comment: >
  
  
  I want to live in Toronto but can't afford to, and the arguments I'm seeing against moving to the Greenbelt are "we want it to stay green" which does nothing to solve the "I can't afford to live here, so I have to live somewhere" problem.
  
  Housing in the Greenbelt is just housing. Like housing in a denser Toronto. Units. Literally boxes for people to live in.
  Your whole argument is that somehow, inexplicably, new housing in the Greenbelt will be cheap, while new housing in Toronto will be expensive. That can only happen as I said for one and only one reason: the housing in the Greenbelt sucks and no one wants it, which will just make housing in Toronto more attractive and more expensive. Otherwise, it's the same as housing in Toronto. New boxes.
  It's stupid to add new boxes for people to live in on green land far away with no infrastructure and no transportation, which not only destroys the environment but causes massive traffic problems. We should follow what other cities do and add them in the city by making it denser. That has a chance of lowering housing costs. If we outbuild demand.
  
  And the Greek economy is doing fantastically.
  
  So you don't like Athens and Lisbon because their economies aren't strong?
  I have no idea what to say to that comment! Housing cost is a function of the ratio of supply and demand. That's it. There is literally nothing else to it.
  You cannot have cheap housing in a city with high demand and low supply. Athens and Lisbon have demand issues because their economies suck. If suddenly the tech sector in Athens took off, then it would become unafforadable. That's true of every city. 
  I have no idea what example you want? You want me to find a perfect city with massive demand that builds no new housing yet is cheap? That violates supply and demand. It literally cannot exist.
  You want a city that has massive demand builds massive new housing so it's cheap? Ok, Huston. You will then say you don't want to live there because the quality of life sucks. Huston does exactly the same stupid thing about developing the equivalent of the Greenbelt, they sprawl endlessly. The city is cheap. It's horrible on every front. Environmentally it's a disaster. Commute times are out of control even post pandemic. Huston often makes lists of worst cities in the US.
  TLDR: In Toronto the economy is good, we have demand, we need supply. We have two options for supply: build up or build out. We know that building up leads to cities that people love. We know that building out leads to cities with huge problems, low quality of life, destroys the environment, and causes massive traffic issues. Don't develop the Greenbelt.
context: Well, the alternative is buying existing housing and tearing it down to replace it with higher capacity housing. This form of "build up, not out" doesn't require the use of more land. >
  
  There used to be surface parking lots all over Toronto, and a ton of those are now giant apartment/condo buildings. I absolutely agree that was a "better use of land" but it also drives up the cost of living as the city grows. 
  There are small-medium sized town examples where maybe it's a townhouse development or low-mid rise that goes in where there previously was a factory or mall, and where single family homes used to be there are zoning changes happening. A lot of that is adding people to existing land used for housing in ways that I can get behind, and I agree that form of "build up, not out" does seem like a great housing solution.
  Until you see the giant big-box stores that buy huge chunks of the land outside of the town you just "saved from houses" to service the significantly expanded population in that town because the increased density downtown made large property with big parking lots more expensive, because most towns with 1000 - 20 000 people can't afford to put in underground parking or vertical garages, but they can build a bunch more surface lots outside of town. 
  If towns and cities in the Greenbelt are going to continue to grow because affordability is driving people away from the GTA/other urban centres, they are going to have to build housing, roads, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, grocery stores, and the things people need in their environment to live there. I don't see how they can build all of that "up not out" without impacting the surrounding environment, AKA the Greenbelt. >
  
  Is housing affordable in either of those cities? Aren't they some of the examples we often point to of cities that are more expensive to live in than Toronto, with even more of an affordable housing issue than we have?
  20 years ago people might have been leaving the city to single family homes, but if you drive around the Greenbelt and look at modern housing developments in small towns, the majority of them are semi-detached or townhouse "villages" on undeveloped land close to those communities, and the bigger places are building low and mid-rise housing in their cores. 
  People are leaving Toronto because they can't afford to live here, to move into (arguments to be made about how well executed they are) denser forms of housing than single family homes or single family homes on smaller lots than traditionally available in those communities, because "more house for the same money, or more house for less money" is one of the driving factors pushing people towards purchasing in the Greenbelt. 
  If you have to leave all of your friends and family and social connections and the places you used to go in order to afford a home, I understand why you would want the house to be more desirable to make that trade off hurt a little less.
  I'm not convinced London or New York are good examples of cities that have affordable housing because of their density, I think they're great examples of cities that are even more expensive that Toronto and while increasing density might help accommodate the growing population, it will also continue to drive people away as they look for more affordable housing close enough that they can still visit, and that puts them in the Greenbelt. >
  
