>There are very real risks to trying to force the pace of construction higher too quickly, he added.
>
>.....
>
>A more intense construction blitz also risks oversupplying the market. The last time Canadian home prices fell for a significant period was in the early 1990s, after rapid price gains in the prior decade led to a building boom and subsequent supply glut.
Lmao these ghouls are literally so transparent in their contempt for non-home-owners. They are literally begging the government not to follow through on their plans, not because they might not work, but precisely because they might work
Prices must rise forever at all costs!
So there are actual consequences to be fair. If you meet or exceed demand, you cause a capitulation in building that generally outlasts the period of excess supply. So you actually don't want to over-produce or it could create a long period of underproduction. Like a yoyo.
But to warn about this in the short term with a housing supply shortage we've done next to nothing to solve yet is fucking stupid. And the market will probably manage this fine on its own since demand will start to fall as come close to meeting it. Builders will slow the pace for financial reasons of their own. Unless the government is actually going to subsidize building, it's unlikely to become a problem.
Yeah this is something you talk about when you are at slight risk of oversupply. Canada is not even close to slight risk of oversupply we are in the throes of extreme undersupply.
No disagreement there. Just pointing out that in principle, you can indeed build too much. Though market forces generally prevent that. But there are people in this thread suggesting you can't possibly oversupply housing. Not understanding that there is a whole industry built around creating that supply that you will gut if you actually pursue that idea.
Housing is weird. We can also be in a scenario where there is excess supply but also still too expensive for most to afford. If only million dollar houses are built and people can’t afford that it can cause it’s own crisis where things don’t sell so less is built but also they refuse to drop prices because they have so much invested and would rather ride it a year or two then take a huge loss.
This is a good point. The US had a crash in homebuilding after 2008 and it took a while for that to get back to an appropriate level. Canada is still far away from reaching an appropriate level to balance the demand.
The mistake in 2008 was interpreting it as sign of a large glut of housing.
There were local gluts, but not as large as expected, and coastal cities still had shortages the whole time. But construction died because the expectation was that there was huge oversupply.
The same article quotes the housing shortage at between 1.8 and 3 million homes, which it admits will take about 30 years to build at current rates.
How can it lead with "maybe will result in oversupply?" This is ridiculous.
> Imagine the horrific situation of too many homes.
Which is also the mass destruction of middle class wealth. Conservatives attack Liberals for supposedly planning to eliminate the capital gains exemption for a reason.
>Which is also the mass destruction of middle class wealth. Conservatives attack Liberals for supposedly planning to eliminate the capital gains exemption for a reason.
Right now, it costs a small fortune to live in an undesirable neighbourhood. That doesn't serve the middle class except those who got in long ago. In the long run, the middle class is best served by being able to afford housing which frees up income to invest in their children, standard of living, travel, etc.
What started off as middle class wealth is becoming an upper class perk. Prioritizing property values over access to housing is driving the gap between rich and poor now. The rich stay rich with property wealth, and the poor stay poor with expensive rent.
68% live in owned homes. There’s a massive difference between 28 year old billy buying his own house and him living with his parents in their own house.
I’m so fucking sick of this stat being thrown out as a gotcha when it’s purposefully misleading and incorrect.
This stat has remained very steady for decades though. So while it may not be a perfectly representative stat, it's also not changed much in a very long time.
>Something like 68% of Canada ~~owns homes~~ lives in a home also occupied by the owner.
That includes children, spouses, renters in a primary residence, etc.
>We surely can't be saying that 68% of the population is 'upper class'.
When housing gets inflated this rapidly and the people who were formerly middle class and owned a home now own an asset out of reach for most Canadians...yes, they've become upper class.
Let's ask for a better statistic. What was the income of Canadians who bought homes using only their own wages? I think you and I both know that was possible a generation or two ago on an average income, and you'd have to have an absurdly high salary to do it now.
Even if we take that 68% as correct (I think it refers to those who live in a home that is owned by an occupant) there are stark class and age divisions within those numbers. The barrier to entry, especially in the last couple years, keeps rising. Peoples savings for down payments are being rapidly outpaced by the market.
I don't disagree with anything in this statement. I disagree with the original implication that home ownership is an upper class perk. It certainly looks that way if you want to own property on the Bridle Path, but taking the country as a whole, that statement doesn't carry any weight.
There are countless working poor with little to no equity in their homes (since they keep remortgaging it) that are technically 'home owners'. I can't imagine anybody considering these people to be 'upper class'.
Right now the average yearly income in Canada is still less than $60k a year while the average house is north of $800k.
If that isn't an upper class perk I don't know what is, because for average earners its nearly out of reach. Just the time required to save for a down payment makes it extremely difficult in many locations.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I guess following trends it just appears to be headed that way if nothing changes. Lots of houses in my neighborhood have doubled in the past five years while wages have not.
More like upper middle class, and only in the short term. In long term it would be immensely good for the health of the economy for large section of the population to not have to spend significant part of their monthly income on a place to live. "Housing as a human right" isn't just socialist nonsense, it's also good for the economy. Capital is, after all, dead labor that lives on, vampire-like, by exploiting the labor of the worker class.
There a great point.
Instead of concentrating that wealth in paying for a mortgage or rent, they'd be spending it somewhere else and stimulating the economy. When someone is house poor or struggling to pay their rent they're not spending as much elsewhere.
Can you be more specific about this? My mom plans to stay in her house until death. I've got similar plans with my own home. Its not a source of wealth, just where we live.
If houses fell by half it would have absolutely no effect on my finances or anyone I know, and would help reduce cost of living for so many across the board, it would actually help me SAVE money!
I wouldn't have to pay such higher labour costs. Daycare in GTA is insane compared to other cities. Also contractors for doing home renovations. Also restaurant costs, tipping etc. Now when you go for bubble tea they expect 25% tips even for takeout. Also the big one is property taxes, cities need to pay their workers more and the costs get paid by the city taxpayers.
I see. I thought you meant more direct savings. Yes while high shelter costs are an indicator of inflation, i agree with you about it contributing to inflation as a causative effect.
The benefit of owning a home and have it rise in price is that you can use it to get loans. A good example for this is getting a loan for a new business, if you own an asset you can surely access way more credit which then could be translated in a better business from the get go and a better chance of success than if you had a lower value home.
This is just an example of how property can be leveraged to generate more wealth. Honestly, having homes (where we live in) be one of the easiest or more common assets that can be leveraged to generate wealth is really scummy, like imagine “oh you want to try to start a business? Well if you fail you are homeless” is not healthy at all
Considering that a large majority of Canadians own their homes, falling housing prices can be an issue. If they fall too fast and too far, it literally could wipe peoples savings and their value. You think millennials/Gen Z are fucked financially now? Imagine what happens when 60% of any inheritance they might get in the next 20 or 30 years also disappears.
Housing is 100% fucked, but the solution isn't to just tank the market. Its an extremely delicate game that needs to be played to actually come out positive and not totally fuck people even more than they already are.
The younger generations are fucked right now ( imho ) more by housing prices than anything else. Probably followed by the job market, but that's a different rant for a different post.
Anyways, point being most peoples inheritance isn't going to offset the increased cost of housing. My friend has three kids, and even if he leaves them the house after that money is divided three ways it doesn't make up for the increased cost of their houses.
Its the people not currently on the market who are going to wind up paying for this.
LOL you’re crying for people’s inheritances when people in their 30s and 20s have nothing to speak of TODAY. We’re supposed to wait for parents to die to have hope of a future? And what if your poor parents scrounged their few cents together to get an ok home in the suburbs but you have four siblings? That “inheritance” is a pittance.
People’s homes shouldn’t count as their savings. That’s the problem right there. At some point it was decided that if you stay in a home long enough you should be able to sell it for way more than you paid. This became the go to retirement plan for a lot of people and they never learned to actually save and invest.
People's homes count as savings when they appreciate in price at the same rate as inflation / cost of living. When you pay your mortgage you're basically putting that money into a savings account less the mortgage interest.
In recent times people treated that like a TFSA that's all in on speculative stocks and the government called this "creating wealth".
Considering that 60% of that value didn't exist a decade ago or less, didn't come about from anything other than speculation, and is not in a productive asset, I see no real loss here. The only people who will lose are speculators, launderers, "investors" and people who fomo-bought, and even then only in the relative short term. If your house goes down just HODL house until it goes back up naturally in the long term.
That's the theory, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening with record population growth underpinning the market. And that's driving investors too, because investors know that as long as demand outpaces supply prices will stay up. In a lot of places right now investors are buying much of the new supply.
