Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by casper

True, but it won't have a nearby LCBO franchise store.

As, I said, I would not buy there. Spend a weekend? Maybe. If I was already in the area.

It will have a nearby SAQ store, plus beer at the dépanneur.

Better.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Well this comes down to personal preference I guess but for me living in the boonies/super small town(which will comprise of 90% of your day to day living) with a 4 hour drive from family would be worse than living in a larger city(say 100K+) with decent affordability and options and even a 4+ hour flight to see family.

And my point is I don't think the latter really exists in Ontario if you have family in the GTA. I guess Sudbury or Windsor maybe?

Ummm plenty of 100k+ places within 4 hr drive of the GTA.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by casper

True, but it won't have a nearby LCBO franchise store.

As, I said, I would not buy there. Spend a weekend? Maybe. If I was already in the area.

Try Halfway Lake Provincial Park up the road after stopping at the LCBO in Cartier.

There's a nice beach, decent hiking trails, good sized and private camping lots.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ummm plenty of 100k+ places within 4 hr drive of the GTA.

Top of my head list:

London
Kitchener-Waterloo
Saint Catherines
Guelph
Cambridge
London
Chatham-Kent
Windsor
Kingston
Barrie
Sudbury
Newmarket

[Coldrsx]

As someone who is selling a condo (714sqft - 1bdrm, fully renovated, 2005 building), it has been interesting to watch the market in Downtown Edmonton.

There are almost no sales in the last 30 days and those that have sold are lowering prices by 20-50k and are in the $250-350sqft for concrete high-rise... it's insane how deflated it is and while a variety of things are impacting it, disheartening as a seller given how affordable things are.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by theman23

Man, this is fucking stupid. No one wants to WFH from a fucking swamp in Northern Ontario.

Swamps? Not really, lots of rocks and lakes though....

Originally Posted by casper

Well, you do know it is a fantastic deal. If you want swamp land in Florida or desert in Arizona it will you $5,000 US for a plot of land. Ontario swamp land sells at a 30% discount. No alligators to evict.

Realistically we are talking about a place that is going to declare success if they attract 4-5 families to locate there. This is not going to solve the housing problem in Canada.

What is more interesting is the trend of people moving into these smaller towns. It is starting to cause a reversal from slow decline into very slow growth. Even then your talking about a round off error for the population of Ontario.

Would I move there? No. Would most of Toronto? No.

I think it is fantastic that Smooth Rock Falls (and the towns like it are) stabilizing and starting to grow slightly. That is critical for their long term viability. That said, the number are not material to a place like Toronto.

Why is it that the "we cant afford a house" seems to mainly come from those who live near the big cities like Toronto and Vancouver? Two incomes are not enough for a house in those areas. Realistically speaking, rural areas, like Smooth Rock Falls You could earn the Canadian average wage and be able to afford a house on One Income. What this really means is that those that can move and complain shouldn't. Hence why my idea is targeting those that can work from home anywhere they want.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's pretty funny. Folks like him hate city dwellers. And then swear up and down that city folks will and should leave the city to move to the middle of nowhere.

He reminds me of friends and family who buy big houses far out and then are always begging people to come and stay for the weekend. Turns out no amount of land and structure is worth being away from social contact. The novelty of isolation always wears off.

End of the day people vote with their dollars and feet and there's a direct correlation between distance from urban cores and residence. That's why a square foot in downtown Toronto costs 2-3x that of a square foot in Barrie.

Will add that this is why GO RER is a big deal. Cut the travel time of going from Barrie to downtown Toronto and Barrie becomes substantially more attractive. GO RER will substantially flatten the gradient of the real estate values across the GTA. There's no need to move to Cartier or Smooth Rock Falls.

I don't hate city dwellers.
I don't hate cities.
I just have learned that I get a much better quality of life not living in the largest cities. According to my taxes, I do live in a city....

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's always somebody. By that I mean literally one person. In this case, it's Swimmer.

