Baby, we got a bubble!?

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

All depends on how you build your career. There's a lot more to Canada than the GTA. In 2004 I moved to Fredericton, NB for a new job, and bought a four bedroom house downtown for $192K, and sold it when I moved back to Toronto in 2008 for $210K. Sure, you've got to find work, but we're not all destined to be cubical dwellers staring at LCDs all day. Friends of mine in Fredericton were forestry workers, university profs, teachers, etc., yes a lot of government jobs that come with a small provincial capital.

Friend of mine works ops at a factory NW of KW. Another friend is a ferrier, the guy who puts horseshoes on horses at the farms and riding places you see in the country. They both thinks I'm nuts to live downtown TO when you can buy houses like this...

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Single-Family/17838133/46-CENTRE-Street-Woolwich-Ontario-N3B2V4
https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Single-Family/17805237/29-PACIFIC-AVE-Milverton-Ontario-N0M1M0

If I was a young man today starting my career, there's zero chance I'd be sticking around the GTA, especially if my career path was not in I.T. law or finance.

My niece works in Brampton. Her husband runs a graphics business from home. They live in Waterdown, in a town they bought three years ago. They make it work on about $110,000 total. They have two cars. They got no help from parents. They have not taken more trips than an all inclusive honeymoon trip to the Caribbean in four years. Their wedding was modest. They saved and recently bought a semidetached in Oakville which will be completed next year.

That's how it works -- or at least did historically.

As for SkyGod's points about lower income families, absolutely. I agree. So, what's the solution? Legislating developers to build housing for lower income families, or including it in fancier high rises? Didn't Adam Vaughan try something like that a few years ago? Rent controls? Building cheap housing developments, with 1000 sf houses, which will not be on pricey GTA land? Supporting the NDP because, sure as you know what, the Tories and the Libs won't do anything?

 

[Admiral Beez]

And then you've got the family making $70k in Toronto. Where do they live? That's the median family income. That means half the families are making LESS than that. So if the two working professionals making big bucks are forced to move into a fixer-upper in Whitby...what does that mean for the rest of society?

The rest of society will have to rent from those who have property.

My friend is a pediatrician in southern Germany, makes good money, and says nearly no one in Germany owns their house, instead everyone rents. He says he has no hope of owning a house in Germany.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As for SkyGod's points about lower income families, absolutely. I agree. So, what's the solution? Legislating developers to build housing for lower income families, or including it in fancier high rises? Didn't Adam Vaughan try something like that a few years ago? Rent controls? Building cheap housing developments, with 1000 sf houses, which will not be on pricey GTA land? Supporting the NDP because, sure as you know what, the Tories and the Libs won't do anything?

I'm a big fan of the farm land around the GTA, but.....

1) Scrap the greenbelt. You can't keep increasing the population while decreasing the available land without rising demand over supply and impacting pricing.
2) Require densification of all new home construction. Not highrise towers everywhere, but no fewer single family detached. People will rebel, but they'll get used to shopping what's available.

More of this...

Less of this...

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Absototalutely. It's an argument I have been making for years in the Family-Sized Condo thread.

But I would keep the greenbelt.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Absototalutely. It's an argument I have been making for years in the Family-Sized Condo thread.

But I would keep the greenbelt.

So, without expropriating developed land covered with SFHs, where do we build the high density housing? And imagine giving fair market value to the tens of thousands of homeowners whose housing has been seized? It would cost a hundred billion or more. Just 10,000 homes at $800K a piece would cost the province $8 billion.

The area before the greenbelt is either entirely developed or slated for SFH (single family home) development.

If we wait 50 years or so it will likely redevelop itself.

 

[TheKingEast]

There is plenty of data.

We know how much people living in the GTA make. We know how much real estate costs. We know how much rent costs.

Basically any property bought today and rented out will be significantly cash flow negative. One way of valuing assets, particularly real estate, is by discounting cash flows. The current price of real estate in relation to rent is not sustainable.

There are clear limits on income requirements to buy properties in Canada. Given incomes in Toronto, only a small sliver of folks can afford ANY housing in Toronto and the suburbs, let alone something suitable for their family. Rent prices are increasingly becoming out of reach as well. If end users can't afford to buy, it limits price increases. If end users can't afford to rent, it limits price increases.

