Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

50k US boomers died in Vietnam. Most didn't even wanna be there.

Most of the Vietnam vets didn't have parents who could afford to defer them from the draft.

Much like all the other U.S. kids who get thrown into their country's useless, senseless, forever wars.. they just see it as their only opportunity for school.

Then they get tossed aside once they get home with injuries both mental and physical.

Do you ever wonder why virtually no members of Congress have had any of their their children who have 'served' yet they have so many of their constituent vets living in tents, lining their drive into the Capital?

Surprise! It's because they don't give a 🞵🞵🞵🞵!

It's the sign of a country and a system in rapid decline.

Yet the U.S. exhorts the military at all sporting events and at every opportunity available..

It's a militaristic semi-theocracy Superpower that is losing its influence - and that's dangerous for the rest of us.

[Al Ski]

And BTW .. Why do we sing anthems at the beginning of sporting events?

And of course they usually have to have Army dudes

I 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 can't stand it, it's so idiotic!

(of course I've researched the history of anthem singing at sporting events so I understand how truly stupid and ad-hoc this was)

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

You know we're not American, right?

So US Boomers are the selfish ones but not Canadian Boomers? I guess I missed that distinction in the previous arguments. What I'm saying is there are a lot of reasons why Boomers could be considered selfless too (Civil Rights movement, for one). Painting entire generations (which are kind of not really "things" anyway) with wide brushes serves nobody. Bad stuff happened, good stuff happened, bad stuff is happening now, we learn, adapt and survive. Is today "bad" worse than "80's bad"? *shrug*

[Acajack]

I find it odd how much bitching there is about older people still living in their paid-off homes that might be too big for them, as if this were the main or only cause of the housing crisis.

How many housing units sit empty most of the time and are owned by speculative absentee owners, often not even Canadians?

I don't see them as the root of all evil either but why cut them slack but not our older people who built this country?

It's been a while since I heard comments about buildings where there are almost no lights on in the evening.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

If you have no legacy money then you have virtually no hope of ever owning a home in any major market in Canada.

Free Market Capitalism is awesome!

This upcoming crash is going to make all others look like .. meh.. those lucky bastards

I would consider Calgary, Edmonton, and Montreal major markets. Housing is still affordable for normal people there.

Southern Ontario and SW BC are insane, but it's not the whole country.

We're also seeing real price decreases in the latter markets. Give it another year and they won't be affordable, but will be back to ~2016 prices in real dollars.

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

So US Boomers are the selfish ones but not Canadian Boomers? I guess I missed that distinction in the previous arguments. What I'm saying is there are a lot of reasons why Boomers could be considered selfless too (Civil Rights movement, for one). Painting entire generations (which are kind of not really "things" anyway) with wide brushes serves nobody. Bad stuff happened, good stuff happened, bad stuff is happening now, we learn, adapt and survive. Is today "bad" worse than "80's bad"? *shrug*

I don't think Canadian Boomers are selfish, and I largely disagree with the term Baby Boomer in general when applied to Canadians. The tradition generation names were designed by Americans to explicitly refer to WASP old stock Americans. They don't make sense in a Canadian context.

The 80s saw a massive change from the spend free 60s and 70s. It was absolutely necessary. Large scale government debt and stagflation had killed the post war dream. We were in trouble by the late 70s and didn't fully dig ourselves out of the mess until the early 00s.

After 15 years of QE, we are seeing a similar situation. The 20s decade will be a financially painful one.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I don't think Canadian Boomers are selfish, and I largely disagree with the term Baby Boomer in general when applied to Canadians. The tradition generation names were designed by Americans to explicitly refer to WASP old stock Americans. They don't make sense in a Canadian context.

The 80s saw a massive change from the spend free 60s and 70s. It was absolutely necessary. Large scale government debt and stagflation had killed the post war dream. We were in trouble by the late 70s and didn't fully dig ourselves out of the mess until the early 00s.

After 15 years of QE, we are seeing a similar situation. The 20s decade will be a financially painful one.

