Food for thought:

The Tyee explains why everyone who can't afford a 1.5M Kits duplex is soon going to be living and working in the suburbs:

"Historically, federal and provincial government funding has been what governs affordability, with municipal densification and land-use playing subsidiary roles. Governments and non-profit or co-operative societies build non-market dwelling units. Their operation and maintenance are necessarily assisted by government subsidies to ensure a continuing stock of affordable housing. Vancouver's 'affordable housing' explosion occurred between 1947 and 1986 when potent government programs encouraged their creation. Funding has since diminished significantly and, consequently, so has the affordable housing.

Efforts by the city have had a negligible effect despite numerous attempts. For example, although the rate-of-change bylaw protects rental housing stock, it doesn't have the capability to prevent landlords from continually raising rents. This has led to a number of superficial upgrades and tenant evictions across the city. Recent issues along Main Street speak to this point.

[. . . .]

I don't think I would be doing the issue of affordability justice if I didn't address the conflict between the city's environmental and 'high-quality' design agendas and the economics of lowering costs. I am the first to admit that city's desire to implement stricter energy performance regulations on new buildings is very noble. Not to mention that 'green' designers like myself serve to greatly benefit by getting more work.

But the fact is that higher performance buildings cost more money to both design and build. More specialists are required. Better systems and 'eco' products must be purchased -- each at a premium. As the old saying goes, 'you can't get something for nothing.' Do homes perform better now than they did 50 years ago? Without question. But they are also exponentially more expensive.

When dealing with development, it is naive to believe that developers altruistically take an economic loss for implementing these great environmentally-friendly systems: the costs are passed directly to those buying into their projects. This serves to directly increase construction costs -- over and above land costs, development fees, etc. -- and, ultimately, makes them even less affordable."

And, on a brighter note:

Warren Buffett's new annual Chairman's Letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders
- posted by cjb @ 7:44 PM