Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[casper]

Originally Posted by Wigs

casper, thanks for clarification

This is an example of one of this old fashion share-co-ops. Similar to the the "Manhattan" structure.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24880138/103-2340-oak-bay-ave-oak-bay-north-oak-bay

Honestly it is a fairly good deal, if your willing to be in an older building. The co-op pays the property tax. So $381/month as a monthly fee covering all the building expenses including property tax. The one draw back is the national chartered banks don't understand how these work. If you want a mortgage you need to get it from a local credit union.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by casper

This is an example of one of this old fashion share-co-ops. Similar to the the "Manhattan" structure.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24880138/103-2340-oak-bay-ave-oak-bay-north-oak-bay

Honestly it is a fairly good deal, if your willing to be in an older building. The co-op pays the property tax. So $381/month as a monthly fee covering all the building expenses including property tax. The one draw back is the national chartered banks don't understand how these work. If you want a mortgage you need to get it from a local credit union.

Not bad at all! Much better than paying property taxes PLUS condo fees.
Those balconies are HUGE

And like lio says the big Banks don't care. They are part of the problem in this country with real estate.

[Coldrsx]

A good read by the CHBA of BC on permitting timelines and their impact on housing supply, affordability and overall economic cost.

https://chbabc.org/chba-bcs-benchmarking...nomic-cost-of-housing-shortfalls-in-b-c/

[niwell]

There's a fair number of Co-Ops in Toronto, ranging from defacto social housing to Upper West Side style luxury buildings. Unfortunately new ones haven't been built in years.

My realtor uncle-in-law is actually listing one that belonged to his (deceased) sister - it's in a medium sized luxury apartment complex in Rosedale full of retired wealthy downsizers. It's actually a pretty good deal for Toronto given the size of the unit and associated fees, but as mentioned above it's a hard sell due to the difficulty in financing. Been on the market over a year now I believe.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One thing I can't help but think of is this is one more thing that could be blamed on the baby boomer generation. Hear me out.

If we follow what has happened with when the Baby Boomers entered various stages in life, the country kept up with them.
Need houses, people built houses.
Need jobs, people got more jobs.
Need retirement housing and nursing care..............

They are told they can stay in their home.
My grandparents, whom were part of the "greatest generation" all sold their houses and moved to condos or into a nursing home. They have all passed by now, but they did what was a smart thing - downsize and move to where care was available. There was space.

Now, there is no space for the aging boomers and they are stuck in our hospitals or still in their houses that they cannot maintain.
We did not keep up with that generation for this stage in their lives, and it is hurting everyone.

The irony of modern good living and healthcare is that people live longer and require more healthcare.

The Greatest Generation (born 1901-1927) and Silent Generation (1928-1945) were much smaller in number proportionally to the rest of society and tended to have shorter lives than the Boomers. They smoked more and lived harder. They didn't need the long-term care that modern generations do writ large.

Nor was modern healthcare really available. A mid-1960s hospital is basically dark ages compared to a modern one.

The country could keep up with Boomers because they were bearing the cost of keeping up. Once a house is built, it provides shelter for decades/centuries, and was paid for by the people who lived in it. Now Boomers are bearing that load less, and what they demand is more continually labour-intensive. I'd wager the cost of building an old-age home/hospital is just a small fraction of the running costs, because 24-hour care needs bodies all the time.

'Blaming' people for how life and expectations changed in certain senses, but didn't in another seems petty and vindictive without accomplishing anything productive. Maybe we should look to more productive solutions, some that might include adjusting expectations to meet reality.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The irony of modern good living and healthcare is that people live longer and require more healthcare.

The Greatest Generation (born 1901-1927) and Silent Generation (1928-1945) were much smaller in number proportionally to the rest of society and tended to have shorter lives than the Boomers. They smoked more and lived harder. They didn't need the long-term care that modern generations do writ large.

Nor was modern healthcare really available. A mid-1960s hospital is basically dark ages compared to a modern one.

The country could keep up with Boomers because they were bearing the cost of keeping up. Once a house is built, it provides shelter for decades/centuries, and was paid for by the people who lived in it. Now Boomers are bearing that load less, and what they demand is more continually labour-intensive. I'd wager the cost of building an old-age home/hospital is just a small fraction of the running costs, because 24-hour care needs bodies all the time.

