Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[jigglysquishy]

I don't see a need to ban SFDs, just permit medium density everywhere. If someone wants to spend an egregious amount of money for a new SFD, that's just the market.

If their next door neighbour wants to tear down the SFD and build an 8 plex, that's just the market.

[ssiguy]

^^^^ But isn't your viewpoint part of the problem?

Canada not only has a residential price crisis but also an availability one. Few of these new homes, especially in Vancouver, are ever lived in but rather just left empty for a later flip but some are certainly rented. The rented ones however offer very little stability because any flip in the house leads to evictions because unlike standard apt buildings, a change in ownership allows the new owners to toss anyone out.

This happened to my nephew who with his friends and an awful length of time trying to find a house they could rent managed to get a place for the 4 of them for $5000/month which in Vancouver is quite cheap. They moved in but only got to stay for 8 months and then the house was sold to be torn down and replaced with another SFH which according to him remains empty. None the less, they were given 2 months notice to vacate and he had to return to living with my sister for nearly a year commuting 50km every day.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Few of these new homes, especially in Vancouver, are ever lived in but rather just left empty for a later flip but some are certainly rented. The rented ones however offer very little stability because any flip in the house leads to evictions because unlike standard apt buildings, a change in ownership allows the new owners to toss anyone out.

This happened to my nephew who with his friends and an awful length of time trying to find a house they could rent managed to get a place for the 4 of them for $5000/month which in Vancouver is quite cheap. They moved in but only got to stay for 8 months and then the house was sold to be torn down and replaced with another SFH which according to him remains empty. None the less, they were given 2 months notice to vacate and he had to return to living with my sister for nearly a year commuting 50km every day.

I'm not sure what your point is here, or what solution you would propose?

Real Estate is bought and sold all the time. Sometimes there is a consequence to renting. How many months of free rent did your nephew get?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I don't see a need to ban SFDs, just permit medium density everywhere. If someone wants to spend an egregious amount of money for a new SFD, that's just the market.

If their next door neighbour wants to tear down the SFD and build an 8 plex, that's just the market.

I agree. No need to ban a certain type of construction, just relax zoning restrictions.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

The issue of affordable housing seems to have become completly decoupled from the existence of air b&b. I feel like I've missed something.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

The issue of affordable housing seems to have become completly decoupled from the existence of air b&b. I feel like I've missed something.

How so? "Landlord" (I hate that term) wants to maximize the profit on their real estate and has the time to put into managing it. Some people (ie: extended business placements, etc) are willing to pay higher $ for the flexibility that comes with Air BnB along with the more comfortable amenities (often for same price as hotel). Win win for them. Short term leased property...

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

How so? "Landlord" (I hate that term) wants to maximize the profit on their real estate and has the time to put into managing it. Some people (ie: extended business placements, etc) are willing to pay higher $ for the flexibility that comes with Air BnB along with the more comfortable amenities (often for same price as hotel). Win win for them. Short term leased property...

Air B&B has certainly proved to be a huge benefit to many. Certainly a good thing by many measures. But it seems that the discussions surrounding how we've gotten to the place where we are currently with homelessness and unafordability are now ignoring the fact that many units once available as homes are no longer available due to Air B&B. Discussions are instead focusing on issues such as economy and immigration etc. If all pertinent facts are not present in any proposed solution, might'nt the proposed solution be flawed?

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Air B&B has certainly proved to be a huge benefit to many. Certainly a good thing by many measures. But it seems that the discussions surrounding how we've gotten to the place where we are currently with homelessness and unafordability are now ignoring the fact that many units once available as homes are no longer available due to Air B&B. Discussions are instead focusing on issues such as economy and immigration etc. If all pertinent facts are not present in any proposed solution, might'nt the proposed solution be flawed?

I can't see a feasible business model for "affordable housing" that isn't government subsidized...

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Air B&B has certainly proved to be a huge benefit to many. Certainly a good thing by many measures. But it seems that the discussions surrounding how we've gotten to the place where we are currently with homelessness and unafordability are now ignoring the fact that many units once available as homes are no longer available due to Air B&B. Discussions are instead focusing on issues such as economy and immigration etc. If all pertinent facts are not present in any proposed solution, might'nt the proposed solution be flawed?

