parking is a pretty massive externality that a market approach will miss though

​@@MrSomethingredask residents in cities like Philly, Chicago or Boston how they park, and they say a few blocks down, sometimes almost a half mile away, and they'll gawk at you. Cities should not be required to finance and find a possible location for every single persons private vehicle.

@@MrSomethingred Private vehicles are not a human right, and should not be considered in city design. Public transport, cycling infrastructure and walkable neighbourhoods are the future of cities, not private vehicles.

Private vehicles are currently a necessity in metro Vancouver ^ that's just the truth

@@DAMfoxygrampa Make it hard to get around by car and a lot of people who want an alternative will suddenly come out of the woodwork.

eliminating parking requirements without a robust transit system makes little sense. people need to move around. the option is a necessity

@@1038bro Exactly, it should be an *option*, not a requirement. If a developer wants to invest in parking and can find buyers with the cash, fine. If the market can't justify it, then no parking needed. Also, removing the parking requirements incentivizes better transit.

@MorganMagnus I'm not disagreeing with you, but if the transit isn't there, people are going to buy cars anyway and there will be a parking shortage and so people won't have a way to get around without a car. like if there's a metro line to a place but it is built after the housing, people will buy cars in the interim and won't switch over to the metro most likely. it's common

@@1038bro_"if the transit isn't there, people are going to buy cars anyway and there will be a parking shortage "_ Maybe. Or maybe those who have cars will have to pay for storing them, and those who don't have cars won't have to subsidize those who do. This could lead to people making more stustainable transportation choices. It could also lead to pressure on politicians and engineers to provide alternate forms of transportation, such as more trains and bike/walking/scooter paths.

@OfTheGaps I'm all for walkability and ending car dependency but getting rid of parking and doing infill development won't solve the issue of people needing to go from point a to point b all by itself. they'll still need their car to get to different places because the 10 or 20% of stuff that isn't walkable and nearby is going to need transit or a car, and when transit hasn't been built, the choice is made for them and this is often enough to drive people towards a car dependent lifestyle

Similar story here, although we haven't up-zoned the density just yet in my municipality out in BC. But our setbacks are very generous, so in front of my own home there's 3x2 parking stalls - room for 6 vehicles, plus street parking, for a total of 8 vehicles. The home could have another 950sqft suite in it very easily. It's 3700sqft, pre-plumbed, so no major renos are even required.