Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again. None of this speaks to any particular developer greed. It's the free market at work. Developers don't work for free. They will build whatever makes them the most profit. If you want to incentivize them to build in certain directions, then regulate to that effect.

with DoFo at the helm that will never happen.

and locally the city of Welland doesn't care. They need ANY tax revenue since industry almost entirely collapsed.

I just use Welland as an example because it's where I grew up, is considered the least desirable municipality of Niagara, and prime example of out of control housing prices in Ontario.
It's absolute bonkers to me that one could sell a house in Welland and purchase 2-3 nice condos in Edmonton for example.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by jamincan

The huge swaths of early 20th century SFHs in Toronto isn't a reflection of the market at the time, it is a reflection of exclusionary zoning that banned apartment buildings in 1912. This ban was largely racist (due to an influx of Eastern Europeans), and in cities where bans were not implemented, you can see a much more diverse housing stock that includes more townhouses and walk-up apartments.

Early 1900's detached housing is extremely common in North America. Sometimes with apartments mixed in, sometimes not. Los Angeles didn't stop working when it hit 3-4 million detached houses. Actually it compares decently with Canadian cities now in the traditional LA drawback areas and has built out its transit a lot. It is hemmed in by geography and major infrastructure projects have been built to connect the main basin to other valleys.

We can see that American cities have grown much larger than Canadian cities and they didn't hit the supposed "we just can't have detached housing anymore" threshold that people say Canada hit around the 2010's or so. I don't think there is anything special about 2010 in terms of city sizes or the natural environment. It is the economy and regulations that hit a critical point and have now reach a phase where younger people can't afford much of anything unless they get help.

I don't like Dallas style planning but we keep hearing about how it will die any day now due to poor planning choices yet it keeps growing very quickly and offers cheaper housing than places like Kingston. We should separate our value judgements from the observable economic facts.

[harls]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I think the fact Edmonton is almost double Ottawa says more...

I think they only calculate the Ontario side of the CMA for housing starts, don't they?

Even if they did include the Quebec side, it would probably still be lower.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

We can see that American cities have grown much larger than Canadian cities and they didn't hit the supposed "we just can't have detached housing anymore" threshold that people say Canada hit around the 2010's or so. I don't think there is anything special about 2010 in terms of city sizes or the natural environment. It is the economy and regulations that hit a critical point and have now reach a phase where younger people can't afford much of anything unless they get help.

On average US cities tend to fare worse in terms of sprawl and the resulting environmental, infrastructural and energy usage problems. The fact that they're less responsive in addressing these problems doesn't make the problems less important or make the lack of response to them more appealing. The US is a cautionary tale, not a counter example.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by harls

I think they only calculate the Ontario side of the CMA for housing starts, don't they?

Even if they did include the Quebec side, it would probably still be lower.

I think there is probably a separate data set for Gatineau CMA (Ottawa-Gatineau, Quebec part).

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Some decent supply coming...

Also Saskatoon (CMA ~320k) is close to the housing starts of Winnipeg (CMA ~835k) despite Winnipeg being 2.6 times larger

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

On average US cities tend to fare worse in terms of sprawl and the resulting environmental, infrastructural and energy usage problems. The fact that they're less responsive in addressing these problems doesn't make the problems less important or make the lack of response to them more appealing. The US is a cautionary tale, not a counter example.

I think these days a lot of American cities have a higher quality of life than Canadian cities offer. I see this when I visit American West Coast cities and compare them to Vancouver. Canada has crippling housing prices now and a mediocre economy. I think a lot of this disparity only exists due to limitations on mobility and imports/exports for Canadians.

Our GHG emissions are actually higher per capita in Canada than they are in the US. A lot of that is probably higher per capita fossil fuel production. But I think the reality is that it's debatable that Canada is doing better in these other ways that are supposed to make up for the increasingly glaring shortfalls like 15 years of stagnating real per capita GDP. I mentioned the theory of unsustainable suburbia as an example. We are not really seeing it so far. I wonder how this narrative will change as EVs become more common. It feels like there is a lot of motivated reasoning while more important quality of life basics are glossed over.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think these days a lot of American cities have a higher quality of life than Canadian cities offer. I see this when I visit American West Coast cities and compare them to Vancouver.