But if you ask most people where they would WFH, if they had a choice of anywhere, chances are it's a place that's warmer and livelier. Not many folks looking to WFH in a place where you don't even have to scroll to see all the Uber Eats options in town.

Which is why the Lower Mainland is so popular. The weather is warmer and there are lots of things to do. If that is the case, when they whine about the cost of a house, we should respond the same way we do when someone who is single living in a city whines about gas prices while driving a Hiummer. Your problem is due to your choices.

Originally Posted by niwell

Elliott Lake, ON has been trying to market itself as a cheap retirement location for years now with the closure of uranium mining in the area. And to be fair has had some success - even growing by about 600 people between 2016 and 2022 (still well below it's peak). However, the main selling points of cheap housing and access to outdoor recreation has limited appeal beyond those who already want to be in the North, often from somewhere more remote. The difficulty in travel is a big one, and would result in an immediate veto for people such as my parents who don't want to have to drive, take a regional flight and then an international one to get anywhere.

And Elliot Lake at least has over 10,000 people with the local services that come along with that. Cartier isn't even incorporated and the Local Services Board doesn't have the capacity to provide treated water or garbage collection!

I've met people who own cottages on the shore of Lake Superior North of the Soo, who have mentioned that in some cases they can be at their kids place in Toronto in less time than it can sometimes take to drive to Muskoka for Torontonians. This is technically true. But if going back and forth between the two you are reliant on air schedules (and ever increasing prices), need to figure out long term parking for your car and have less flexibility to leave on the drop of a dime if something goes wrong. My wife and I purchased a house that we intend to use part time 2 hrs hours east of Toronto at a small fraction of what it would cost to buy here. It can be an annoying drive but if I need to be there ASAP it's not that hard, plus it's only 30 minutes from downtown Kingston.

Just like Smooth Rock Falls, Elliot Lake is a prime example of you can move somewhere and get a cheap house that would be a great option for people that work from home.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by lio45

If you’re in Barrie and drive an hour, you’re in Toronto;
if you’re in Cartier and drive an hour, you’re in Sudbury.

I think it’s pretty clear which one is remote and which one is not.

Barrie literally has GO train to downtown Toronto (which you can then connect to many posts of the GTA/surrounding regions). A car isn't even necessary.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Point is, you said it would not work, yet they were able to sell them. If you do the math, they still are buying them up, and they are moving there: "Since October 2017, 24 new families have moved to Smooth Rock Falls and one family has returned."

Losing 130 is bad, however, if the goal is population growth vs empty homes/properties, I would like to see what the vacancy rate is, and if it is stabilizing/lowering, I would say it was a success.

Less than 5 families a year is sad. Even with $500 lots, there's no amenities to make anyone want to stay. They need to attract jobs for people to come.

[lio45]

“$500 lots” is still $500 too much.

Would you eat free dog food, or you’d rather pay for human food?

Empty lots in low-value areas aren’t worth anything; the only way to make financial sense by choosing Cartier or Smooth Rock Falls is by buying an already-existing structure, at a fraction of what it would actually cost to build nowadays.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Paraphrased quote from a thirty-something co-worker that grew up in Elliot Lake.

"Man, I could outright own my house in Elliot Lake"
*thinks a minute*
"I'd probably be stoned out of my mind like when I was as a teenager in that town if I stayed there though"

I laughed more than I really should have.

I have a friend who lives on the South Shore of Montreal. He can be downtown within 20 minutes.

He does exactly what you describe, except he is in a bar and is always broke. He moved away because of it, and told me that he wouldn't do it when he returned. So, it does not matter where someone lives. What matters is that the things they enjoy are there.

Originally Posted by jonny24

I think it's pretty obvious why one of the two stores in Cartier is the LCBO...

Of all the arguing about "remote" "wfh" "outdoor lifestyle" (as if we don't have ATV's and snowmobiles in Southern Ontario ) the one thing that can't be addressed is moving away from friends and family.

You have never served in the military, have you? I have made friends in Halifax and Victoria.