I believe there are several issues that have caused housing to spiral out of control:
-Excessive immigration into Toronto
-Lack of supply due to legislation, slow approval processes, NIMBYism, etc.
-Tax burden shifting to new home owners via development fees rather than property taxes
-Fraudulent mortgage applications
-Folks who earn income outside of Canada but buy real estate here and have their family live here (skews income statistics)
-Speculative frenzy
-Real estate brokers controlling information flow and creating false demand
-Real estate as a money laundering tool
-Real estate as a store of value for foreigners
-Record low interest rates
-Generational wealth transfer

I want actual numbers. So, if you're going to tell me foreigners are buying up everything, I want actual numbers. All I see is a bunch of confirmation bias. Also, generational wealth transfer was never a problem previously. Why now?

So yea, while I don't disagree with the above, I'd like to see some actual numbers so proper solutions can be put in place.

 

[PinkLucy]

What's a starter home in the GTA nowadays? 700 square foot condo for $600k? Detached in the burbs for a million?

My kid got a 900 sq ft condo for $450,000 a year ago. Granted, it would sell for well over $500,000 now. Older building, Richmond near Sherbourne, great layout, way better than the new "no kitchen" smaller units in City Place & Liberty Village, etc. Walkable/bikeable to the downtown job.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

So, without expropriating developed land covered with SFHs, where do we build the high density housing? And imagine giving fair market value to the tens of thousands of homeowners whose housing has been seized? It would cost a hundred billion or more. Just 10,000 homes at $800K a piece would cost the province $8 billion.

The area before the greenbelt is either entirely developed or slated for SFH (single family home) development.

If we wait 50 years or so it will likely redevelop itself.[/QUOTE

First of all, this is development without thought, IMO. I am no developer, and I am no planner. But I fail to see why we can't unslate those areas.

Lots of missed opportunities happened when all those glass boxes were going up everywhere. Very shortsighted.
As for room to grow I think (and I am only familiar with certain parts of Toronto, mainly in the east end), there are pockets along Eglinton east of Don Mills, along O'Connor north of St. Clair, Kingston Road (last I looked), Victoria Park, that entire pocket between Thorncliffe and Eglinton, another desolate mainly industrial area in the Pharmacy- Birchmount area...

I think Toronto's historical obsession with SFH is what led us to where we are now. I don't blame foreign investors as much as I do this idea that people are entitled to a house with a pool-sized yard. Had Toronto adopted the idea of low and midrise rental housing after WW2, and built more rental highrises in the core, we would not be where we are today. That's what I was saying thee or four years ago on this forum and yet nothing has changed. In fact, if you review the thread, you can see how I was shot down -- a lot.

That said, Thorncliffe Park, Flemingdon Park and Jamestown were errors. All of the building along Don Mills were errors. There are high rises along Eglinton East which scare me. They are towers in urban deserts, built. The Cosburn strip works because it is walkable, as are those half dozen or so high-rises on Broadview south of Pottery Rd.

So, when you tell me that the greenbelt is slated for SFH, I have to wonder who is at the drawing board.

And yes, I realize you can't undo the past.

 

[TheKingEast]

Toronto's obsession with the SFH and the car has hurt this city "bigly" as President Trump would say. Many decision makers have a very suburban mentality. It's the reason why we have such a joke of a transit system. Too many short-sighted people making decisions. On top of that, New Yorkers have no issue with living in condos. Why can't Torontonians? I think one factor that is driving people to houses is a) Newer condos are built like crap b) they are tiny. Remember Vaughan forcing developers to build 3 bed units? A lot of these newer condos are not liveable and not built for families. If condos were built for everyone, including families, not just investors or single people, there wouldn't be such a rush for houses.

Bigger, better built condos aren't going to stop the bubble, but it sure as hell would create a decent alternative to SFH. I actually like the fact that I don't have to shovel snow, fix the roof or mow the lawn.

I won't even touch on maintenance fees too which are another barrier.

But ask anyone in a newer condo if they would stay there 10 years. I doubt most would. Think you'd get a different answer if you asked those who live in larger units in older buildings.

Have a friend in a 30 year old condo downtown. Doesn't look like much from the outside. Not something the impressionable youngsters would look at. No floor to ceiling windows. The place is built like a bunker. Place is 1500 sqft. I heard nothing. Nothing outside, nothing in the halls (big problem in newer buildings). If these kinds of units were more accessible, no question, there would be a good size group of people that would pick them over houses. I would.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

Toronto's obsession with the SFH and the car has hurt this city "bigly" as President Trump would say. Many decision makers have a very suburban mentality. It's the reason why we have such a joke of a transit system. Too many short-sighted people making decisions. On top of that, New Yorkers have no issue with living in condos. Why can't Torontonians? I think one factor that is driving people to houses is a) Newer condos are built like crap b) they are tiny. Remember Vaughan forcing developers to build 3 bed units? A lot of these newer condos are not liveable and not built for families. If condos were built for everyone, including families, not just investors or single people, there wouldn't be such a rush for houses.