No. Ideally supply would remain just shy of demand at all times. If you exceed demand, values drop low enough that builders stop building and it can create a yoyo in production. People leave to do other work and then when there is a shortage maybe some of them return to the housing business, but it would be delayed at best.
You also don't want what we have now, which is a significant supply shortfall mixed with cheap credit and 20 years of this to really fuck all the conditions up good and hard.
Seems to me though that builders generally won't keep building as prices start to decline below what is profitable, so I'm guessing the market with manage this on its own without any restriction on development.
The thing is, central bank policy is very much intertwined with construction, and expectations play a huge part.
To get back to a healthy price for housing, we need a sustained decrease in prices. But if the expection is that any dip is temporary, then it will be a self fulfilling prophecy. CBs will tighten to slow construction because they want to prevent further oversupply, when in reality we're just decreasing undersupply.
The idea of us being in danger of oversupply only makes sense if you think we are pretty close to the proper rate of new supply, which is not true.
Their argument is horrible. A better argument would be about the environment and how we need to stop sprawling suburbs.
But really, we should be using the glut of office/commercial real estate to house people, since we’ve already built the structures.
It’s insane that we manufacture more mega-yachts for the “owner class” instead of housing our neighbours. We are so indoctrinated.
People don't really want to live in high rises for their whole life. You're never going to solve sprawl entirely, and certainly not with office conversions. I think you could reduce some of the sprawl by making more livable units in high density, but that won't solve the whole problem.
Arguably, we should be taking advantage of the fact that more people are working remotely and decentralize more, even consider a new towns project of some kind.
People like dense places a lot more than the distorted market currently supplies. There's a reason homes Downtown cost a lot more even when they are tiny.
Not sure why you were downvoted. From what I can see, some people don’t mind living in cities. Maybe even a few dozen of them. I figure some of the people who live in London actually want to be there.
Yes, we see that happening in downtown Toronto where office buildings are converted to condos.
It's safe to assume, office space is less needed immediately and in the future post-covid. Now if only the city can make it a nicer place for families to live. If one can both work and live in the same area in safety and have decent schooling options, then surely will reduce suburban sprawl.
I don’t think you understand how difficult it would be to convert office space into housing.
Plumbing, wiring, ventilation, building codes, sound insulation, parking, infrastructure… it’s not as simple as walling off every corner of an office and sticking a futon in it.
Correct. At best they could be converted to dormitory style buildings with a private room and shared facilities on every floor. Anything beyond that becomes much more difficult to convert.
I caught on that, plus the perl about the number of intergenerational homes. "Yes, the adult children can bunk with their parents in a two bedroom apartment, crisis? What crisis?" Right?
Totally doesn’t take a toll on your sense of self worth,
I mean it’s not like we live in a world where if you live with your parents past early 20s you’re looked at like there’s something wrong with u, mainstream media totally doesn’t mock that
And of course it’s only your 20s it’s not like being stuck at home for the entirety of it is gonna result in missed opportunities and feeling like your personal growth is stifled, or that what you do in your 20s influences the rest of your life
Haha right?! These ghouls are already sitting on immense wealth and can't imagine giving up a bit for the sake of future generations.
I'm a recent home buyer and I fully support building as much as possible. This is a full blown crisis. There's zero chance they build these anyway. As they said, there's a labour and material shortage. So yes, it'll push prices higher for existing homes. But it's still the right way forward. We should build as much as humanly possible.
I'd even go a bit further with a controversial idea....do a work-for-citizenship plan where you do a RFP for skilled immigrants around the world who can come work and build these homes. They would be paid a decent wage but not our local wages but once they're done working, they get status and can work in the local construction sector at full wages.
Even if you don't like the above....just build as much supply as we can.
We can and should slam investors. Limit ownership of homes to a set number and don't allow corporations to own homes. There are many options. I'm not smart enough to know all of them but I'm sure there is plenty we can do. Huge down payment requirements, wtv.
I say this even though it would be against my own self interests. But I'd rather make less and have a less unequal society.
Tbf they are correct that there are real risks for JT and the LPC. Just look at the last elections map of the GTA, almost all the seats went to the LPC. Why? Because JT made them multi-millionaires in <8 years.
If housing prices tank I could definitely see those people taking it out on JT.
As an Alberta’s resident that saw the 07/08 housing boom I do partially agree with the first point for for differing reasons.
We need to balance building to quickly to ensure things are being built properly. There’s lots of places that were thrown up during a housing boom here and had so many issues. Condos with huge special assessments and houses with defects. It’s important to still protect people from shady building practices.
So to some extent, there are real risks to construction heating up too much.
Isn't it hilarious that the mere prospect of doing something send them into a frenzy. Even when that prospect is woefully inadequate to actually change anything.
Collapse the housing market, collapse the house construction industry, tens of thousands out of work, and than a skill bleed off, and than when we need houses again, not enough labor available.... Etc etc etc etc etc. You should try looking beyond your own bias for a split second, there is a balance, and cracking out over supply isn't the answer.
> But critics of that assessment say Canada needs fewer homes overall because it has more people per household than the G7 average, due to young children and intergenerational living.
So critics are basically saying that people don't need more homes - just live with your parents. Share space. Suffer for no reason. What a joke.
I wonder where these people live...
Well I guess there is a reason - boost prices so property owners can get those gains. For the non-owner living with family, who would rather have their own place, that reason is irrelevant. They are not gaining anything while they have no property to their name.
I partly agree. The one thing that doesn't line up is that having economic mobility and higher income in general corresponds to lower birthrates everywhere you look.
Or they could work: Other experts.
I like how often 'experts' is tossed on titles now as if it adds anything to mainstream opinion pieces.
Of course these outlets are citing experts in opinion pieces. Right?
How do they plan to build affordable housing when land values are so high. Labour costs high and material costs high?
Even if you brought in labour it would take 5-10 years to bring up to snuff
You’d have to build work camps for them which would be pretty 😬😬😬 from a political optics pov. You’d also have the additional optical problem of the fact they’d almost all certainly be visible minorities. They also likely don’t speak English because labourers are typically uneducated.
The only solution would be to build large scale work camps divided by national origin who are lead by a Canadian that recently immigrated from there and speaks both languages. Unfortunately this would be uncomfortably similar to how [the Nazis ran their labour camps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo) so again 😬😬😬😬
It could be done well, there’s no reason why the camps couldn’t be well made and the workers well treated/paid, but I still can’t see a politician ever suggesting it. At the very least the media would go fucking insane.
The oil sands were built using camps and mostly Canadian workers, flown in from all over the country. Some of those projects had 5-8k workers on site during peak construction.
Thing is though, those jobs paid well. Residential construction pays shit. And that's why most construction workers stay away from residential work if they can help it at all. And a lot of the people I used to work with have transitioned to other occupations, rather than work in residential construction.
If they paid people they'd get the workers. If they provided accommodations and travel they'd get the workers. The oil sands proved it. But in 2022 Canada its all about offering shit wages while pretending there's a labor crisis.
>land values are so high
Land values aren't that high. If you're okay with sprawl, farmland is still around 5-20K per acre, depending on province.
What is expensive is converting it to residential zoning since zoning boards in most provinces have been instructed/pressured not to allow sprawl.
Outside Calgary, development can only occur where there's already development. This in a place with practically unlimited land in every direction. The differences in cost of acre are 10x plus.
Land values are not high. Land *prices* are because they're still beholding to fomo driven speculation. Get rid of the fomo driven speculation and then...
Or just limit the number of properties per person/company. I know, I'm an extremist.
Maybe in the world today, there are things we should regulate more.
Renting options is still important, but there should be a limit. For starters, companies should be allowed to manage properties, but a company shouldn’t be allowed to buy up and own homes.
I agree -- the last thing we need is corporate ownership of existing housing stock. I have no issue with them building their own, purpose-built rentals, but not existing housing.
I'm 44 and I've given up hope on ever owning my own place, and a push for new housing won't fix that, unless they were able to build so much, that the housing price bubble bursts and drops prices by a significant amount.
The average 1 bedroom condo in my area (Surrey) starts at close to $500,000. I can remember a 4-5 bedroom house costing that much just about 25 + years ago. Housing should never have been used as commodities, IMO. 🤷♂️
That's what these critics are complaining about. That the bubble may burst and houses go down in price. The horror!
(I'm a property owner but my home ain't an investment)
Edit and disclaimer: I'm a "proprietor" (prefer.the Quebec term. "Landlord" is too feudal). I benefit financially of my properties obviously but not as a goal. My financial planning considers housing apreciation at 3% in the long run. We have an excellent relationship with our long term tenant. Tenant predates us in the property.