'Blaming' people for how life and expectations changed in certain senses, but didn't in another seems petty and vindictive without accomplishing anything productive. Maybe we should look to more productive solutions, some that might include adjusting expectations to meet reality.

I am not blaming them. I am pointing out how the problem is due to the size of that generation and what has happened due to it. For instance, tax cuts were popular when boomers were working. Those taxes could have built more retirement homes, Long Term Care homes, and hospital beds.

If anything, I want to blame the politicians who catered to them to get voted in.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not blaming them. I am pointing out how the problem is due to the size of that generation and what has happened due to it. For instance, tax cuts were popular when boomers were working. Those taxes could have built more retirement homes, Long Term Care homes, and hospital beds.

If anything, I want to blame the politicians who catered to them to get voted in.

One: Your first sentence was literally:

One thing I can't help but think of is this is one more thing that could be blamed on the baby boomer generation.

Emphasis mine.

Two: if you're blaming politicians in a democracy, you're blaming the people. Politics is but a shadowy reflection of ourselves.

Maybe we should focus on productive solutions.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thewave46

One: Your first sentence was literally:



Emphasis mine.

Two: if you're blaming politicians in a democracy, you're blaming the people. Politics is but a shadowy reflection of ourselves.

Maybe we should focus on productive solutions.

Double all taxes and direct them to housing?
Naw....

The problem is that any suggestions take decades, and we don;t have decades.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

This is an example of one of this old fashion share-co-ops. Similar to the the "Manhattan" structure.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24880138/103-2340-oak-bay-ave-oak-bay-north-oak-bay

Honestly it is a fairly good deal, if your willing to be in an older building. The co-op pays the property tax. So $381/month as a monthly fee covering all the building expenses including property tax. The one draw back is the national chartered banks don't understand how these work. If you want a mortgage you need to get it from a local credit union.

Does one still have to help out vacuuming the halls etc in a co-op?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by niwell

There's a fair number of Co-Ops in Toronto, ranging from defacto social housing to Upper West Side style luxury buildings. Unfortunately new ones haven't been built in years.

My realtor uncle-in-law is actually listing one that belonged to his (deceased) sister - it's in a medium sized luxury apartment complex in Rosedale full of retired wealthy downsizers. It's actually a pretty good deal for Toronto given the size of the unit and associated fees, but as mentioned above it's a hard sell due to the difficulty in financing. Been on the market over a year now I believe.

Please find the listing and show us

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Please find the listing and show us

I believe it's this one: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24786499/102-31-rosedale-rd-toronto-rosedale-moore-park

Objectively expensive, but considering the location and size compared to new build condos it's decent. I had thought the monthly fees were less based on what I was told, but they may include more (I know property tax is included). It says listed for 54 days but they took it off for a bit and relisted.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Does one still have to help out vacuuming the halls etc in a co-op?

That all depends on the co-op and what the board and members choses to do. Some expect each owner to contribute to the up keep others don't.

[casper]

I looked closely at buying into one of these co-ops when I moved to Victoria and came close to closing on that. Ended up finding a unit I likely more in a more conventional strata.

Should point out these these of co-ops are not the norm. These were created before modern strata laws existed. Each owner can sell their unit.

More modern co-ops you can only sell your share back to the co-op when you move out and the upfront cost is nominal. Back in the 70s the government guaranteed financing to help create many of these co-ops or provided long multi-decade land leases. The entire concept of a co-op is it self governing and managed by its shareholders who are the residents in the building.

[1overcosc]

Here's my spitball idea on something we could do about housing.

Create a mechanism whereby a senior (65+) can sell their house to their kid (or grandkid, nephew, niece, great-nephew, great-niece), in exchange for a life annuity from the kid. The amount of the annuity would be calculated according to a set formula that takes into account the value of the house and the age of the senior. The annuity income is tax-free and exempt from OAS clawbacks for the selling senior, and the buying kid gets to claim the annuity payments as a tax credit. (So favourable tax treatment on both ends).

This would be a way to encourage overhoused seniors to transfer their housing to their underhoused kids instead of struggling to remain in their homes, and via the tax credit mechanism, would be more affordable for the kids than just buying the house outright. And the annuity income provides money that the senior can use to help pay for either the purchase of a smaller home or condo for retirement, or for rent on a retirement home.