I would challenge that "many units" have transitioned from long-term to short-term rentals. For example, 150k units (I don't know the actual figure as of 2021) across Canada might sound like a large number, but it's small in terms of percentages. A lot of those units were also likely never long-term rentals. Vacation rentals have existed for a long time, they were just harder to find. And some property owners may have kept their second or third home vacant if AirBnB wasn't so easy to use.

AirBnB and long-term rentals are also completely different business models that attract different investors. AirBnB requires daily management, especially if you have multiple units, that may not attract an investor who has a full-time job. And AirBnB doesn't just host weekend getaways. I managed four properties on behalf of the owner in Saskatoon, and he found many renters who stayed for months at a time through the AirBnB app. He preferred long-term rentals because he paid fewer fees to AirBnB and didn't have to pay a cleaner $60 every two days. Instead of replacing long-term rentals, AirBnB worked as a stop gap to supplement his income between long-term tenants.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I can't see a feasible business model for "affordable housing" that isn't government subsidized...

Did he mention affordable housing?

But now that we're on the topic... I can't see a feasible business model for highways, public transit, libraries, universities, airlines,..... that aren't government subsidized.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Did he mention affordable housing?

Yes, in his original post.

But now that we're on the topic... I can't see a feasible business model for highways, public transit, libraries, universities, airlines,..... that aren't government subsidized.

And that means...?

Edit: To avoid being even more obtuse... I guess what I'm getting at is that if government wants to fix the "affordable housing" problem (which is common now across the country and beyond), they'll likely have to fork out the cash. There isn't a compelling reason for me, as a "landlord" to rent my property out for less when the cost to maintain it keeps going up.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Yes, in his original post.

And that means...?

I read that post and somehow forgot that was the topic of his post. Have any non-market units been converted to AirBnBs?

I was pointing out that many things are propped up by the government if they are deemed to provide sufficient value to the general public. E.g., roads are valuable even to people who don't drive because they are used to transport goods and services. Affordable housing provides similar benefits to people who don't live there, because it gives the homeless somewhere to live, enabling them to become productive members of society so that they contribute to the government's tax revenues instead of drawing on them.

I think the distinction between a lack of affordable housing and unaffordable market housing is important. The housing bubble (the topic of this thread) has nothing do do with the former, and the proliferation of AirBnBs would only (theoretically) impact the latter.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

I don't see a need to ban SFDs, just permit medium density everywhere. If someone wants to spend an egregious amount of money for a new SFD, that's just the market.

If their next door neighbour wants to tear down the SFD and build an 8 plex, that's just the market.

I mean this is basically Texas, with unregulated urban boundary expansion thrown in there on top. Because of the lack of urban boundary sprawl goes out massively and most houses are still SFDs, but inner city areas are intensifying in very interesting ways.

Inner City areas in Texas, particularly Houston, have seen a massive proliferation of new townhouse developments which are actually quite dense. They still require 2 parking spaces each so they are super ugly at grade as every one has double-car garages(I mean it is Texas), but if the parking regulations were dropped the built form would actually be excellent urbanity.

Imagine things like this spread throughout Toronto's neighbourhoods. Nice, family sized units that are surprisingly affordable. Note the second row of units accessed off a lane in the rear. The front units here are probably 3-4 bed homes with 1-2-bed units in the rear if I had to guess.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7555298,...93alGB__5ZDi5N-jJe68Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Or this odd block. By my count it's 28 large, 3+ bed units on a block that historically likely held maybe 8 lots.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Housto...ef365053b!8m2!3d29.7604267!4d-95.3698028

This guy fits 10 large homes on what was originally 2 lots:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7241317,-95.3796464,73a,35y,211.67h,38.07t/data=!3m1!1e3

This type of development allows for the construction of relatively affordable, *large* units which are so challenging to deliver in dense forms affordably. It's basically townhouse forms on steroids' to minimize land costs.