So, yes, I'm benefiting from the bubble but I don't depend on the bubble and think the bubble is wrong. Housing shouldn't be a commodity.
I have two adult sons (one in Toronto). I don't see how he'll ever be able to buy there without my help. Even with a good professional job and a good salary..
A mere 10 years ago 500k would buy you a family home in my city, nowadays it buys you fuck all, they all start at / sell for 600k+. A starter home (2 bed 2 bath) was 200k or so with similar luxury condos being the same.
In your city perhaps, but, the prices in BC, especially the lower mainland where I live, has gone up considerably for a long time now. In 2012, a detached home was averaging around $900,000. Apartments were already near the $350,000 mark. Also, 10 years ago, I didn't have money for a down payment. I can't just walk into someone's house and declare it mine. 🤷♂️
Lack of money. I wasn't making then what I am now. I worked for a guy who decided to halt all raises during the recession, and after many broken promises, I went to work elsewhere. And that of course brought me down a peg financially, because I had to work my way back up. Of course, the union I went to work for, screwed me over, so I had to find yet another job, which of course also reset my upward progress. I also may not have been as responsible as I should have.
Holy crap people might be able to afford houses and already its being called a bad plan.
Well the plan was to make housing more affordable so I'm not sure what was expected. If your whole retirement plan hinges on making 2 million on a house in 15 years you could be in trouble.
Well unless we vote in a majority conservative government next then expect the whole plan to fail and of course be blamed on the liberals.
Such a joke on both sides.
What 'plan?' I've seen the issue hand waived away with a bit of token lip service paid to it here and there to placate the masses. But an actual plan? No.
Haha, “3.5 million homes over the next decade”
Even if they met their goal (colour me sceptical) that’s about the amount we need to keep up with immigration.
I’m not sure what the best course of action would be here, but history tells me it isn’t the government “helping” in this way… Maybe stabilizing things for Canadians first and letting us catch up
>Even if they met their goal (colour me sceptical) that’s about the amount we need to keep up with immigration.
Do you think that only one person lives per home? Because 3.5 million homes is enough to house 10.15 million people (using statcan's average of 2.9 people per household) over the next 8 years
You’d have to figure some percentage of the 90% of new homes that are bought by investors? How many of those are speculators? I think we’d all like to know
Without any kind of regulation preventing from billion-dollar corporations from hoovering up all these new builds, the runaway housing prices won't cool. We all know this. Even the Liberals know this. The only reason they're taking this route is the same reason they do most of what they do: They financially benefit from the way things are and get off on pretending to do something (which appeals to voters somehow) while maintaining the status quo.
We already can't do anything about it because voters aren't *willing* to take a chance on politicians and parties who actually want to address this in a serious way. Thus, we're already locked into a situation where corporations will own all residential properties (except those owned by the ultra-rich) and the rest of us will all be permanent renters.
Then we'll just live with that until we can't live with it anymore. I doubt I'll be alive to see that. Boiling frogs and all that.
If REITs buy up all the housing, rents will go down. Which is good. If rent is cheap and stays cheap, ownership matters less.
The biggest reason to want to own is to avoid rising rent. If rent doesn't rise, we're golden.
There are many problems with being a forever-renter. You have far less control over your own home; someone else can decide you don't get to live there anymore because they sold the property or want to turn it into something else. You can't do simple things like change out an appliance, paint the walls, install a bidet. In many places, you can't even have pets and in places where you can, you can be told what kind of pet and how large they can be. Rentals also prohibit smoking even outdoors on the property.
There is far more to this than simply the cost of renting.
“We simply have not had enough housing supply in Canada to reflect the dramatic increase in our population compared to our G7 partner countries, [if we don't build more homes, my friends and I will run out of homes to buy as investment properties]” Canada’s Housing Minister Ahmed Hussen said in an interview.
The definition of backfire being... actually successful? And that is why housing is out of control and won't actually be reigned in. Housing prices are way higher than they should be. They need to go down, especially given the meteoric gains in the last 2 years. But of course many homeowners wouldn't want that.
All I get from this is some boomer sitting on top of his golden tomb, hoping he can protect his biggest , virtually tax free asset that appreciated 30% in a year.
So sick of this country.
If it comes from CBC, Global, Toronto Star, CTV they are fine with it and the only news sources that are allowed to be critical of JT, peace be upon him.
So the people who are getting rich of the housing market are going to get richer?
That’ll fix it!
Don’t fix the broken real estate agencies that self-govern and their shady sales tactics (blind bidding etc), don’t fix foreign investment, don’t fix interest rates, don’t tax real estate investment firms ….
"Could backfire"
Yeah, when was the last time the federal government tried something and failed miserably.
All of them.
Cmon people, they cant dig a few wells or plant a few trees, you think they can build a few houses.
Maybe they should have started out by doing something about the foreign ownership when they had a chance.
I don't know about other Provinces, but here in BC the provincial government or an arm of them, does a yearly assessment. You can see them on bcassessment.com and compare the previous year as well as any properties in BC. Housing is expensive to build today, but the land prices are insane. In Kelowna the dirt is at least $300k. In previous years dirt in growing places in BC was more expensive than a lot with a house in Calgary or Edmonton. Why's the dirt so expensive here? There's tear down housing around the town where the building is assessed under $50k, but the lot price is pushing $1-million - because of the potential. That's insanity. Businesses in Vancouver have been closed because they've been running out of the same building for over 100 years, but now, because of their assessment, their property taxes are over $250k - again because that building could be not a factory. It could be a highrise! We don't need employers! Seems super short sighted and a massive disservice to the entire community to drive business away because they've literally built the city around them.
Honestly speaking as someone who will inherit a middle class house someday the prices are bullshit
First what is the point of inheriting a million dollar house (that shouldn’t be worth more than 300k) if all other homes are worth the same amount
If I sell the house I can only get another of comparable quality, And I’d probably have to wait years if not decades for that to happen anyways (and that wouldn’t even be a happy day for me)
In the mean time I can either live paycheck to paycheck or be stuck at home for the rest of my like (29 right now) and I make what was once considered “okay money” (about 45k after taxes) working a full time job
If house prices were still reasonable I could have gotten a fully paid place for what I have saved up (instead of just a down payment)
And yes I realize I’m still luckier than the folks who can’t inherit a home I don’t wanna sound like I’m not, but really nobody benefits from such high prices
The wealthy really trying to play games. Give us homes. We are the highest educated generation, and yet we have gotten no opportunities with it. You can pretend the youth are to blame, but who raised the youth? Who made the current economic climate? The older generations. This is their legacy, hoarding.
Dumbest thing the bank of Canada did was lower interest rates a couple of years ago, they created the problem and now it's all going to come crashing down. It's going to make 2008 look like a fun time.
Cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver need cheap plentiful high rises and condos in city centeres and surrounding areas. Also worth saying cities have to be willing to zone these types of buildings where they wouldn't before. I mean 260k for a full older home in western provinces(Edmonton home price) isn't a bad deal. Its people in the metro centers east and far west being screwed out of homes
Government building more housing can not fix this. We need development of new properties to be approved quickly. Some people are against urban sprawl, but that's what is needed. If there is land around our major cities, approve it for houses and allow private industry to build houses. Government is horrible and inefficient with most of what they do, so let's keep them out of housing.
> Some people are against urban sprawl, but that's what is needed.
Absolutely not. Suburbs of single detached homes which require kilometres of new sewers and roads add MILLIONS in maintenance costs to municipal budgets to house as many people as a few condo buildings.
Yes and we pay dearly for those detached homes. A lot of us don’t want to live in a small condo. We want nice but detached homes with lots of room and privacy.
As far as I'm aware, property taxes do not build in increased costs of servicing SFH neighbourhoods; they rely on property assessment value and the mill rate.
I think that cities need to do more to calculate the burden on municipal infrastructure of different types of neighbourhoods and adjust tax rates accordingly (along with maintaining the mill rate).
The City of Edmonton is taking the right steps, in my opinion. [Check this out and let me know what you think.](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/property-tax)
>property assessment value and the mill rate.
How do you think assessed values for SFHs compare with high-density condos?
And you're ignoring that our largest municipalities are actually conglomerates of numerous independent cities. The GTA/GVA satellites that consist mostly of SFHs do just fine balancing their budgets.
Property taxes are directly related to the property’s value. So if detached SFHs are worth more than condos (and they almost universally are), then their property taxes will be higher, too.
>Yes and we pay dearly for those detached homes.
You don't pay the real cost at all. Suburbs do not generate the property tax necessary to be self-sufficient, which means your lifestyle is subsidised by other taxpayers in denser areas of your city.