It would also create an incentive for houses to be kept in the family, instead of the homeowners selling to the market or reverse-mortgaging it to the bank, thus helping to redefine housing as a home rather than a commodity.

I came up with this idea while stoned, so maybe it's awful.

Thoughts?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Here's my spitball idea on something we could do about housing.

Create a mechanism whereby a senior (65+) can sell their house to their kid (or grandkid, nephew, niece, great-nephew, great-niece), in exchange for a life annuity from the kid. The amount of the annuity would be calculated according to a set formula that takes into account the value of the house and the age of the senior. The annuity income is tax-free and exempt from OAS clawbacks for the selling senior, and the buying kid gets to claim the annuity payments as a tax credit. (So favourable tax treatment on both ends).

This would be a way to encourage overhoused seniors to transfer their housing to their underhoused kids instead of struggling to remain in their homes, and via the tax credit mechanism, would be more affordable for the kids than just buying the house outright. And the annuity income provides money that the senior can use to help pay for either the purchase of a smaller home or condo for retirement, or for rent on a retirement home.

It would also create an incentive for houses to be kept in the family, instead of the homeowners selling to the market or reverse-mortgaging it to the bank, thus helping to redefine housing as a home rather than a commodity.

I came up with this idea while stoned, so maybe it's awful.

Thoughts?

Would work well if one of those people lived in that area, or wanted to live in that area and could.

The other thing is, the money from the sale of the house, if it is paid for, would be able to be used as income anyways.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Here's my spitball idea on something we could do about housing.

Create a mechanism whereby a senior (65+) can sell their house to their kid (or grandkid, nephew, niece, great-nephew, great-niece), in exchange for a life annuity from the kid. The amount of the annuity would be calculated according to a set formula that takes into account the value of the house and the age of the senior. The annuity income is tax-free and exempt from OAS clawbacks for the selling senior, and the buying kid gets to claim the annuity payments as a tax credit. (So favourable tax treatment on both ends).

This would be a way to encourage overhoused seniors to transfer their housing to their underhoused kids instead of struggling to remain in their homes, and via the tax credit mechanism, would be more affordable for the kids than just buying the house outright. And the annuity income provides money that the senior can use to help pay for either the purchase of a smaller home or condo for retirement, or for rent on a retirement home.

It would also create an incentive for houses to be kept in the family, instead of the homeowners selling to the market or reverse-mortgaging it to the bank, thus helping to redefine housing as a home rather than a commodity.

I came up with this idea while stoned, so maybe it's awful.

Thoughts?

Sadly there are just enough kids/relatives who would screw an elderly parent out of their annuity to make it unworkable.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by niwell

I believe it's this one: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/24786499/102-31-rosedale-rd-toronto-rosedale-moore-park

Objectively expensive, but considering the location and size compared to new build condos it's decent. I had thought the monthly fees were less based on what I was told, but they may include more (I know property tax is included). It says listed for 54 days but they took it off for a bit and relisted.

For a pricey area like Rosedale it's to be expected. The unit itself has nice parquet flooring and is bright. Balcony width a bit small and kitchen needs updating.
Thanks for sharing

Maintenance Fees
$1,450 Monthly
Maintenance Management Company
Royale Grande Property Management Ltd.

$17,400/yr
just wtf is Royale Grande doing to this place? pilfering the funds?

[lio45]

Likely includes property tax and unlimited heating/electricity.

[lio45]

Was shopping for a Montreal place to live last year and there was this interesting downtown 3br 1920s condo at about half price ($200k) because it was in a ~30 unit indivise condo building and it was rented; therefore the tenant was un-evictable. The monthly rent was almost exactly the cost of modern property taxes and condo fees (the guy must have been there a while).

Market value of that property totally hinges on the health and age of the tenant!

If you can manage to put something in his tea, instant value creation

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Was shopping for a Montreal place to live last year and there was this interesting downtown 3br 1920s condo at about half price ($200k) because it was in a ~30 unit indivise condo building and it was rented; therefore the tenant was un-evictable. The monthly rent was almost exactly the cost of modern property taxes and condo fees (the guy must have been there a while).

Market value of that property totally hinges on the health and age of the tenant!

If you can manage to put something in his tea, instant value creation

Does Quebec allow property owners to evict tenants if the property owner intends to move into the property him/her self and use it as their primary residence?