but that type of development isn’t possible anymore.
There simply isn’t the available land
You should read about that history again. Land costs weren't the prohibitive factor, it was that there just wasn't enough housing being built.
Not to mention building condos cost a lot more per square foot than detached houses.
This one is A) doubtful but B) more than a little misleading, condos are much smaller than detached homes, so the people per square foot works out cheaper.
But yeah, this won't get everyone detached homes in the middle of a big city like Vancouver, like I already said. What it does do is allow us to do is build more multi unit places (hardly a factor in the post war efforts) as well as more detached homes in less populated areas (in BC, my goodness, we have some dirt cheap land a few hours away from Vancouver.)
I dunno, you've just made a lot of assertions about what will happen but none of it seemed particularly based on facts. I'm not going to say I'm confident in the government but I certainly like our odds more than I did a year ago.
Think this through with your own numbers but without time swapping the fertility rates across generations. (Suddenly having a house means we're going to pump out 4 kids? Holy bold assumptions Batman!)
Say a condo at 800 feet, 800 / 3 = 266.
Even a small house, 1500 / 3 = 500.
Heck, even if we double the fertility rate for folks in a small detached home, you're still ahead:
1500 / 4 = 350.
Yeah, so essentially some of the most expensive real estate in the country, no doubt it's going to be more expensive. That's why you have to build condos there not detached homes. Try putting a detached home there. Do that and the house is suddenly what, tens of millions?
In this case, you're effectively saying that because we build condos where it is too expensive to put detached homes, condos are more expensive? That's some pretty silly logic there.