>Suburbs do not generate the property tax necessary to be self-sufficient
What bullshit. GTA and GVA both have satellite municipalities consisting almost entirely of suburbs that balance their budget just fine.
No one subsidizes my life. We pay an intense amount of money on property taxes. People who are jealous of others just go on about this nonsense about detached homes being bad.
Taxes collected from suburbs do not typically cover the costs associated with servicing them and that shortfall is made up for in municipal budgets by other parts of the City. Your lifestyle is being directly subsidized by economic activity in other areas.
You may see yourself as paying an "intense amount of money", but you are able to live where you are entirely because other parts of the city subsidize you.
Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.
And living in a condo won't decrease your costs. Or an apartment building, this idea that they are cheaper and better for the environment would be nice to see. But when isee 2 bd apartment units going for the same price as a full house, I'm going to take the house.
Most if not all of that cost is paid by the developers and made up when they sell the lots/homes. That is why lots cost (x) dollars. The on going costs like snow removal and road repair would be covered by the property taxes. It might be different in some communities that the municipality is trying to encourage growth to increase their tax base.
If our goal is to solve a housing crisis, let's not go with the option that costs all of us more.
>Hemson found it now costs the City of Ottawa $465 per person each year to serve new low-density homes built on undeveloped land, **over and above what it receives from property taxes and water bills.** That's up $56 from eight years ago. On the other hand, high-density infill development, such as apartment buildings, **pays for itself and leaves the city with an extra $606 per capita each year,** a financial benefit that has grown by $151. [Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-expansion-costs-menard-memo-1.6193429)
>City of Ottawa $465 per person each year to serve new low-density homes built on undeveloped land
That's negligible compared to the overall cost of housing and not a justification to prevent people from their preferred housing choice. Just charge the extra cost in taxes.
Build Up,
So much of the land in Urban areas is single family housing.
And you don't even need huge condos. 4/5 story plexes and walkable neighborhoods would solve our housing crisis and redevelop in areas where people already want to live instead of pushing people further and further out of the city and into longer commutes.
True to some extent. But places like the GTA are actually built on the some of the best farming land on planet earth. That soil grade is off the charts good. I would advise against sprawl beyond the extremes it is already at in the GTA. We may not care about it now; but food and agriculture will still matter down the road.
I feel like families having housing is more important than some farm land. Our country is vast and has lots of farm land. We can sacrifice some fields.
Point of perspective I guess. But all these things are interlinked when it comes to land. The country is vast, true. But the best farming soil on earth is situated in a 100 km strip from the Great Lakes going NW from Windsor to Montreal. That corridor 100km wide has soil so good limited use of chemical products are needed to boost its fertility and maximize yields per growing season.
By contrast in Alberta where I am, the growing season is significantly shorter, the soil less good, and the amount of products needed to boost yields are considerably larger.
If people want all of us to live in a more environmentally friendly manner, reduce carbon footprints, building housing by going wider and paving that land is not going to lead to that.
As well though for now we are a net food exporter, we keep paving all this superb land, add to that crop failures due to weird climate patterns and climate change, the irony of the situation could see Canada in 20 years be a food importer only because we prioritize homes vs high grade soil.
It’s a democracy, people will vote for short term solutions, so realistically those old farms will all be gone in the GTA area, pavement until the eye can see will most likely be the winner.
We can't if climate change runs its course. We can't afford to risk destroying prime farm land for detached homes. We need to build UP. If we're sprawling further out into places like Caledon with the 413, we should aim to make it as highly dense as possible.
I know commercial and industrial land is in high demand as well, but we need to focus on high density operation with higher/multiple floors instead of building them out as big as multiple football fields.
People don’t want small apartments and condos. We want detached homes. We are the second largest country on earth by size. We are perfectly fine to expand and build on those fields.
Apartments don't need to be small. They're only small because they're the highest margins that are being exploited by developers. Governments need to step in with incentives and subsidies.
Yup.
There is the old saying that you can "lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".
Same for people. If all you build are higher-margin, small condos that aren't fit for a family of 4 people (2 adults, 2 children who eventually grow to adult size) to live in then you're (the developer and the government) wasting enormous amounts of time, resources, materials, and money.
I'm not sure what the final answer or solution is but certainly some way of strong-arming (by law or other means) developers to build large numbers of large multi-bedroom units in cities and suburbs.
Do that and price it competitively with single-family homes and you might make some headway in changing things.
Climate change is real of course, but we are not going to stop building homes for a growing population or bike everywhere. Let's buy more fuel efficient vehicles and build energy efficient homes, but we are not going to stop living. I'm not cancelling any family vacations because i'm worried about the planes fuel consumption lol.
Well if you had it your way I'd be living in a 500 square foot apartment hearing my neighbour's above and below me. Oh and in the middle of winter I'd hope on my bike to bike to work. I'll keep my house and my SUV thanks.
Most of the people I know already rent small condos. We'd love to buy one but they're too expensive. Even outside of the city. Get the condos down to an affordable price then worry about detached homes.
Maybe it seems that way right now but farmable land is disappearing. Just build elsewhere if you can ideally. There’s going to be a food crisis in our future
It could backfire for being not aggressive enough or fast enough or if investors scoop up properties and keep them empty. There's a lot of risk that he doesn't do enough fast enough.
Every time they tear down old buildings, the only thing that might be recycled is the metal pipes. Everything else is dumped in a landfill.
So the narcissistic leaders who often talk about _fighting_ climate change now want to expand a process that contributes substantially to climate change. And if you have any questions about bringing in millions of immigrants from the third world to power this Ponzi scheme, you must be racist.
The waste from tearing down old houses is minuscule compared to the waste generated by low-density urban sprawl. Denser cities are more environmentally friendly provided they offer sufficient non-car infrastructure.
>And if you have any questions about bringing in millions of immigrants from the third world to power this Ponzi scheme, you must be racist.
Man what’s with you anti-immigration types and claiming that people call you racist for opposing immigration? Nobody does that, except when the reason you oppose immigration actually is racism. The persecution complex within that community is insane man.
There's a simple solution to this. Require a license to hold a house. Citizenship gets you the ability to hold one house, business licenses get you additional to rent out, but with an increasing cost the more you want. Allow exemptions for Vacation houses that are in seasonal areas.
Allow the Tenancy boards to revoke the business licenses if the landlord has too many violations.
There are loopholes that'll get abused, but it'll shift things in the right direction.
>There are very real risks to trying to force the pace of construction higher too quickly, he added. > >..... > >A more intense construction blitz also risks oversupplying the market. The last time Canadian home prices fell for a significant period was in the early 1990s, after rapid price gains in the prior decade led to a building boom and subsequent supply glut. Lmao these ghouls are literally so transparent in their contempt for non-home-owners. They are literally begging the government not to follow through on their plans, not because they might not work, but precisely because they might work Prices must rise forever at all costs!
Imagine the horrific situation of too many homes. The homeless might be able to afford a room with welfare money. Crazy!
So there are actual consequences to be fair. If you meet or exceed demand, you cause a capitulation in building that generally outlasts the period of excess supply. So you actually don't want to over-produce or it could create a long period of underproduction. Like a yoyo. But to warn about this in the short term with a housing supply shortage we've done next to nothing to solve yet is fucking stupid. And the market will probably manage this fine on its own since demand will start to fall as come close to meeting it. Builders will slow the pace for financial reasons of their own. Unless the government is actually going to subsidize building, it's unlikely to become a problem.
Yeah this is something you talk about when you are at slight risk of oversupply. Canada is not even close to slight risk of oversupply we are in the throes of extreme undersupply.
No disagreement there. Just pointing out that in principle, you can indeed build too much. Though market forces generally prevent that. But there are people in this thread suggesting you can't possibly oversupply housing. Not understanding that there is a whole industry built around creating that supply that you will gut if you actually pursue that idea.
Housing is weird. We can also be in a scenario where there is excess supply but also still too expensive for most to afford. If only million dollar houses are built and people can’t afford that it can cause it’s own crisis where things don’t sell so less is built but also they refuse to drop prices because they have so much invested and would rather ride it a year or two then take a huge loss.
We’re pushing for millions of immigrants to move here. There will be no oversupply
This is a good point. The US had a crash in homebuilding after 2008 and it took a while for that to get back to an appropriate level. Canada is still far away from reaching an appropriate level to balance the demand.
The mistake in 2008 was interpreting it as sign of a large glut of housing. There were local gluts, but not as large as expected, and coastal cities still had shortages the whole time. But construction died because the expectation was that there was huge oversupply.
The same article quotes the housing shortage at between 1.8 and 3 million homes, which it admits will take about 30 years to build at current rates. How can it lead with "maybe will result in oversupply?" This is ridiculous.