Not sure how "Baby Boomer" doesn't make sense in the Canadian context. Did we not experience a "baby boom"?

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not sure how "Baby Boomer" doesn't make sense in the Canadian context. Did we not experience a "baby boom"?

The cultural baby boomers ran from about 1940 to 1955. The demographic baby boom ran from about 1948 to 1962.

There's overlap, but they're different things.

I don't think just copy and pasting American terms is of any value.

Most of the generational theory comes from the Strauss and Howe books who write explicitly for Americans and even comment that the generations are different in each country. And most of their research is in trying to tie the American Revolution, Civil War, and World War II together generationally.

You could come up with generations for Canada, but it makes no sense to use the same birth years and names as the Americans.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I find it odd how much bitching there is about older people still living in their paid-off homes that might be too big for them, as if this were the main or only cause of the housing crisis.

How many housing units sit empty most of the time and are owned by speculative absentee owners, often not even Canadians?

I don't see them as the root of all evil either but why cut them slack but not our older people who built this country?

It's been a while since I heard comments about buildings where there are almost no lights on in the evening.

There have been a great number of points made in this thread as to the cause of the current housing issues. The last few pages have focused on a certain issue.

A culmination of issues has driven this problem. We are now at the point where those issues have come to a head. Getting in was easy, getting out is harder.

Some of the issues (in no particular order):

1. Very low interest rates; a product of the cheap imports that distorted the effects of inflation within the Canadian economy that was not adequately measured.
2. Policies designed to limit new construction farther away from cities
3. Policies designed to retain existing density/neighbourhoods in major metros, while maximizing municipal revenue from new builds.
4. High population growth rates in the household formation period of life.
5. The appeal of 'easy money' - high appreciation in short periods of time leading to increased speculative investment.
6. The pandemic and its short-term shift in mindset there.
7. A bunch of other stuff I haven't mentioned.

Canada just had the good fortune of being able to ride the wave longer before things boiled over.

If there's resentment against the Boomers, the pandemic amplified it. A lot of the burdens of the pandemic (and those ancillary effects of it) fell on the young in order to mitigate the effects of it on the old. Was it worth it? Debate away.

Ultimately, Canada has been coasting on tailwinds for awhile now. E-Zee growth, cheap calorie style. Which means one can paper over their problems and not address them. Until one is forced to. Which - to me, at least - is where great leaders shine and mediocre leaders reveal their true colours. I do not get the sense of great leadership at this juncture.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by thewave46

3. Policies designed to retain existing density/neighborhoods in major metros, while maximizing municipal revenue from new builds.

This is a good point and it would be really interesting to see an analysis of property taxes compared to development fees when it comes to equitability.

I saw a table of property taxes for various areas in the GTA/Southern Ontario and to say it seemed regressive would be a bit of an understatement.

[casper]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

This is a good point and it would be really interesting to see an analysis of property taxes compared to development fees when it comes to equitability.

I saw a table of property taxes for various areas in the GTA/Southern Ontario and to say it seemed regressive would be a bit of an understatement.

Property tax is extremely difficult to compare between cities.

A city has a budget it needs to find and it divides those funds up across all property owners proportionately. A property in Vancouver would have a relatively low property tax rate vrs a property in Cumberland.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by casper

Property tax is extremely difficult to compare between cities.

A city has a budget it needs to find and it divides those funds up across all property owners proportionately. A property in Vancouver would have a relatively low property tax rate vrs a property in Cumberland.

That's fair but I'd argue you could compare them between municipalities in major metro areas that haven't amalgamated.

But even within a single municipalities...if the development fee for a something like a condo is many multiples of the annual property tax for a large detached house despite it being more efficient service wise...that's questionable imo.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

If you have no legacy money then you have virtually no hope of ever owning a home in any major market in Canada.

Not true. Over the last few years, there was a clear path available to go from nearly zero to owning several Toronto/Vancouver properties.





