Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I am kind of curious what real estate agents have to do when it is a complete sellers market. I know there is the usual paperwork, posting on MLS, comparing competing bids, etc., etc. but as to showing the house in times when a house may sit on the market for only a couple of hours...and buyers cannot easily put in conditions when they simply won't be in the running.

All they have to do is tell the first person that looks at the house that an offer has already come in, and then sit back and let the bidding wars begin (jk of course)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How? I'm talking about people having SFHs at middle class wages. It's just not possible as we densify and allow immigration.

I think our currently immigration levels are fine. NIMBYs are standing in the way of reasonable densification, and people who can't think critically think we can all live in white picket fence homes if only "the government would do something".

Maybe not a white picket fence for everyone, but in a country where a lot of family and household wealth is tied to owning one's own home (of some sort), access to property is a key factor in social mobility between the lower, middle and upper classes.

We're one of the best OECD countries in this respect, and it would be a shame if the real estate bubble (that keeps expanding to more and more cities and regions) came to jeopardize that.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How? I'm talking about people having SFHs at middle class wages. It's just not possible as we densify and allow immigration.

I think our currently immigration levels are fine. NIMBYs are standing in the way of reasonable densification, and people who can't think critically think we can all live in white picket fence homes if only "the government would do something".

I don't think you can blame NIMBYism for families being raised in one bedroom units. Picket fence is so far out of the realm of possibilities. We've been in an employers market forever. There's always someone more desperate willing to work for less. Wages are stagnant even going in reverse. That has a lot to do with current immigration levels centred on key markets.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Real Estate is ripe for disruption. They have a strangehold like Dairy farmers though.

There's already some lower fee competitors trying to 🞵🞵🞵🞵 up market share as people realize that their agent's actual "skill" means very little in a market like this.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How? I'm talking about people having SFHs at middle class wages. It's just not possible as we densify and allow immigration.

I think our currently immigration levels are fine. NIMBYs are standing in the way of reasonable densification, and people who can't think critically think we can all live in white picket fence homes if only "the government would do something".

Just to maintain context, this started at a different place.

My point was this isn't a one or the other proposition.

We can have this level of population growth, and maintain access to affordable, appropriate housing.

By taking specific policy stances on issues, we collectively choose not to.

Which goes more to my other posts; financialization of RE.

None of this is coincidence. The situation we find ourselves in is a product of intended results.

Affordability is a bug, not a feature in housing markets.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't know the context of this discussion.

i'll jsut sya, My impression is Canadians, in general, are very pro population growth which is backed by politics. Consequences of population growth are seldom considered. Stability favour low/stagnant growth in the near term. It's a delicate balancing act as too much seldom works out in its favour at any time.

Growth does indeed pose challenges and those challenges are especially vivid when you're currently experiencing them. But people seem to forget that stagnation has significant challenges of its own such as the whole greying population issue, which is the main reason politicians tend to use immigration to keep growth from collapsing. When you get to a point when a country has fewer people who are working than it has people who are retired and require increased public services such as healthcare, that tends to be a bigger issue than a growing and prosperous population that needs additional infrastructure.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't think you can blame NIMBYism for families being raised in one bedroom units. Picket fence is so far out of the realm of possibilities. We've been in an employers market forever. There's always someone more desperate willing to work for less. Wages are stagnant even going in reverse. That has a lot to do with current immigration levels centred on key markets.

I am not anti-immigration, but I still don't believe most Canadians truly realize who and what benefits the most from high(ish) levels of immigration.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not anti-immigration, but I still don't believe most Canadians truly realize who and what benefits the most from high(ish) levels of immigration.

Real estate developers first and foremost.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How? I'm talking about people having SFHs at middle class wages. It's just not possible as we densify and allow immigration.

I think our currently immigration levels are fine. NIMBYs are standing in the way of reasonable densification, and people who can't think critically think we can all live in white picket fence homes if only "the government would do something".

The real problem is that people assume less SFH means living in a shoebox condo instead.

We could have a lot more house like dwellings, if people didn't insist on so much detached housing, large backyards (that most don't use enough to justify the space and cost) and large driveways. Instead we give people giant driveways flanked by totally useless front lawns. Does the average detached house really need parking for 4 cars (2 in the driveway and 2 in the garage) and another 100 square feet of useless front lawn that most suburbanites grow weeds on? It's particularly absurd when you consider that most suburban streets are built three car widths wide so that they have street parking too.

Build courtyard housing with parking separate from the home. Build back-to-back 3 storey or stacked towns. Etc. Heck, just build single family detached with less driveway and front lawn and narrower streets.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't think you can blame NIMBYism for families being raised in one bedroom units.

How can that be true if its NIMBY's that oppose family friendly options in favor of keeping SFH everywhere? NIMBY's are a bonus in this paradigm.

Picket fence is so far out of the realm of possibilities

.
True, but there are more appropriate options for housing that can be delivered should the will be there.

We've been in an employers market forever. There's always someone more desperate willing to work for less. Wages are stagnant even going in reverse. That has a lot to do with current immigration levels centred on key markets.

Yes, which once again proves the point that this is not about increasing quality of life for Canadians.

All of this makes more sense when you start viewing it from a balance sheet perspective.

[WhipperSnapper]

I understand an aging politicians is use as a means of convincing people for immigration. Is it really that detrimental? Stagnating , aging European populations are wealthy with impressive social systems. Let's not forgot they paid into those systems. Keep in mind, many new Canadians are at retirement age because we encourage family units to immigrate.

[casper]

Originally Posted by rofina

Just to maintain context, this started at a different place.

My point was this isn't a one or the other proposition.

We can have this level of population growth, and maintain access to affordable, appropriate housing.