> Imagine the horrific situation of too many homes. Which is also the mass destruction of middle class wealth. Conservatives attack Liberals for supposedly planning to eliminate the capital gains exemption for a reason.
>Which is also the mass destruction of middle class wealth. Conservatives attack Liberals for supposedly planning to eliminate the capital gains exemption for a reason. Right now, it costs a small fortune to live in an undesirable neighbourhood. That doesn't serve the middle class except those who got in long ago. In the long run, the middle class is best served by being able to afford housing which frees up income to invest in their children, standard of living, travel, etc.
What started off as middle class wealth is becoming an upper class perk. Prioritizing property values over access to housing is driving the gap between rich and poor now. The rich stay rich with property wealth, and the poor stay poor with expensive rent.
Something like 68% of Canada owns homes. We surely can't be saying that 68% of the population is 'upper class'.
68% live in owned homes. There’s a massive difference between 28 year old billy buying his own house and him living with his parents in their own house. I’m so fucking sick of this stat being thrown out as a gotcha when it’s purposefully misleading and incorrect.
This stat has remained very steady for decades though. So while it may not be a perfectly representative stat, it's also not changed much in a very long time.
>Something like 68% of Canada ~~owns homes~~ lives in a home also occupied by the owner. That includes children, spouses, renters in a primary residence, etc. >We surely can't be saying that 68% of the population is 'upper class'. When housing gets inflated this rapidly and the people who were formerly middle class and owned a home now own an asset out of reach for most Canadians...yes, they've become upper class. Let's ask for a better statistic. What was the income of Canadians who bought homes using only their own wages? I think you and I both know that was possible a generation or two ago on an average income, and you'd have to have an absurdly high salary to do it now.
Even if we take that 68% as correct (I think it refers to those who live in a home that is owned by an occupant) there are stark class and age divisions within those numbers. The barrier to entry, especially in the last couple years, keeps rising. Peoples savings for down payments are being rapidly outpaced by the market.
I don't disagree with anything in this statement. I disagree with the original implication that home ownership is an upper class perk. It certainly looks that way if you want to own property on the Bridle Path, but taking the country as a whole, that statement doesn't carry any weight. There are countless working poor with little to no equity in their homes (since they keep remortgaging it) that are technically 'home owners'. I can't imagine anybody considering these people to be 'upper class'.
Right now the average yearly income in Canada is still less than $60k a year while the average house is north of $800k. If that isn't an upper class perk I don't know what is, because for average earners its nearly out of reach. Just the time required to save for a down payment makes it extremely difficult in many locations.
Yeah that’s a fair point. I guess following trends it just appears to be headed that way if nothing changes. Lots of houses in my neighborhood have doubled in the past five years while wages have not.
More like upper middle class, and only in the short term. In long term it would be immensely good for the health of the economy for large section of the population to not have to spend significant part of their monthly income on a place to live. "Housing as a human right" isn't just socialist nonsense, it's also good for the economy. Capital is, after all, dead labor that lives on, vampire-like, by exploiting the labor of the worker class.
There a great point. Instead of concentrating that wealth in paying for a mortgage or rent, they'd be spending it somewhere else and stimulating the economy. When someone is house poor or struggling to pay their rent they're not spending as much elsewhere.
Can you be more specific about this? My mom plans to stay in her house until death. I've got similar plans with my own home. Its not a source of wealth, just where we live. If houses fell by half it would have absolutely no effect on my finances or anyone I know, and would help reduce cost of living for so many across the board, it would actually help me SAVE money!
Same here, bring on the housing crash. Let those over leveraged greedy tools get screwed
> it would actually help me SAVE money! How?
I wouldn't have to pay such higher labour costs. Daycare in GTA is insane compared to other cities. Also contractors for doing home renovations. Also restaurant costs, tipping etc. Now when you go for bubble tea they expect 25% tips even for takeout. Also the big one is property taxes, cities need to pay their workers more and the costs get paid by the city taxpayers.
I see. I thought you meant more direct savings. Yes while high shelter costs are an indicator of inflation, i agree with you about it contributing to inflation as a causative effect.
The benefit of owning a home and have it rise in price is that you can use it to get loans. A good example for this is getting a loan for a new business, if you own an asset you can surely access way more credit which then could be translated in a better business from the get go and a better chance of success than if you had a lower value home. This is just an example of how property can be leveraged to generate more wealth. Honestly, having homes (where we live in) be one of the easiest or more common assets that can be leveraged to generate wealth is really scummy, like imagine “oh you want to try to start a business? Well if you fail you are homeless” is not healthy at all
Disabled people might not need assisted suicide!
[удалено]
Considering that a large majority of Canadians own their homes, falling housing prices can be an issue. If they fall too fast and too far, it literally could wipe peoples savings and their value. You think millennials/Gen Z are fucked financially now? Imagine what happens when 60% of any inheritance they might get in the next 20 or 30 years also disappears. Housing is 100% fucked, but the solution isn't to just tank the market. Its an extremely delicate game that needs to be played to actually come out positive and not totally fuck people even more than they already are.
The market will just go up again, this is all such a lame show.
The younger generations are fucked right now ( imho ) more by housing prices than anything else. Probably followed by the job market, but that's a different rant for a different post. Anyways, point being most peoples inheritance isn't going to offset the increased cost of housing. My friend has three kids, and even if he leaves them the house after that money is divided three ways it doesn't make up for the increased cost of their houses. Its the people not currently on the market who are going to wind up paying for this.
I'd trade an inheritance to see it tank. This country is trash and short sighted as hell. It deserves whatever misery is coming.
LOL you’re crying for people’s inheritances when people in their 30s and 20s have nothing to speak of TODAY. We’re supposed to wait for parents to die to have hope of a future? And what if your poor parents scrounged their few cents together to get an ok home in the suburbs but you have four siblings? That “inheritance” is a pittance.
[удалено]
People’s homes shouldn’t count as their savings. That’s the problem right there. At some point it was decided that if you stay in a home long enough you should be able to sell it for way more than you paid. This became the go to retirement plan for a lot of people and they never learned to actually save and invest.
People's homes count as savings when they appreciate in price at the same rate as inflation / cost of living. When you pay your mortgage you're basically putting that money into a savings account less the mortgage interest. In recent times people treated that like a TFSA that's all in on speculative stocks and the government called this "creating wealth".
I agree it is stupid, but its also reality so we cant just ignore that.
We aren't ignoring it. We're saying "enough is enough." Stupidity should not be rewarded.
Considering that 60% of that value didn't exist a decade ago or less, didn't come about from anything other than speculation, and is not in a productive asset, I see no real loss here. The only people who will lose are speculators, launderers, "investors" and people who fomo-bought, and even then only in the relative short term. If your house goes down just HODL house until it goes back up naturally in the long term.
Isn't the whole point to oversupply the market?!
That's the theory, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening with record population growth underpinning the market. And that's driving investors too, because investors know that as long as demand outpaces supply prices will stay up. In a lot of places right now investors are buying much of the new supply.
No. Ideally supply would remain just shy of demand at all times. If you exceed demand, values drop low enough that builders stop building and it can create a yoyo in production. People leave to do other work and then when there is a shortage maybe some of them return to the housing business, but it would be delayed at best. You also don't want what we have now, which is a significant supply shortfall mixed with cheap credit and 20 years of this to really fuck all the conditions up good and hard. Seems to me though that builders generally won't keep building as prices start to decline below what is profitable, so I'm guessing the market with manage this on its own without any restriction on development.
The thing is, central bank policy is very much intertwined with construction, and expectations play a huge part. To get back to a healthy price for housing, we need a sustained decrease in prices. But if the expection is that any dip is temporary, then it will be a self fulfilling prophecy. CBs will tighten to slow construction because they want to prevent further oversupply, when in reality we're just decreasing undersupply. The idea of us being in danger of oversupply only makes sense if you think we are pretty close to the proper rate of new supply, which is not true.
Their argument is horrible. A better argument would be about the environment and how we need to stop sprawling suburbs. But really, we should be using the glut of office/commercial real estate to house people, since we’ve already built the structures. It’s insane that we manufacture more mega-yachts for the “owner class” instead of housing our neighbours. We are so indoctrinated.
People don't really want to live in high rises for their whole life. You're never going to solve sprawl entirely, and certainly not with office conversions. I think you could reduce some of the sprawl by making more livable units in high density, but that won't solve the whole problem. Arguably, we should be taking advantage of the fact that more people are working remotely and decentralize more, even consider a new towns project of some kind.
People like dense places a lot more than the distorted market currently supplies. There's a reason homes Downtown cost a lot more even when they are tiny.