(Bitcoin)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I find it odd how much bitching there is about older people still living in their paid-off homes that might be too big for them, as if this were the main or only cause of the housing crisis.

How many housing units sit empty most of the time and are owned by speculative absentee owners, often not even Canadians?

I don't see them as the root of all evil either but why cut them slack but not our older people who built this country?

It's been a while since I heard comments about buildings where there are almost no lights on in the evening.

Reasonable commentators don’t cut any slack to those either.

BCMLs are an even bigger problem than Boomers.

[casper]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not true. Over the last few years, there was a clear path available to go from nearly zero to owning several Toronto/Vancouver properties.





(Bitcoin)

Honestly even without Bitcoin, home ownership in Metro Vancouver has been achievable for any couple with a middle class income. Assuming the definition of "home" is a condo and not a single family home. You need to go back to expectations.

[GreaterMontréal]

Single family homes will get more expensive in Quebec as more and more cities are changing their zoning laws and restricting detached homes. Even in smaller urban centers (<100k), the new wave of mayors, all in their 30's, are pushing for more density within their city limits. The price to build a new detached SFH is also very high everywhere. In Laval, even in prestigious neighborhoods, they are now building townhouses to replace what was a single lot just 3 years ago. The new mayor of Laval is very pro density and they will push to accelerate big projects.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by casper

Honestly even without Bitcoin, home ownership in Metro Vancouver has been achievable for any couple with a middle class income. Assuming the definition of "home" is a condo and not a single family home. You need to go back to expectations.

With a median income of 82k and an average condo sale price of 770k, that’s a stretch. Upper middle class? Sure. As long as you’re OK with raising a family in a space less than 800 sq foot. I’d find that pretty claustrophobic.

Assuming a 50k down payment you could conceivably afford this on a median income if you can make do without the luxury of a bedroom (adjusting expectations, right?):

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24642872/106-8989-hudson-street-vancouver

Unfortunately there are only about a dozen or so listings in this price range in Vancouver, so you probably won’t get it.

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

With a median income of 82k and an average condo sale price of 770k, that’s a stretch. Upper middle class? Sure. As long as you’re OK with raising a family in a space less than 800 sq foot. I’d find that pretty claustrophobic.

Assuming a 50k down payment you could conceivably afford this on a median income if you can make do without the luxury of a bedroom (adjusting expectations, right?):

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24642872/106-8989-hudson-street-vancouver

Unfortunately there are only about a dozen or so listings in this price range in Vancouver, so you probably won’t get it.

In Vancouver proper, yes, you can find a place but it is hard. In Metro Vancouver it is a bit easier. Not ideal to raise a family but also still quite a bit better than a comparable income in a place like New York, San Francisco, London or Paris.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by casper

In Vancouver proper, yes, you can find a place but it is hard. In Metro Vancouver it is a bit easier. Not ideal to raise a family but also still quite a bit better than a comparable income in a place like New York, San Francisco, London or Paris.

I’m not sure why you’re agreeing with me when we clearly are saying different things. I actually looked up what’s available in that price range in Langley (basically the fringe of the GVRD for those not familiar), and there’s literally nothing on the market. Zero listings.

So no, home ownership (adjusted expectations or not) is not realistic for most of the middle class.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

Single family homes will get more expensive in Quebec as more and more cities are changing their zoning laws and restricting detached homes. Even in smaller urban centers (<100k), the new wave of mayors, all in their 30's, are pushing for more density within their city limits. The price to build a new detached SFH is also very high everywhere. In Laval, even in prestigious neighborhoods, they are now building townhouses to replace what was a single lot just 3 years ago. The new mayor of Laval is very pro density and they will push to accelerate big projects.

There’s the difference between Canadians and Americans - Canadian will just meekly lap up the pap spewed by planners and other so-called experts on how they should live . Americans won’t.

No civilization was ever considered to be advancing by cramming it residents into smaller and smaller living spaces. Quite the contrary, that was always a sign of declining living standards.