  Housing is a free market. How expensive a city is, is all about supply/demand.
  It's not about the size of the city and it's not about the density of the city. There are dense cities that are cheap and there are dense cities that are expensive. There are low density cities that are cheap and there are low density cities that are expensive.
  London and NY have huge demand, sure! But they also have much better supply. Toronto has much lower demand, but also terrible supply. Chicago for example is huge, but has fairly low demand for its supply, so housing is almost half the cost of say, Boston, which is far smaller but has huge demand.
  Toronto needs to expand its supply. NY, London and others have shown how to do this: build up. There is no need to build into the Greenbelt, and even worse, that will cause environmental and traffic nightmares.
  If Toronto also expands demand, nothing will help. The Greenbelt, building up, both, etc. nothing will ever make housing cheaper if the number of people who want housing is always high compared to the amount of housing. The Greenbelt even from its most optimistic proponents can only add 1.5M homes. Extra demand can easily soak that up and more. >
  
  So, why not use examples of dense yet cheap cities, instead of picking two of the cities with the highest cost of living in the world to compare Toronto to, while trying to make a point about housing affordability? 
  If London and New York have better housing supply than Toronto and are still more expensive, how is that proof that increased supply increases affordability? You compare Chicago to Boston where Chicago has a reputation for crime, violence, and other reasons making it less desirable to live in than Boston. Detroit was paying people to buy houses there during their collapse so maybe that was affordable, but not at all desirable. 
  You are pointing out that if people want to live in a city, that city becomes more expensive because of the demand/desirability. I agree with you. That's why people are building and expanding into less desirable areas, which are more affordable. 
  People need a place to live. If they can't afford to live in Toronto, then they are going to find a smaller community they can live in, which is outside of Toronto. If they want to commute or maintain connection to Toronto, or find affordability, that's not another city, but a small-medium sized town in the Greenbelt, which is fueling the expansion of those communities. Why should people who cannot afford to live in Toronto not have access to roads and highways and schools and hospitals close to where they live? And if they should have those things, where should they build those things if everywhere they look they are surrounded by land that should be protected? >
  
  You're confusing supply with demand.
  It does not matter if the Greenbelt is further away. If people want to live in the GTA, developing the Greenbelt will lead to expensive housing. All that matters is the total amount of housing. Unless you mean, the Greenbelt development produces such subpar housing compared to a denser Toronto that no one would ever want to live there? In which case it doesn't help with Toronto house prices.
  More houses than demand, prices go down. That's it. That's Econ 101. We need more houses. London and NY show we can build those houses in Toronto just fine and end up with an awesome city.
  You want examples of cheaper cities that are as dense as NY and London? Ok! Lisbon in Portugal is beautiful, far cheaper, and extremely dense (2x the density of Toronto, like NY and London). Athens in Greece is far cheaper and similarly dense.
  Density is not why Lisbon and Athens are cheap compared to NY and London. It is supply and demand. Far more people want to live in NY and London. Right now, given the number of people who want to live in Toronto, if we had the density of NY and London, we would have low prices, because our demand is lower, like Lisbon and Athens.
  There are only two options: raise supply or lower demand. NY, London, Lisbon, Athens all show how you raise supply: you create density. All of these are world class cities that people love. >
  
  
  You're confusing supply with demand.
  
  How? There is high demand in Toronto/GTA/Golden Horseshoe. That could be because they are large cities, that could be because of employment opportunities or proximity to people/family/friends, or any number of reasons. Because there is limited supply (which could be blamed on single family housing zoning, not in my backyard, and other protectionist/exclusionary policies, or because there hasn't been enough supply built in order to match demand) people cannot afford to live in the city. Because there is supply in more affordable places and that affordability makes those places desirable for different reasons than the cities, you get people leaving cities to live in the previously Greeenbelt communities because they can afford to live there. 
  If you want to prevent people from moving to more affordable places, you either need to make the places you do want them to live more affordable, or the more affordable places less desirable to live in. If it would cost the same for me to live in Caledon as it would for me to live in downtown Toronto I'd likely pick downtown Toronto. If I can buy a house on a few acres in the Greenbelt for the same price as an 800 square foot Condo in the city, why would I pick city? Especially if that house is within a reasonable drive to the things I want to do in the city?
  