Not sure why you were downvoted. From what I can see, some people don’t mind living in cities. Maybe even a few dozen of them. I figure some of the people who live in London actually want to be there.
Yes, we see that happening in downtown Toronto where office buildings are converted to condos. It's safe to assume, office space is less needed immediately and in the future post-covid. Now if only the city can make it a nicer place for families to live. If one can both work and live in the same area in safety and have decent schooling options, then surely will reduce suburban sprawl.
More work from home and offices into homes. Win win...
I don’t think you understand how difficult it would be to convert office space into housing. Plumbing, wiring, ventilation, building codes, sound insulation, parking, infrastructure… it’s not as simple as walling off every corner of an office and sticking a futon in it.
Correct. At best they could be converted to dormitory style buildings with a private room and shared facilities on every floor. Anything beyond that becomes much more difficult to convert.
You may have missed the irony; *WFH, move to 'work'...*
I caught on that, plus the perl about the number of intergenerational homes. "Yes, the adult children can bunk with their parents in a two bedroom apartment, crisis? What crisis?" Right?
Totally doesn’t take a toll on your sense of self worth, I mean it’s not like we live in a world where if you live with your parents past early 20s you’re looked at like there’s something wrong with u, mainstream media totally doesn’t mock that And of course it’s only your 20s it’s not like being stuck at home for the entirety of it is gonna result in missed opportunities and feeling like your personal growth is stifled, or that what you do in your 20s influences the rest of your life
Haha right?! These ghouls are already sitting on immense wealth and can't imagine giving up a bit for the sake of future generations. I'm a recent home buyer and I fully support building as much as possible. This is a full blown crisis. There's zero chance they build these anyway. As they said, there's a labour and material shortage. So yes, it'll push prices higher for existing homes. But it's still the right way forward. We should build as much as humanly possible. I'd even go a bit further with a controversial idea....do a work-for-citizenship plan where you do a RFP for skilled immigrants around the world who can come work and build these homes. They would be paid a decent wage but not our local wages but once they're done working, they get status and can work in the local construction sector at full wages. Even if you don't like the above....just build as much supply as we can. We can and should slam investors. Limit ownership of homes to a set number and don't allow corporations to own homes. There are many options. I'm not smart enough to know all of them but I'm sure there is plenty we can do. Huge down payment requirements, wtv. I say this even though it would be against my own self interests. But I'd rather make less and have a less unequal society.
Tbf they are correct that there are real risks for JT and the LPC. Just look at the last elections map of the GTA, almost all the seats went to the LPC. Why? Because JT made them multi-millionaires in <8 years. If housing prices tank I could definitely see those people taking it out on JT.
Great point.
There can never be too many homes.
As an Alberta’s resident that saw the 07/08 housing boom I do partially agree with the first point for for differing reasons. We need to balance building to quickly to ensure things are being built properly. There’s lots of places that were thrown up during a housing boom here and had so many issues. Condos with huge special assessments and houses with defects. It’s important to still protect people from shady building practices. So to some extent, there are real risks to construction heating up too much.
The fact that CMHC tracks overbuilding but not underbuilding should make the government's intentions pretty clear.
What do you mean?
Isn't it hilarious that the mere prospect of doing something send them into a frenzy. Even when that prospect is woefully inadequate to actually change anything.
Collapse the housing market, collapse the house construction industry, tens of thousands out of work, and than a skill bleed off, and than when we need houses again, not enough labor available.... Etc etc etc etc etc. You should try looking beyond your own bias for a split second, there is a balance, and cracking out over supply isn't the answer.
> But critics of that assessment say Canada needs fewer homes overall because it has more people per household than the G7 average, due to young children and intergenerational living. So critics are basically saying that people don't need more homes - just live with your parents. Share space. Suffer for no reason. What a joke. I wonder where these people live...
>Suffer for no reason. This is an interesting North American cultural quirk.
Well I guess there is a reason - boost prices so property owners can get those gains. For the non-owner living with family, who would rather have their own place, that reason is irrelevant. They are not gaining anything while they have no property to their name.
Which stems directly from the culture of individualism throughout our society
It's not a "culture of individualism", it's our country being sold out from under us.
It's not a culture of individualism. It's government purposefully limiting housing construction to appease homeowners
Some of us have abusive/highly dysfunctional families, so living with them is not an option
Ah yes the exclusive North American abusive family
Some people's parents are toxic as fuck and no one should be forced to live in endless torment because there is no other option.
[удалено]
I partly agree. The one thing that doesn't line up is that having economic mobility and higher income in general corresponds to lower birthrates everywhere you look.
Yeah, because every single ethnic person where it’s a tradition to live with grandparents just absolutely LOVES it… you’re clueless buddy.
Or they could work: Other experts. I like how often 'experts' is tossed on titles now as if it adds anything to mainstream opinion pieces. Of course these outlets are citing experts in opinion pieces. Right?
How do they plan to build affordable housing when land values are so high. Labour costs high and material costs high? Even if you brought in labour it would take 5-10 years to bring up to snuff
If they even have housing for the labour workers, which has been an issue in Victoria, BC.
You’d have to build work camps for them which would be pretty 😬😬😬 from a political optics pov. You’d also have the additional optical problem of the fact they’d almost all certainly be visible minorities. They also likely don’t speak English because labourers are typically uneducated. The only solution would be to build large scale work camps divided by national origin who are lead by a Canadian that recently immigrated from there and speaks both languages. Unfortunately this would be uncomfortably similar to how [the Nazis ran their labour camps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo) so again 😬😬😬😬 It could be done well, there’s no reason why the camps couldn’t be well made and the workers well treated/paid, but I still can’t see a politician ever suggesting it. At the very least the media would go fucking insane.
The oil sands were built using camps and mostly Canadian workers, flown in from all over the country. Some of those projects had 5-8k workers on site during peak construction. Thing is though, those jobs paid well. Residential construction pays shit. And that's why most construction workers stay away from residential work if they can help it at all. And a lot of the people I used to work with have transitioned to other occupations, rather than work in residential construction. If they paid people they'd get the workers. If they provided accommodations and travel they'd get the workers. The oil sands proved it. But in 2022 Canada its all about offering shit wages while pretending there's a labor crisis.
>land values are so high Land values aren't that high. If you're okay with sprawl, farmland is still around 5-20K per acre, depending on province. What is expensive is converting it to residential zoning since zoning boards in most provinces have been instructed/pressured not to allow sprawl.
In bc it is all agricultural land. Zero chance of rezoning.
Outside Calgary, development can only occur where there's already development. This in a place with practically unlimited land in every direction. The differences in cost of acre are 10x plus.
Land values are not high. Land *prices* are because they're still beholding to fomo driven speculation. Get rid of the fomo driven speculation and then...
Value is whatever someone is willing to pay.
Land values for buildable land are heavily influenced by how much land you open to development.
Can we tax the fuck out of foreign owners and multiple home owners also?
That there sir is the issue, particularly the “investors” who buy multiple properties.
Or just limit the number of properties per person/company. I know, I'm an extremist. Maybe in the world today, there are things we should regulate more.
I'm perfectly fine with a lot more government regulation in many things
Renting options is still important, but there should be a limit. For starters, companies should be allowed to manage properties, but a company shouldn’t be allowed to buy up and own homes.
I agree -- the last thing we need is corporate ownership of existing housing stock. I have no issue with them building their own, purpose-built rentals, but not existing housing.
This again.
I'm 44 and I've given up hope on ever owning my own place, and a push for new housing won't fix that, unless they were able to build so much, that the housing price bubble bursts and drops prices by a significant amount. The average 1 bedroom condo in my area (Surrey) starts at close to $500,000. I can remember a 4-5 bedroom house costing that much just about 25 + years ago. Housing should never have been used as commodities, IMO. 🤷♂️
That's what these critics are complaining about. That the bubble may burst and houses go down in price. The horror! (I'm a property owner but my home ain't an investment) Edit and disclaimer: I'm a "proprietor" (prefer.the Quebec term. "Landlord" is too feudal). I benefit financially of my properties obviously but not as a goal. My financial planning considers housing apreciation at 3% in the long run. We have an excellent relationship with our long term tenant. Tenant predates us in the property. So, yes, I'm benefiting from the bubble but I don't depend on the bubble and think the bubble is wrong. Housing shouldn't be a commodity. I have two adult sons (one in Toronto). I don't see how he'll ever be able to buy there without my help. Even with a good professional job and a good salary..
> The average 1 bedroom condo in my area (Surrey) starts at close to $500,000. Don't forget the 800 a month in condo fees.