I do get the family part though. However, what about all those kids that moved away to get a better job? If they can do that better job, but live back home with their family and friends, why wouldn't they? What about those that want to get away from that kind of stuff? Northern ON would be good for that too. "Naw, sorry I can't visit, it's too far to drive."

Originally Posted by casper

All depends on what your looking for. I would not retire to Elliot Lake but for some people it is ideal. There are other less remote places that are actually quite nice.

For several years I lived in Deep River Ontario. It is a neat little town with most major amenities and an active community. Even Pembroke is still affordable and quite a bit bigger.

The critical factor is family and friends. All things being equal and employment not being a factor most people are going to want to live near family and/or friends.

Back in the 80s, average class size I was in was around 30. Less than 10 of them from any of my classes are still in my hometown, even though their family is. Some would never want to return, but others, if they could, they would be back today. Most of those people aren't moving back because of their job. You tell them they can make the same, but live where they want, they are back home.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not the forum. It's basically one person.

Everyone wants people to think outside the box until they do.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

First off - I'll say that I'm with the chorus here in saying that growth in places like Cartier isn't a realistic solution for our housing woes.

But you have a point here. This is an urbanist forum so people here generally have urban interests and outdoor activities like fishing, hunting, camping, snowmobiling, etc. are rarer things they might do a few times a year. But for some folks its the opposite - these outdoor wilderness activities are their preferred hobbies and urban activities are their once or twice a year thing. For these people, living in very rural areas and taking the occasional once or twice yearly vacation to a big city is more satisfying. My buddy in Ompah is like that. He's rather have easy access to the wilderness and go to Toronto one weekend a summer to get his fix of cultural activites, nightlife, etc.

But of course, from Ompah he can get to Toronto in a 4 hour drive. Can't do that from Cartier. That's the real reason why places like Cartier aren't gonna boom - plenty of much less remote spots that offer the same lifestyle.

You are right... it takes 4 hours and 45 minutes.

Oh, and if you are visiting for the weekend, you are traveling opposite of the traffic that is stop and go south of Midland area.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Cartier,+...!2m2!1d-79.3831843!2d43.653226!3e0?hl=en

Originally Posted by thewave46

This is reasonable.

The beautiful thing about Ontario is that somewhere on the spectrum of Downtown Toronto to Pickle Lake exists and one can choose whatever they want.

I just make the observation that millions of people with free will choose accordingly to their desires. And that they choose Cartier less often.

If you could live anywhere and have a lower cost of housing, would you still live where you do? For some people, they are never leaving, where as others are gone as fast as they can.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

^ This goes back to what was said about staying close to family and friends. 4 hrs drive > 3 hrs flying for most people.

When we talk about strange obsessions, we should also consider that there is a limit on the personal cost to own real estate for most people. I would wager that most people care more about being closer to family and friends than getting a house for 250k within 20 mins drive of an NHL team.

Flight from Sudbury to Toronto is about an hour. Drive from Cartier to Sudbury Airport is about an hour. Driving is 4.75 hours.

Just admit that it isn't for you, but it may be for others, and could be part of the solution to the housing crisis.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which is why the Lower Mainland is so popular. The weather is warmer and there are lots of things to do. If that is the case, when they whine about the cost of a house, we should respond the same way we do when someone who is single living in a city whines about gas prices while driving a Hiummer. Your problem is due to your choices.

Partly yes. Partly no. People who insist that they are entitled to a cheap detached house in a major urban centre deserve that response. But in most cases, poor housing affordability is not their fault. It's the result of terrible policy driving up prices.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Top of my head list:

London
Kitchener-Waterloo
Saint Catherines
Guelph
Cambridge
London
Chatham-Kent
Windsor
Kingston
Barrie
Sudbury
Newmarket

If you are willing to drive 1 more hour..... Ottawa......

[lio45]

Your “serving in the military” part made me think personnel could be operating drones in a WFH setting from Cartier, as long as they aren’t hitting the LCBO right before

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by lio45

Your “serving in the military” part made me think personnel could be operating drones in a WFH setting from Cartier, as long as they aren’t hitting the LCBO right before

If you think Cold Lake is bad for retention....