This one fits 33(!!) lots on what was historically 3-4 lots by the looks of it. And most of them are actually SFDs! I really like this one actually, the little private road accesses would be great spaces for kids to play in, the street presence is great with lots of soft landscaping, and the houses look to be good sizes. Swap out the double garages for single garages and maybe open up the roads by an extra metre or two, and introduce a bit more soft landscaping and perhaps an outdoor balcony on the upper levels of each unit and you would be looking at an excellent development.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7511009,-95.3880858,79a,35y,357.22h,50.13t/data=!3m1!1e3

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

Edit: To avoid being even more obtuse... I guess what I'm getting at is that if government wants to fix the "affordable housing" problem (which is common now across the country and beyond), they'll likely have to fork out the cash. There isn't a compelling reason for me, as a "landlord" to rent my property out for less when the cost to maintain it keeps going up.

There is no incentive for small-scale landlords to rent units below market. That is why the government will have to be a major below-market housing provider, and large-scale private landlords will need to be incentivized by tying development permits to designating a percentage of units as non-market.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Imagine things like this spread throughout Toronto's neighbourhoods. Nice, family sized units that are surprisingly affordable. Note the second row of units accessed off a lane in the rear. The front units here are probably 3-4 bed homes with 1-2-bed units in the rear if I had to guess.

Developments like this are also scattered throughout Vancouver. I like the density, but I hate the car-centric nature of it. It just feels wrong to walk through a parking lot to get to the nearest bus stop.

Does anyone else think it's weird that we Canadians travel to Paris, London, Amsterdam, or almost any other large Western European country, enjoy our time there, then come back to Canada and resume our search for a single family home with a large lot in the middle of nowhere? Those cities are full of five-story apartment buildings and three-story rowhouses with tenants that are diverse in ethnicity, age, occupation, and family status, yet the Canadian ritual of leaving your lively urban neighborhood for the suburbs because you had a child continues.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Developments like this are also scattered throughout Vancouver. I like the density, but I hate the car-centric nature of it. It just feels wrong to walk through a parking lot to get to the nearest bus stop.

Does anyone else think it's weird that we Canadians travel to Paris, London, Amsterdam, or almost any other large Western European country, enjoy our time there, then come back to Canada and resume our search for a single family home with a large lot in the middle of nowhere? Those cities are full of five-story apartment buildings and three-story rowhouses with tenants that are diverse in ethnicity, age, occupation, and family status, yet the Canadian ritual of leaving your lively urban neighborhood for the suburbs because you had a child continues.

Multitude of reasons for that.

The urban experience in Europe, on average is laughably superior to what we have here today.

A 2 or 3 bedroom apartment that's "child appropriate" costs as much as a suburban SFH anyway, the backyard is "free" in this case.

High rise living is not ideal for families for many reasons.

I grew up in Europe in a walk up, I loved it and had a fantastic childhood.

I don't think that works particularly well here with the exception of a couple areas, West End comes to mind.

The issue we have is that every single SFH zoned area in Vancouver should by now be various forms of 3-4 story walk ups, row homes, mixed use homes, etc.

Our rigid zoning, can't be done attitude, and NIMBYism is killing housing in this country and is by far the number one culprit in the crisis we face.

[Truenorth00]

The part I find hilariously hypocritical is how much more freedom landowners have, to build what they want, in the supposedly socialist/commie paradise. But here, in freedom loving North America, your neighbours get to decide what you can build.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vorkuta

I can't see a feasible business model for "affordable housing" that isn't government subsidized...

We have multiple examples in Vancouver

[WarrenC12]

Our family is raising a child in an urban environment, but they don't make it easy that's for sure.

My wife and I both walk to work, and that's a huge part of where we live (and work). If that were to change for some unpredictable reason, we might consider other options.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The part I find hilariously hypocritical is how much more freedom landowners have, to build what they want, in the supposedly socialist/commie paradise. But here, in freedom loving North America, your neighbours get to decide what you can build.

And then they call ME a socialist for trying to build rental housing near them