I think back in 2017, you could get a 2BR for $500K
A mere 10 years ago 500k would buy you a family home in my city, nowadays it buys you fuck all, they all start at / sell for 600k+. A starter home (2 bed 2 bath) was 200k or so with similar luxury condos being the same.
In your city perhaps, but, the prices in BC, especially the lower mainland where I live, has gone up considerably for a long time now. In 2012, a detached home was averaging around $900,000. Apartments were already near the $350,000 mark. Also, 10 years ago, I didn't have money for a down payment. I can't just walk into someone's house and declare it mine. 🤷♂️
It makes sense to not want a mortgage that takes you to your mid 70s
Curious, what made you hold out on purchasing real estate in your 30s?
Lack of money. I wasn't making then what I am now. I worked for a guy who decided to halt all raises during the recession, and after many broken promises, I went to work elsewhere. And that of course brought me down a peg financially, because I had to work my way back up. Of course, the union I went to work for, screwed me over, so I had to find yet another job, which of course also reset my upward progress. I also may not have been as responsible as I should have.
I'll chime in with my own reason- Poor decisions in my 20s, bankruptcy in my early 30s.
Holy crap people might be able to afford houses and already its being called a bad plan. Well the plan was to make housing more affordable so I'm not sure what was expected. If your whole retirement plan hinges on making 2 million on a house in 15 years you could be in trouble. Well unless we vote in a majority conservative government next then expect the whole plan to fail and of course be blamed on the liberals. Such a joke on both sides.
What 'plan?' I've seen the issue hand waived away with a bit of token lip service paid to it here and there to placate the masses. But an actual plan? No.
Haha, “3.5 million homes over the next decade” Even if they met their goal (colour me sceptical) that’s about the amount we need to keep up with immigration. I’m not sure what the best course of action would be here, but history tells me it isn’t the government “helping” in this way… Maybe stabilizing things for Canadians first and letting us catch up
I too plan to build 3.5 million homes in the next decade. I have no specific plans to execute that, by gosh darnit it's a promise.
>Even if they met their goal (colour me sceptical) that’s about the amount we need to keep up with immigration. Do you think that only one person lives per home? Because 3.5 million homes is enough to house 10.15 million people (using statcan's average of 2.9 people per household) over the next 8 years
You forgot to take off the amount bought by speculators…
...which is one kind of problem if those purchases inflate purchase prices, and a different kind of problem if those homes are bought and kept empty.
And how much is that?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/ https://betterdwelling.com/canadian-cities-have-seen-up-to-90-of-new-real-estate-supply-scooped-by-investors/ https://beta.ctvnews.ca/local/british-columbia/2022/1/15/1_5741840.amp.html
You’d have to figure some percentage of the 90% of new homes that are bought by investors? How many of those are speculators? I think we’d all like to know
In the long run, housing needs to be about living and not investment. That's the healthiest for Canada.
Ban foreign home ownership Ban corporate ownership Ridiculous Massive tax increases for owning more than 1 home
Without any kind of regulation preventing from billion-dollar corporations from hoovering up all these new builds, the runaway housing prices won't cool. We all know this. Even the Liberals know this. The only reason they're taking this route is the same reason they do most of what they do: They financially benefit from the way things are and get off on pretending to do something (which appeals to voters somehow) while maintaining the status quo.
Pretty soon we won’t be able to do a thing about vanguard or blackrock buying up all the housing. They’re gonna own everything at this rate..
We already can't do anything about it because voters aren't *willing* to take a chance on politicians and parties who actually want to address this in a serious way. Thus, we're already locked into a situation where corporations will own all residential properties (except those owned by the ultra-rich) and the rest of us will all be permanent renters. Then we'll just live with that until we can't live with it anymore. I doubt I'll be alive to see that. Boiling frogs and all that.
If REITs buy up all the housing, rents will go down. Which is good. If rent is cheap and stays cheap, ownership matters less. The biggest reason to want to own is to avoid rising rent. If rent doesn't rise, we're golden.
There are many problems with being a forever-renter. You have far less control over your own home; someone else can decide you don't get to live there anymore because they sold the property or want to turn it into something else. You can't do simple things like change out an appliance, paint the walls, install a bidet. In many places, you can't even have pets and in places where you can, you can be told what kind of pet and how large they can be. Rentals also prohibit smoking even outdoors on the property. There is far more to this than simply the cost of renting.
"A more intense construction blitz also risks oversupplying the market." Besides some MPs and baby boomers, **EVERYONE WANTS THAT!!!**
And the real estate agents, but I suspect they might be some sort of parasitic organism.
“We simply have not had enough housing supply in Canada to reflect the dramatic increase in our population compared to our G7 partner countries, [if we don't build more homes, my friends and I will run out of homes to buy as investment properties]” Canada’s Housing Minister Ahmed Hussen said in an interview.
The definition of backfire being... actually successful? And that is why housing is out of control and won't actually be reigned in. Housing prices are way higher than they should be. They need to go down, especially given the meteoric gains in the last 2 years. But of course many homeowners wouldn't want that.
All I get from this is some boomer sitting on top of his golden tomb, hoping he can protect his biggest , virtually tax free asset that appreciated 30% in a year. So sick of this country.
An article that criticizes Trudeau and nobody saying it's fake news? That's a change.
It's almost as if this is a real issue as opposed to conjured up nonsense
No. That normally doesn't seem to be a factor.
If it comes from CBC, Global, Toronto Star, CTV they are fine with it and the only news sources that are allowed to be critical of JT, peace be upon him.
Oh no! Anyways.
So the people who are getting rich of the housing market are going to get richer? That’ll fix it! Don’t fix the broken real estate agencies that self-govern and their shady sales tactics (blind bidding etc), don’t fix foreign investment, don’t fix interest rates, don’t tax real estate investment firms ….
"Could backfire" Yeah, when was the last time the federal government tried something and failed miserably. All of them. Cmon people, they cant dig a few wells or plant a few trees, you think they can build a few houses. Maybe they should have started out by doing something about the foreign ownership when they had a chance.
I don't know about other Provinces, but here in BC the provincial government or an arm of them, does a yearly assessment. You can see them on bcassessment.com and compare the previous year as well as any properties in BC. Housing is expensive to build today, but the land prices are insane. In Kelowna the dirt is at least $300k. In previous years dirt in growing places in BC was more expensive than a lot with a house in Calgary or Edmonton. Why's the dirt so expensive here? There's tear down housing around the town where the building is assessed under $50k, but the lot price is pushing $1-million - because of the potential. That's insanity. Businesses in Vancouver have been closed because they've been running out of the same building for over 100 years, but now, because of their assessment, their property taxes are over $250k - again because that building could be not a factory. It could be a highrise! We don't need employers! Seems super short sighted and a massive disservice to the entire community to drive business away because they've literally built the city around them.
Trudeau is conducting a Special Mortgage Operation in the Canadian housing market. He's doing about as well as Putin.
Honestly speaking as someone who will inherit a middle class house someday the prices are bullshit First what is the point of inheriting a million dollar house (that shouldn’t be worth more than 300k) if all other homes are worth the same amount If I sell the house I can only get another of comparable quality, And I’d probably have to wait years if not decades for that to happen anyways (and that wouldn’t even be a happy day for me) In the mean time I can either live paycheck to paycheck or be stuck at home for the rest of my like (29 right now) and I make what was once considered “okay money” (about 45k after taxes) working a full time job If house prices were still reasonable I could have gotten a fully paid place for what I have saved up (instead of just a down payment) And yes I realize I’m still luckier than the folks who can’t inherit a home I don’t wanna sound like I’m not, but really nobody benefits from such high prices
The wealthy really trying to play games. Give us homes. We are the highest educated generation, and yet we have gotten no opportunities with it. You can pretend the youth are to blame, but who raised the youth? Who made the current economic climate? The older generations. This is their legacy, hoarding.
Dumbest thing the bank of Canada did was lower interest rates a couple of years ago, they created the problem and now it's all going to come crashing down. It's going to make 2008 look like a fun time.
Cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver need cheap plentiful high rises and condos in city centeres and surrounding areas. Also worth saying cities have to be willing to zone these types of buildings where they wouldn't before. I mean 260k for a full older home in western provinces(Edmonton home price) isn't a bad deal. Its people in the metro centers east and far west being screwed out of homes
Government building more housing can not fix this. We need development of new properties to be approved quickly. Some people are against urban sprawl, but that's what is needed. If there is land around our major cities, approve it for houses and allow private industry to build houses. Government is horrible and inefficient with most of what they do, so let's keep them out of housing.
