Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Truenorth00]

On the topic of the bubble itself, this is quickly turning into a speed run of 2008. This time around capitulation and the indicators seem to be running faster. The used car market bubble is one of them:

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/used-car-bubble-market-on-the-verge-of-exploding/

Real estate FIRE firms shedding jobs quickly is another sign:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanpon...rket-abruptly-collapses/?sh=17d696a2ea43

We'll be seeing all of this in Canada imminently.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

No. Seniors should downsize to allow families the same opportunities their parents gave them. Every time I hear a senior complain about being on a fixed income and the rising costs of things. They could sell their home and move into something smaller.

Yeah but, THEIR parents did this by... DYING young. I'm not 100% convinced that all (or even most) aging boomers look at their homes as "investment". Anecdotal, but my boomer parents live in the country, but looking at their lifestyle (gardening, canning, self-maintaining home, appliances, vehicles) you can see the mindset is more along the lines of "My parents had nothing and left me nothing, I won't do the same; I worked for and earned this house." Even when they lived in the city, the mindset was the same. I think you have to take that into consideration before making blanket statements about intent and or solutions. Everybody wants a home. And the one you either built or scrimped and saved for, or were given by your dying parents has a lot of sentimental value.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And that should tell you how bad it is here for our young people that so many of our best and brightest thinks it is better to take their chances in the US.

This is not a new phenomenon, this is basically most of Canadian history, at least since Confederation.

The point is you didn't like my idea to turn greenbelts into housing. But the irony is that a good many Canadians heading to the US probably end up living in American sprawl because so many of the cities there are built that way. Not everyone ends up in the cores of big northeastern cities.

And if Saskatoon or Victoria are no good in your books, then what can I say? Be frugal, save your money and buy the dream house that you really want in the Corridor.

[goodgrowth]

I don't understand how Victoria of all places is being used as an example of a place to move for a lower cost of living..

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by esquire

This is not a new phenomenon, this is basically most of Canadian history, at least since Confederation.

The point is you didn't like my idea to turn greenbelts into housing. But the irony is that a good many Canadians heading to the US probably end up living in American sprawl because so many of the cities there are built that way. Not everyone ends up in the cores of big northeastern cities.

And if Saskatoon or Victoria are no good in your books, then what can I say? Be frugal, save your money and buy the dream house that you really want in the Corridor.

Honestly, I'm open to using the greenbelts. Especially in places like Ottawa. I just don't think it will help that much. Like I've explained earlier, the most valuable land that we have tied up is the yellow belt. Creating more yellow belt is putting a Band Aid on a gunshot wound.

[thebasketballgeek]

Originally Posted by esquire

The point is you didn't like my idea to turn greenbelts into housing. But the irony is that a good many Canadians heading to the US probably end up living in American sprawl because so many of the cities there are built that way. Not everyone ends up in the cores of big northeastern cities.

Golf Courses, Vacant buildings, Infill, surface parking lots, rezoning vast swaths of the country to legalize apartments again, freeway lids when applicable etc… These are all ways to increase housing supply before going back to the tired method of urban sprawl by removing green belts.

How can we say there’s no solution to the housing crisis in the GTA for example when I see 10,000+ surface parking stalls in places like Yorkdale, Square 1, and Canada’s Wonderland? Visiting the GTA rn and it’s actually astonishing at how big the surface parking lots are outside of Toronto proper.

[Truenorth00]

I am willing to bet that the area tied up in mall and big box stores parking lots in the Golden Horseshoe could easily house a million people. And probably another million if we add up all the weed riddled front lawns of both homes and businesses.

[casper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I don't understand how Victoria of all places is being used as an example of a place to move for a lower cost of living..

Victoria is the logical alternative to Vancouver. Victoria has significantly lower housing costs.

I will admit it lacks discount grocery stores, Thrifty Foods (Sobeys) and Save-On-Foods are the dominant players. And we also know any retailer that uses Thrifty in its name knows nothing about being Thrifty. Same applies for a company called Save-On-Foods, they are the exact opposite in the market.

I find property tax significantly lower than Vancouver. ICBC uses a lower rate structure on auto insurance for the Island vrs Vancouver.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am willing to bet that the area tied up in mall and big box stores parking lots in the Golden Horseshoe could easily house a million people. And probably another million if we add up all the weed riddled front lawns of both homes and businesses.

Businesses perhaps but most residential lawns either urban or suburban are only very theoretically redevelopable in my view.

Thinking of my street which probably looks like much of Scarborough, Etobicoke, Mississauga or Ajax.

Sure, you add up all of those square metres and you come up with an impressive number, but it's not useable at a greater density unless you actually demolish the houses that front onto them.

Sure, there is tons of exurban stuff like this scattered all over the outer fringes of the GTA:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7864127,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

But these aren't really the best locations for densification, until the city grows outwards towards them and they get engulfed by it.

[MolsonExport]

I love the principle of greenbelts. But if these greenbelts are mostly cornfields (and a lot of them appear to be cornfields)....I have to scratch my head wondering whether this is the most productive use of this land. Especially since it does little to contain the sprawl, which simply leapfrogs the greenbelt.