Can I ask what metrics you are using to define this? Also, how straight is a comparison between Vancouver and West Coast USA cities given the very real physical constraints faced by Vancouver and the differences in population and economy? Also, Vancouver is exceptional, even in Canada, for inflated housing prices.

Originally Posted by someone123

Canada has crippling housing prices now and a mediocre economy. I think a lot of this disparity only exists due to limitations on mobility for Canadians.

It's not just mobility. We made deliberate choices to build an economy around resource extraction and inflated housing. So much of our economy is in the FIRE sectors. There's an ecosystem around inflated housing that employs a lot of Canadians. That doesn't create wealth.

Originally Posted by someone123

Our GHG emissions are actually higher per capita in Canada than they are in the US. A lot of that is probably higher per capita oil production. But I think the reality is that it's just pretty debatable that Canada is doing better in these other ways that make up for the shortfalls. I mentioned the theory of unsustainable suburbia as an example. We are not really seeing it so far. I wonder how this narrative will change as EVs become more common.

It's not just oil production. We also have much higher heating needs on average. EVs will reduce some transport emissions in both countries. But they wont change the massive building emissions. They don't solve the geometry problem of cars. Etc.

I don't know if you've ever lived in the US. But I find your view akin to, "Grass is greener on the other side." I found life in the US notably more stressful. And that is despite being on a military exchange will so many of my expenses covered and living in an extremely wealthy area. Healthcare is a massive administrative burden. People spend hours commuting in their cars. Crime is noticeably higher to the point that you have to actually worry about your property and personal security. It's exhausting.

The difference is that the US is a high risk high reward society that massively rewards success. You have exceptional talent or education? It's fantastic. But if you're a 9-5 paper pusher with a BA? I'm not sure it'd be as great as you imagine. There's a reason young people there are also pretty unhappy these days.

[thurmas]

Americans earn 22% more on average but they work you to the bone. In the u.s. it really matters where you live for good quality of life. I think the mid size upper midwest cities would probably suit myself more than a place like Dallas or Washington DC or Los Angeles where I would hate it.

[goodgrowth]

Number of annual housing completions is probably the best metric.

Giving a lot of housing now in the GTA and GVA is basically a multi year megaproject of sorts a unit started in April 2022 might not be available for years.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Americans earn 22% more on average but they work you to the bone. In the u.s. it really matters where you live for good quality of life. I think the mid size upper midwest cities would probably suit myself more than a place like Dallas or Washington DC or Los Angeles where I would hate it.

This is true. I had friends in Calgary that worked in Houston. Calgary was a much better work environment.

And school systems take TOP priority for families. Whereas Toronto has one English-speaking public school district, Winnipeg (a handful??)
Buffalo MSA for example has too many to list, plus charter schools, and Catholic/parochial schools are private and cost a ton.

Little fiefdoms of education

_____________________________________________
I've never heard anyone mention they got a sub-par education in Canada, although I'm sure there's some schools/districts not as good.
In Canada, we're kind of like Finland where most are almost guaranteed a decent education no matter where you live.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

yep. The Ontario government expects us to accept their shitty wage increase cap of 1.5%? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Our collective agreement (University of Western Ontario Faculty Association) expires June 30th.

I fucking hate the brinkmanship that happens EVERY FUCKING TIME our contract expires. So much bad faith bullshittery from Central Admin, bluffing, calling the bluff, cusp of striking, legal strike position, then, even past the 11th hour some settlement (usually robbing Peter to pay Paul: salaries may rise, but benefits and expense allowances tumble).

Strike
Strike
Strike

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly. It totally sucks for whoever "missed the boat" on this, I understand that.

I resoundingly missed the boat on bitcoin, my buddy wanted to convince me to invest a spare $50k into bitcoin back when it was like $300.

I of course never bought bitcoin after that. Only a sucker (IMO) would get in at the current prices. I missed the boat on that one opportunity, that's all. Just have to content myself with finding other ones...

Any Late Millenial or Gen Z who can't afford a million-dollar Welland SFH will just have to resort to some Plan B. That's life.