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Less than 5 families a year is sad. Even with $500 lots, there's no amenities to make anyone want to stay. They need to attract jobs for people to come.

The jobs went away with the pulp mill closing. Just like a bunch of other northern towns. It's part of why it's so cheap to live there. The town exists on remnants of services - the hospital, OPP station, and few businesses that serve the town. It's why the median age is 58 and >35% of the town is over the age of 65. Not exactly prime labour pool for companies looking to set up.

I'd just be worried that my sweet WFH gig ends when they discover someone in India can do what I do much more cheaply.

Then I'm with no job in a place I can't unload a house.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Flight from Sudbury to Toronto is about an hour. Drive from Cartier to Sudbury Airport is about an hour. Driving is 4.75 hours.

Just admit that it isn't for you, but it may be for others, and could be part of the solution to the housing crisis.

Sudbury isn't for me. But apparently it isn't for most people either. Which is why nobody thinks it's relevant to solving the housing crisis but you.

Most people don't want to live at a distance which requires flying to see relatives. And it's even worse if you stay in a small town where the air services are uncompetitive and charge a ton. Let alone living an hour from such an uncompetitive aviation market.

This is particularly problematic for all those WFH people. Their jobs will usually involve flying places periodically. It's never 100% WFH. And adding 1 hr drive to 1 hr flight to transit time at an airport is quite the extra burden. Not to mention the cost. This is why companies even occasionally caveat where they hire remote workers. They don't want to get gouged by Air Canada to help you live in Cartier. Especially when there's plenty of people they can hire in a 3 hr drive of Pearson or Dorval who will need no connection.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

I'd just be worried that my sweet WFH gig ends when they discover someone in India can do what I do much more cheaply.

This is exactly what I really caution people who push for 100% WFH. Be careful what you wish for.

[Acajack]

More often than not, economic (re)development imperatives for struggling post-resource communities in remote northern parts of our provinces AND the national housing crisis, are going to be mutually exclusive endeavours.

In spite of what some people may want to think, it's not really a match just waiting to happen.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lio45

Your “serving in the military” part made me think personnel could be operating drones in a WFH setting from Cartier, as long as they aren’t hitting the LCBO right before

Obviously some jobs cannot be done at home... but actually, drones could be operated from anywhere with a satellite link....

Originally Posted by thewave46

The jobs went away with the pulp mill closing. Just like a bunch of other northern towns. It's part of why it's so cheap to live there. The town exists on remnants of services - the hospital, OPP station, and few businesses that serve the town. It's why the median age is 58 and >35% of the town is over the age of 65. Not exactly prime labour pool for companies looking to set up.

I'd just be worried that my sweet WFH gig ends when they discover someone in India can do what I do much more cheaply.

Then I'm with no job in a place I can't unload a house.

That is a concern. But hey, they did it with manufacturing and everyone was happy with it, why not the WFH jobs too?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sudbury isn't for me. But apparently it isn't for most people either. Which is why nobody thinks it's relevant to solving the housing crisis but you.

160,000+ people do, so, maybe that should not be ignored and brushed off so easily.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is particularly problematic for all those WFH people. Their jobs will usually involve flying places periodically. It's never 100% WFH. And adding 1 hr drive to 1 hr flight to transit time at an airport is quite the extra burden. Not to mention the cost. This is why companies even occasionally caveat where they hire remote workers. They don't want to get gouged by Air Canada to help you live in Cartier. Especially when there's plenty of people they can hire in a 3 hr drive of Pearson or Dorval who will need no connection.

That is a fair point. However, for some people, they never need to go to an office. Those are the ones that this really would be a good fit for,

It is almost like you cannot imagine anyone doing something you don't like.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Partly yes. Partly no. People who insist that they are entitled to a cheap detached house in a major urban centre deserve that response. But in most cases, poor housing affordability is not their fault. It's the result of terrible policy driving up prices.

So, in the GTA or Lower Mainland, what policy exists there that is causing this crisis?