Forests, high-intensity/high-value crops (e.g., those found in Niagara), for sure. Cornfields? Hay? Not so much. Still, hay/corn beats the shit out of the banal big box barf encompassing untold hectares of suburbia and exurbia.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I love the principle of greenbelts. But if these greenbelts are mostly cornfields (and a lot of them appear to be cornfields)....I have to scratch my head wondering whether this is the most productive use of this land. Especially since it does little to contain the sprawl, which simply leapfrogs the greenbelt.

Forests, high-intensity/high-value crops (e.g., those found in Niagara), for sure. Cornfields? Hay? Not so much. Still, hay/corn beats the shit out of the banal big box barf encompassing untold hectares of suburbia and exurbia.

At least in terms of the zones most visible when you come into the city from the outer suburbs of Kanata, Orléans and Barrhaven, a significant chunk of Ottawa's greenbelt is only partly cultivated (with corn and hay as you say), with the rest appearing to be mostly "fallow" agricultural land, interspersed with the occasional grove of trees.

In fairness, there are a few other parts of the greenbelt that are more ecologically significant though.

But much of it really isn't.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a lot more places one can go than Silicon Valley.

Also, like I said, we have the great cycle where we export our best and then replace them with cheaper imported labour. Come talk to me when the percentage of grads from our top schools leaving Canada goes down.

It’s unlikely that tech talent unwilling to go to the Bay Area — whose one big drawback is housing affordability — would be happy in Toronto or Vancouver.

THE reason not to go to the Bay Area is that you refuse to live with roommates or in the cupboard under the stairs, because you think you can aspire to more than that with your tech industry income.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Yeah but, THEIR parents did this by... DYING young. I'm not 100% convinced that all (or even most) aging boomers look at their homes as "investment". Anecdotal, but my boomer parents live in the country, but looking at their lifestyle (gardening, canning, self-maintaining home, appliances, vehicles) you can see the mindset is more along the lines of "My parents had nothing and left me nothing, I won't do the same; I worked for and earned this house." Even when they lived in the city, the mindset was the same. I think you have to take that into consideration before making blanket statements about intent and or solutions. Everybody wants a home. And the one you either built or scrimped and saved for, or were given by your dying parents has a lot of sentimental value.

My grandfather, who was not a baby boomer, but had my baby boomer mother lived into his 80s. I guess 80s is quite young. NO. He was part of the Greatest Generation. They are called that because they did what what right when the time came. Go to war, work at a good job, and finally, sell their big house and move to something smaller as they aged.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am willing to bet that the area tied up in mall and big box stores parking lots in the Golden Horseshoe could easily house a million people. And probably another million if we add up all the weed riddled front lawns of both homes and businesses.

Are you suggesting the return of the mall? Generally, malls take up less space for the same number of retail stores.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

My grandfather, who was not a baby boomer, but had my baby boomer mother lived into his 80s. I guess 80s is quite young. NO. He was part of the Greatest Generation. They are called that because they did what what right when the time came. Go to war, work at a good job, and finally, sell their big house and move to something smaller as they aged.

I don't think that bold part is why they were called that. And the ones I knew died before their boomer kids left the nest (or they returned to take over the homestead). "Dying in the house you were born in" is not a NEW thing.

I guess we've had different experiences...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I don't think that bold part is why they were called that. And the ones I knew died before their boomer kids left the nest (or they returned to take over the homestead). "Dying in the house you were born in" is not a NEW thing.

I guess we've had different experiences...

As I listed, there are many reasons they got the name. Of the last 100 years, I feel they are the most selfless generation. Boomers, sadly, are the least. They really are the "ME" generation.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, you are part of the problem. Why do you need higher taxes to force you to do something?

Give it some thought. You can likely answer your own question.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lio45

Give it some thought. You can likely answer your own question.

The only reason I can think of is you are selfish. Is that it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are you suggesting the return of the mall? Generally, malls take up less space for the same number of retail stores.

That is actually not true. The most space efficient retail you can have is stores in walkable areas. Malls require a ton of parking and then a whole pile of internal walkways to recreate that walkable retail area inside. It's no accident that Canada and the US have multiples of the amount of square footage per capita compared to other countries and we have so many malls and big box stores.

I would love to see the number of malls cut down to low double digits in this country. And all the rest effectively turned into mixed use neighborhoods.

[jigglysquishy]

Most of the blame that gets put onto boomers, should really be put onto the 1935-1950 generation. As always, Boomer as a sociological concept is very weak.

Those born in 1945 were children in the high quality 50s, had access to cheap education, and were established in their careers when the 1973 oil crisis hit. Most had their houses paid off or close to it during the 80s interest peak. And enjoyed their early retirement with widespread DB pension. 2008 hurt, but was mild as most were already retired.

They remember FLQ, were young during the cultural revolution of the late 60s, and saw the Leafs winning the Cup. They largely voted for Mulroney.

The person born in 1960 entered a depressed work environment and was buying a house in the high interest market. They were in their peak earning years during the 90s austerity time. And 2008 delayed their retirement.

FLQ was a history lesson, they were children during the era of Beatles, Civil Rights, and Vietnam. They were the hardest hit by the 80s 90s dark financial times.

Both boomers. Vasty different circumstances and life experiences.

The less we divide people into neat and illogical generations, the better.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The only reason I can think of is you are selfish. Is that it?

I think he’s alluding to the opportunity cost of developing the land, and how it’s not worth the expense when you can retain your capital for less risk. Add in taxes, and now the cost of the status quo grows- it’s time to develop.