The thing I have learned about missing a boat is if it really doesn't matter in the long run, it is not worth the stress.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The narrow house trend exists entirely because of our obsession with detached houses. A lot of this stuff would be better if they just built more townhouses or large quadplexes.

Also, it speaks to the privilege of those who have been lucky enough to own property for a decade or more to look down at these folks. "Ha! Look at those poors who can't afford a large lot with a bungalow." Said by many who would also say climate change is a concern......

I have seen some places in Montreal's South Shore that has a beautiful neighbourhood, but all of their houses are all "poor" semis.

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Meh, you can debate the aesthetics but in terms of utilizing space those narrow detached houses are a huge improvement in density over what suburbs use to be. If you built a triplex or quadplex you probably can gain some density but then the distance in space between each multiplex might be larger than each of those narrow detached houses..so maybe only a marginal difference in density overall.

Of course if you are arguing 4-5 floor apartment buildings over this then yeah...

Does this mean we can expect multilevel shotgun houses?
Don't forget the postage stamp sized yards.

Originally Posted by jamincan

The huge swaths of early 20th century SFHs in Toronto isn't a reflection of the market at the time, it is a reflection of exclusionary zoning that banned apartment buildings in 1912. This ban was largely racist (due to an influx of Eastern Europeans), and in cities where bans were not implemented, you can see a much more diverse housing stock that includes more townhouses and walk-up apartments.

Sounds like when some one talks about those older neighbourhoods, it is with how nice they are. However, it really sounds like much of the same as today.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again. None of this speaks to any particular developer greed. It's the free market at work. Developers don't work for free. They will build whatever makes them the most profit. If you want to incentivize them to build in certain directions, then regulate to that effect.

Free market and greed go hand in hand. The developers want to make the most money as they can within the legal framework that exists.That is legal greed.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They also lack the transit and accessible retail of The old streetcar suburbs.

The new subdivisions of the last 20+ years seem to be built to avoid the possibility of any reasonable transit. Most also do not have sidewalks.

Originally Posted by Wigs

Also Saskatoon (CMA ~320k) is close to the housing starts of Winnipeg (CMA ~835k) despite Winnipeg being 2.6 times larger

One could say those numbers, if shown as a percentage of existing homes could show where people want to live.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thurmas

Americans earn 22% more on average but they work you to the bone. In the u.s. it really matters where you live for good quality of life. I think the mid size upper midwest cities would probably suit myself more than a place like Dallas or Washington DC or Los Angeles where I would hate it.

This is where the US is better. There's a lot more places to choose from. There are ~60 CSAs with a million or more in population to choose from. We have 6 CMAs with a million more, and several in top 25 are just satellites of Toronto.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Also, Vancouver is exceptional, even in Canada, for inflated housing prices.

It's not really that exceptional anymore. The GTA is in the same rough ballpark, or at least is not very affordable, and the Lower Mainland + GTA = 1/3 of English-speaking Canada so these are not just corner cases, they represent a large portion of the market that most Canadians have easily available to them. Increasingly the smaller Canadian cities are more expensive than major US metro areas, e.g. London ON now costs more than Miami. It's nuts.

I'm not claiming to have proof that the US is better and it is complicated with pluses and minuses in different cities but I think Canadians kid themselves a lot and many US cities in fact stack up very well against Canadian cities. I don't see a lot of the best and brightest decamping to Vancouver from SF or LA.

It is true that the US is higher crime but one thing people don't talk about much is if housing is cheaper you can move to a nicer area, all else being equal. My modest condo would trade for an upscale area of almost all US cities. Most of the young people I know who are renters here could own in Texas.

Healthcare is ridiculous in the US but you can buy your own high deductible plan and chances are if you are younger your costs will be much lower than Canadian housing costs. Once you're 65, the government covers your healthcare. And our system here isn't great.