By taking specific policy stances on issues, we collectively choose not to.

Which goes more to my other posts; financialization of RE.

None of this is coincidence. The situation we find ourselves in is a product of intended results.

Affordability is a bug, not a feature in housing markets.

We should also look at this through a historical lens. When by parents purchased a house in Vancouver in 1974 they were buying a house that was a 20 minute drive out of downtown in a Canadian city of around 1M. That was affordable for a middle class couple starting out.

Fast forward to day. Most Canadian cities of around 1 M are still relatively affordable. I am thinking of places like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa. Toss in some of the cities that are 300,000 to 1M and it is the same. Victoria, Saskatoon, Winnipeg are still relatively affordable. Getting a small 3bedroom bungalow in any of these cities is still in reach of many.

Vancouver has changed it is not a city of 1M. It is a city of 2.5M with a very dense core. Expectations are significantly different and it is closer to what should be expected in a larger city globally. I have a friend who is an engineer in Paris and her husband is a fire fighter. They raise their two kids in a small thee bedroom apartment in a three story walkup. It is a nice place but compact. That is the norm in many large cities in that 2M+ size range.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by casper

We should also look at this through a historical lens. When by parents purchased a house in Vancouver in 1974 they were buying a house that was a 20 minute drive out of downtown in a Canadian city of around 1M. That was affordable for a middle class couple starting out.

Fast forward to day. Most Canadian cities of around 1 M are still relatively affordable. I am thinking of places like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa. Toss in some of the cities that are 300,000 to 1M and it is the same. Victoria, Saskatoon, Winnipeg are still relatively affordable. Getting a small 3bedroom bungalow in any of these cities is still in reach of many.

Vancouver has changed it is not a city of 1M. It is a city of 2.5M with a very dense core. Expectations are significantly different and it is closer to what should be expected in a larger city globally. I have a friend who is an engineer in Paris and her husband is a fire fighter. They raise their two kids in a small thee bedroom apartment in a three story walkup. It is a nice place but compact. That is the norm in many large cities in that 2M+ size range.

Respectfully, I think your model is wrong.

Victoria and Kelowna are affordable?

Only way that's true is if you compare them to Vancouver.

Only the wealthiest of folk are buying a house in Victoria or Kelowna the same way your parents did in Vancouver.

This extends far past the idea of Vancouver being a global city.

And even if the global city argument was to hold water, being unaffordable is not an inevitable outcome.

The only inevitable outcome in becoming a global city is increased density.

Everything else is a matter of choice.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by rofina

How can that be true if its NIMBY's that oppose family friendly options in favor of keeping SFH everywhere? NIMBY's are a bonus in this paradigm.

.
.

Toronto is pro development. The Ford government is as pro development as they come. NIMBYs don't matter. Rising housing costs would matter a helluva lot less if wages weren't stagnating in part to being an employers market.

Same job. Same company. The employer was paying $60,000 a year in Toronto. In Calgary, they were forced to pay $90,000 during the boom. Post Covid, that job is being offered at $55,000. It's a mid level position too. Immigration is not just about house people. It's affects everything positively or negatively.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by casper

We should also look at this through a historical lens. When by parents purchased a house in Vancouver in 1974 they were buying a house that was a 20 minute drive out of downtown in a Canadian city of around 1M. That was affordable for a middle class couple starting out.

Fast forward to day. Most Canadian cities of around 1 M are still relatively affordable. I am thinking of places like Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa. Toss in some of the cities that are 300,000 to 1M and it is the same. Victoria, Saskatoon, Winnipeg are still relatively affordable. Getting a small 3bedroom bungalow in any of these cities is still in reach of many.

Vancouver has changed it is not a city of 1M. It is a city of 2.5M with a very dense core. Expectations are significantly different and it is closer to what should be expected in a larger city globally. I have a friend who is an engineer in Paris and her husband is a fire fighter. They raise their two kids in a small thee bedroom apartment in a three story walkup. It is a nice place but compact. That is the norm in many large cities in that 2M+ size range.

A family in a 3 bedroom walk up is awesome. There is a growing number of families surviving in one bedroom apartments in Toronto. It's as or more expensive than many urban minded European centres but with much lower wages.

[Acajack]

Skyrocketing housing costs only came to the fore as a major issue late in the game during the last election campaign. That's why I think a lot of people underestimate it.

I don't think we've yet seen just how big an issue this is going to become.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not anti-immigration, but I still don't believe most Canadians truly realize who and what benefits the most from high(ish) levels of immigration.

I don't consider myself anti-immigration either. My parents are immigrants. I guess I am though. I view the pluses of immigration as providing help where needed. Our system does anything but. We have cities desperate for people and others are completely overwhlemed by real estate ,population growth from immigration, etc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I don't consider myself anti-immigration either. My parents are immigrants. I guess I am though. I view the pluses of immigration as providing help where needed. Our system does anything but. We have cities desperate for people and others are completely overwhlemed by real estate ,population growth from immigration, etc.

I hear you. "Regionalizing" our immigration more is a huge challenge, maybe even impossible.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Skyrocketing housing costs only came to the fore as a major issue late in the game during the last election campaign. That's why I think a lot of people underestimate it.

I don't think we've yet seen just how big an issue this is going to become.

True. young urban professional putting everything into a one bedroom apartment and than becoming priced out of the market when it comes time to expand has grown exponentially in the last few years. I hope pre-pandemic jobs that paid $60 to 75,000 (which isn't livable in Toronto) and are now being offered at $50 to 65,000 won't work out for employers.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I hear you. "Regionalizing" our immigration more is a huge challenge, maybe even impossible.

certainly political suicide.