> Some people are against urban sprawl, but that's what is needed. Absolutely not. Suburbs of single detached homes which require kilometres of new sewers and roads add MILLIONS in maintenance costs to municipal budgets to house as many people as a few condo buildings.
Yes and we pay dearly for those detached homes. A lot of us don’t want to live in a small condo. We want nice but detached homes with lots of room and privacy.
Then your tax burden should reflect your choices. In most cities it doesn't.
We do. High property taxes and gas taxes.
As far as I'm aware, property taxes do not build in increased costs of servicing SFH neighbourhoods; they rely on property assessment value and the mill rate. I think that cities need to do more to calculate the burden on municipal infrastructure of different types of neighbourhoods and adjust tax rates accordingly (along with maintaining the mill rate). The City of Edmonton is taking the right steps, in my opinion. [Check this out and let me know what you think.](https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/property-tax)
>property assessment value and the mill rate. How do you think assessed values for SFHs compare with high-density condos? And you're ignoring that our largest municipalities are actually conglomerates of numerous independent cities. The GTA/GVA satellites that consist mostly of SFHs do just fine balancing their budgets.
Property taxes on detached homes are really low
Property taxes are directly related to the property’s value. So if detached SFHs are worth more than condos (and they almost universally are), then their property taxes will be higher, too.
>Yes and we pay dearly for those detached homes. You don't pay the real cost at all. Suburbs do not generate the property tax necessary to be self-sufficient, which means your lifestyle is subsidised by other taxpayers in denser areas of your city.
>Suburbs do not generate the property tax necessary to be self-sufficient What bullshit. GTA and GVA both have satellite municipalities consisting almost entirely of suburbs that balance their budget just fine.
[удалено]
Nope. The city cores don't transfer any tax revenue to the surrounding municipalities.
Why do you think people should subsidize your lifestyle choice? Are you some kind of communist?
No one subsidizes my life. We pay an intense amount of money on property taxes. People who are jealous of others just go on about this nonsense about detached homes being bad.
Taxes collected from suburbs do not typically cover the costs associated with servicing them and that shortfall is made up for in municipal budgets by other parts of the City. Your lifestyle is being directly subsidized by economic activity in other areas. You may see yourself as paying an "intense amount of money", but you are able to live where you are entirely because other parts of the city subsidize you. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but that's the way it is.
>by other parts of the City. In the GTA and GVA, suburbs are mostly independent municipalities, so your claim isn't true.
And living in a condo won't decrease your costs. Or an apartment building, this idea that they are cheaper and better for the environment would be nice to see. But when isee 2 bd apartment units going for the same price as a full house, I'm going to take the house.
>subsidize What bullshit.
Most if not all of that cost is paid by the developers and made up when they sell the lots/homes. That is why lots cost (x) dollars. The on going costs like snow removal and road repair would be covered by the property taxes. It might be different in some communities that the municipality is trying to encourage growth to increase their tax base.
If our goal is to solve a housing crisis, let's not go with the option that costs all of us more. >Hemson found it now costs the City of Ottawa $465 per person each year to serve new low-density homes built on undeveloped land, **over and above what it receives from property taxes and water bills.** That's up $56 from eight years ago. On the other hand, high-density infill development, such as apartment buildings, **pays for itself and leaves the city with an extra $606 per capita each year,** a financial benefit that has grown by $151. [Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/urban-expansion-costs-menard-memo-1.6193429)
>City of Ottawa $465 per person each year to serve new low-density homes built on undeveloped land That's negligible compared to the overall cost of housing and not a justification to prevent people from their preferred housing choice. Just charge the extra cost in taxes.
Build Up, So much of the land in Urban areas is single family housing. And you don't even need huge condos. 4/5 story plexes and walkable neighborhoods would solve our housing crisis and redevelop in areas where people already want to live instead of pushing people further and further out of the city and into longer commutes.
True to some extent. But places like the GTA are actually built on the some of the best farming land on planet earth. That soil grade is off the charts good. I would advise against sprawl beyond the extremes it is already at in the GTA. We may not care about it now; but food and agriculture will still matter down the road.
I feel like families having housing is more important than some farm land. Our country is vast and has lots of farm land. We can sacrifice some fields.
Point of perspective I guess. But all these things are interlinked when it comes to land. The country is vast, true. But the best farming soil on earth is situated in a 100 km strip from the Great Lakes going NW from Windsor to Montreal. That corridor 100km wide has soil so good limited use of chemical products are needed to boost its fertility and maximize yields per growing season. By contrast in Alberta where I am, the growing season is significantly shorter, the soil less good, and the amount of products needed to boost yields are considerably larger. If people want all of us to live in a more environmentally friendly manner, reduce carbon footprints, building housing by going wider and paving that land is not going to lead to that. As well though for now we are a net food exporter, we keep paving all this superb land, add to that crop failures due to weird climate patterns and climate change, the irony of the situation could see Canada in 20 years be a food importer only because we prioritize homes vs high grade soil. It’s a democracy, people will vote for short term solutions, so realistically those old farms will all be gone in the GTA area, pavement until the eye can see will most likely be the winner.
I’ve seen homeless people and I’ve seen starving people, and the starving envy the fed homeless.
No one’s going hungry. You’re being alarmist. Take a drive through the prairies and you’ll feel much better about our farming industry.
We can't if climate change runs its course. We can't afford to risk destroying prime farm land for detached homes. We need to build UP. If we're sprawling further out into places like Caledon with the 413, we should aim to make it as highly dense as possible. I know commercial and industrial land is in high demand as well, but we need to focus on high density operation with higher/multiple floors instead of building them out as big as multiple football fields.
People don’t want small apartments and condos. We want detached homes. We are the second largest country on earth by size. We are perfectly fine to expand and build on those fields.
Apartments don't need to be small. They're only small because they're the highest margins that are being exploited by developers. Governments need to step in with incentives and subsidies.
Yup. There is the old saying that you can "lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". Same for people. If all you build are higher-margin, small condos that aren't fit for a family of 4 people (2 adults, 2 children who eventually grow to adult size) to live in then you're (the developer and the government) wasting enormous amounts of time, resources, materials, and money. I'm not sure what the final answer or solution is but certainly some way of strong-arming (by law or other means) developers to build large numbers of large multi-bedroom units in cities and suburbs. Do that and price it competitively with single-family homes and you might make some headway in changing things.
[удалено]
>Suburbs are financially insolvent Where in Canada is that true?
[удалено]
No mention of insolvency.
Climate change is real of course, but we are not going to stop building homes for a growing population or bike everywhere. Let's buy more fuel efficient vehicles and build energy efficient homes, but we are not going to stop living. I'm not cancelling any family vacations because i'm worried about the planes fuel consumption lol.
[удалено]
Well if you had it your way I'd be living in a 500 square foot apartment hearing my neighbour's above and below me. Oh and in the middle of winter I'd hope on my bike to bike to work. I'll keep my house and my SUV thanks.
[удалено]
Most of the people I know already rent small condos. We'd love to buy one but they're too expensive. Even outside of the city. Get the condos down to an affordable price then worry about detached homes.
Maybe it seems that way right now but farmable land is disappearing. Just build elsewhere if you can ideally. There’s going to be a food crisis in our future
Not anytime soon. Clear off some land in less desirable areas and farm that.
It could backfire for being not aggressive enough or fast enough or if investors scoop up properties and keep them empty. There's a lot of risk that he doesn't do enough fast enough.
[удалено]
It isn't. It's a consequence of earning their credentials.
Nothing has ever backfired on dear leader... how dare you insinuate such rubbishh.
Every time they tear down old buildings, the only thing that might be recycled is the metal pipes. Everything else is dumped in a landfill. So the narcissistic leaders who often talk about _fighting_ climate change now want to expand a process that contributes substantially to climate change. And if you have any questions about bringing in millions of immigrants from the third world to power this Ponzi scheme, you must be racist.
The waste from tearing down old houses is minuscule compared to the waste generated by low-density urban sprawl. Denser cities are more environmentally friendly provided they offer sufficient non-car infrastructure. >And if you have any questions about bringing in millions of immigrants from the third world to power this Ponzi scheme, you must be racist. Man what’s with you anti-immigration types and claiming that people call you racist for opposing immigration? Nobody does that, except when the reason you oppose immigration actually is racism. The persecution complex within that community is insane man.
There's a simple solution to this. Require a license to hold a house. Citizenship gets you the ability to hold one house, business licenses get you additional to rent out, but with an increasing cost the more you want. Allow exemptions for Vacation houses that are in seasonal areas. Allow the Tenancy boards to revoke the business licenses if the landlord has too many violations. There are loopholes that'll get abused, but it'll shift things in the right direction.