  More houses than demand, prices go down.
  
  We have been building more housing in Toronto since it was founded. As urban areas grow, the demand for housing in that urban area increases. As the demand and price increases in the city center, more supply is built, and while part of that supply is denser housing in the city center, part of it is also suburban sprawl, as people balance the "longer commute, better living" equation, until those suburbs become unaffordable cities of their own. Look at pre-amalgamation Toronto, or post amalgamation Toronto, or the GTA, or the Golden Horseshoe. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out, housing supply has not been meeting or exceeding demand, so prices have been going up. In order to find supply at affordable prices, people are buying in the Greenbelt, because that is where land is cheap enough to develop and put affordable housing. 
  
  We need more houses. 
  
  I agree, I'm just pointing out that more houses/housing in Toronto hasn't proven to be more affordable housing in Toronto.
  
  London and NY show we can build those houses in Toronto just fine and end up with an awesome city.
  
  London and New York might be larger, more dense cities than Toronto, and you might even see them as more desirable places to live than Toronto/awesome cities. I am not contesting your "NEW YORK IS AWESOME!" I am just pointing out that it is an awesomely bad example of an affordable city, as is London. They are proof that cities can be "good" or something, but they are not proof that they are affordable. 
  
  You want examples of cheaper cities that are as dense as NY and London? 
  
  No, I want more affordable cities that are desirable places to live. I said saying Chicago is cheaper than Boston doesn't prove your point because we likely both agree Boston would be considered the more desirable city which is a part of it's higher cost.
  
  Lisbon in Portugal is beautiful, far cheaper, and extremely dense
  
  Portugal's GDP is also 45-50th in the world compared to Canada (Toronto) , America (New York) and the UK (London) all being in the top 10. 
  
  Athens in Greece is far cheaper and similarly dense.
  
  And the Greek economy is doing fantastically.
  Setting aside your apples to oranges comparison, are those cities considered affordable places to live in those countries, or more affordable than suburban/rural communities surrounding them, or are they just more affordable than Toronto, New York, and London, if we make-believe they also happen to be in Canada, USA or the UK?
  
  Density is not why Lisbon and Athens are cheap compared to NY and London.
  
  No, a pretty convincing argument could be made they are more affordable because they are less desirable places to live... oh wait, you just said they have lower demand. So, why should we be punishing/limiting people in Ontario who want to move out of the higher demand cities that are not affordable into the lower demand smaller communities in the Greenbelt? Aren't you just making a case for "this city is unaffordable, so move out of it" by pointing out that less desirable cities like Lisbon and Athens are cheaper?
  
  There are only two options: raise supply or lower demand.
  
  People moving from the city, or new people to Canada deciding not to live in Toronto but to live outside of it in the Greenbelt are lowering demand in the city. The Greenbelt is being developed because there is a demand for affordable housing, and people cannot afford housing where they want to live, so they are being forced to develop wild/natural/environmentally significant/agricultural land, because they are priced out of the city. Then the city (that they don't live in) and provincial politics are getting all upset people have to live there and what roads and houses, because they can't afford to live in cities. They are lowering demand, voting with their feet/dollars, and that is why people are complaining about trying to stop Greenbelt development, because the cities are not creating enough supply so people have to look elsewhere.
  New York and London show you that just like Toronto, as big desirable cities grow bigger they often grow more desirable, and that doesn't make housing affordable. I don't know enough about Portugal or Greece to make grand statements about their housing markets, but even if comparatively less expensive than cities in countries with higher GDP when comparing dollars to Euros, I am also assuming that it is more expensive to live in Lisbon than "small town Portugal" and Athens than "small town Greece". 
  You might be talking about "world class cities that people love." but just because people like to take tourist photos there doesn't make them affordable places to live. Most people chose to live in cities because they believe the lack of affordability is countered out by the desirability of the city, making it "worth it" to live in unaffordable housing because of the amenities. I want to live in Toronto but can't afford to, and the arguments I'm seeing against moving to the Greenbelt are "we want it to stay green" which does nothing to solve the "I can't afford to live here, so I have to live somewhere" problem. 
  We can also lower demand by restricting investment properties, making owning multiple residences tax prohibitive, decreasing foreign investment or lowering immigration which may bring down prices, but I am not seeing how increased supply in any of the urban areas you have mentioned or I am considering in my initial post has made any of them more affordable.