[someone123]

BTW I write this not as a grass is greener pro-USA person but because I don't think Canadians take this issue seriously enough and are in la-la land. We've got a huge segment of the population that just denies it or thinks it's good (either because all they care about is their personal wealth or because pain is assumed to be good from an environmentalist or planning perspective). On top of that the federal government operates in perpetual "crisis mode" with most of the crises being blown out of proportion, lessening the ability to deal with the most important issues that deeply affect everybody. I'm skeptical that the public discourse and policy proposals are even remotely in the ballpark of addressing this problem.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

BTW I write this not as a grass is greener pro-USA person but because I don't think Canadians take this issue seriously enough and are in la-la land. We've got a huge segment of the population that just denies it or thinks it's good (either because rising home equity is good or because pain is assumed to be good from an environmentalist or planning perspective). On top of that the federal government operates in perpetual "crisis mode" with most of the crises being blown out of proportion, lessening the ability to deal with the most important issues that deeply affect everybody. I'm skeptical that the public discourse and policy proposals are even remotely in the ballpark of addressing this problem.

I think that is optics. There are many things the feds are doing quietly. The ones we learn about are the ones that are the crisis issues.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think these days a lot of American cities have a higher quality of life than Canadian cities offer. I see this when I visit American West Coast cities and compare them to Vancouver. Canada has crippling housing prices now and a mediocre economy. I think a lot of this disparity only exists due to limitations on mobility and imports/exports for Canadians.

Our GHG emissions are actually higher per capita in Canada than they are in the US. A lot of that is probably higher per capita fossil fuel production. But I think the reality is that it's debatable that Canada is doing better in these other ways that are supposed to make up for the increasingly glaring shortfalls like 15 years of stagnating real per capita GDP. I mentioned the theory of unsustainable suburbia as an example. We are not really seeing it so far. I wonder how this narrative will change as EVs become more common. It feels like there is a lot of motivated reasoning while more important quality of life basics are glossed over.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out as a pretty huge chunk of the population literally views the problem with suburbia and sprawl as solely related to burning fossil fuels to get around it, and to and from it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Most of the statistics I see don't address the actual meat of the problem. For example a good survey would be to look at what the lifestyle is of the typical 28 year old in a given area in different decades (do you own, do you rent, do you have roommates, do you have kids, do you have a car, how long does your commute take).

Tricky question though:

1982 middle class guy: owns a house in a residential Vancouver neighborhood; has a car; has a wife; is starting a family.

2022 middle class guy: doomed to rent forever; has several roommates (and not by choice); has no car; can't consider starting a family; possesses the portable, wireless equivalent of a 1982 trillion-dollar NASA supercomputer all to himself; can access world-class Indian or Japanese food in a minute's walk from his place; can catch a plane to any exotic destination anytime he wants; can access literally infinite amounts of information instantly from anywhere.

I think we can have a consensus on the above, but we won't be able to have a consensus on which of the two lifestyles described above is unarguably the "better" or "higher quality" one.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is true that the US is higher crime but one thing people don't talk about much is if housing is cheaper you can move to a nicer area, all else being equal. My modest condo would trade for an upscale area of almost all US cities. Most of the young people I know who are renters here could own in Texas.

Like I said a function of having more options in the US. That said, you could trade in your condo for a really nice house in Regina or Moncton too.

All I'll say is that these comparisons are way too rose-tinted because averages are irrelevant. It's not average 9-5 paper pushers who migrate. It's usually highly skilled people. And they get jobs with gold plated benefits package and salaries that let them live in nice areas. But that isn't the average American lifestyle. The average American isn't getting a healthcare plan that covers everything that is covered in Canada. The average American faces a much higher risk of being a victim of crime. Social mobility isn't great, in no small part because of skyrocketing student debt. And we actually have statistics to show all this.

But yeah if you're a highly skilled Canadian, I would accept that your personal quality of life will be higher in the US. I'm actually surprised, that we don't see more young professionals leaving.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lio45

Tricky question though:

1982 middle class guy: owns a house in a residential Vancouver neighborhood; has a car; has a wife; is starting a family.

2022 middle class guy: doomed to rent forever; has several roommates (and not by choice); has no car; can't consider starting a family; possesses the portable, wireless equivalent of a 1982 trillion-dollar NASA supercomputer all to himself; can access world-class Indian or Japanese food in a minute's walk from his place; can catch a plane to any exotic destination anytime he wants; can access literally infinite amounts of information instantly from anywhere.

I think we can have a consensus on the above, but we won't be able to have a consensus on which of the two lifestyles described above is unarguably the "better" or "higher quality" one.

So, why stay in the big city?