Bigger, better built condos aren't going to stop the bubble, but it sure as hell would create a decent alternative to SFH. I actually like the fact that I don't have to shovel snow, fix the roof or mow the lawn.

I won't even touch on maintenance fees too which are another barrier.

But ask anyone in a newer condo if they would stay there 10 years. I doubt most would. Think you'd get a different answer if you asked those who live in larger units in older buildings.

Have a friend in a 30 year old condo downtown. Doesn't look like much from the outside. Not something the impressionable youngsters would look at. No floor to ceiling windows. The place is built like a bunker. Place is 1500 sqft. I heard nothing. Nothing outside, nothing in the halls (big problem in newer buildings). If these kinds of units were more accessible, no question, there would be a good size group of people that would pick them over houses. I would.

I like to joke that our building looks like Soviet block housing from outside but prices have gone up 25% in the past year and my guess will climb even higher this year. I heard there was yet another bidding war over the weekend for one of our large "rarely available three-bedroom suites."

Our maintenance fees may seem daunting ( we are 40 years old) until you consider what they include. We figured they were about $100 more per month than what our regular maintenance costs of our house were, not counting major work such as roof replacement or driveway repaving. I don't know what the difference would be now -- but whatever it is, it sure beats shoveling, raking, hauling out the blue and grey bins, dealing with the raccoons, finding decent contractors to do work etc.

But, as for crappy new condos being built like crap which is driving people to SFH, I think those SFH were top of the most-wanted lists way before all those condos started going up in the early 2000s.

 

[SkyGod]

Toronto's obsession with the SFH and the car has hurt this city "bigly" as President Trump would say. Many decision makers have a very suburban mentality. It's the reason why we have such a joke of a transit system. Too many short-sighted people making decisions. On top of that, New Yorkers have no issue with living in condos. Why can't Torontonians? I think one factor that is driving people to houses is a) Newer condos are built like crap b) they are tiny. Remember Vaughan forcing developers to build 3 bed units? A lot of these newer condos are not liveable and not built for families. If condos were built for everyone, including families, not just investors or single people, there wouldn't be such a rush for houses.

Bigger, better built condos aren't going to stop the bubble, but it sure as hell would create a decent alternative to SFH. I actually like the fact that I don't have to shovel snow, fix the roof or mow the lawn.

I won't even touch on maintenance fees too which are another barrier.

But ask anyone in a newer condo if they would stay there 10 years. I doubt most would. Think you'd get a different answer if you asked those who live in larger units in older buildings.

Have a friend in a 30 year old condo downtown. Doesn't look like much from the outside. Not something the impressionable youngsters would look at. No floor to ceiling windows. The place is built like a bunker. Place is 1500 sqft. I heard nothing. Nothing outside, nothing in the halls (big problem in newer buildings). If these kinds of units were more accessible, no question, there would be a good size group of people that would pick them over houses. I would.

If new condos are pushing towards $1,000/sqf, how is building 1,500sqf condos helping anybody? The reason the condos are getting smaller is because they would be too expensive to afford otherwise.

You are right that most new condos aren't suitable for families. Heck, many aren't suitable for individuals (300 sqf?!?!). But if they make them bigger, they won't be affordable.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Have a friend in a 30 year old condo downtown. Doesn't look like much from the outside. Not something the impressionable youngsters would look at. No floor to ceiling windows. The place is built like a bunker. Place is 1500 sqft. I heard nothing. Nothing outside, nothing in the halls (big problem in newer buildings).

I used to be in the construction products biz and would visit condo construction sites during the framing process, where they install the metal track for sliding in the drywall. I was amazed that the only thing separating the condo unit from the hallway was two 5/8" thick sheets of drywall (min spec for fire resistance), with nothing but utility conduits or piping in between, see pic below. If one wants to break into a condo today, forget about trying to force the unit's door, just bring a hammer or drywall saw and cut yourself a new door.

 

[PinkLucy]

My 6 year old condo is quieter in terms of "neighbour noise" than my 20 year old condo was.

 

[Admiral Beez]

On top of that, New Yorkers have no issue with living in condos. Why can't Torontonians?

New York is a lot more than Manhattan. Go to Brooklyn, Queens or Staten Island and you'll find lots of single family row, semi and detached homes.

As an owner of a single family home in downtown east, I can definitely see the appeal of my arrangement over a condo. On a summer's day you'll find me on the front porch with my glass of wine talking with the neighbours, or in the backyard gardening or tinkering with my motorcycle in the shed. I love the walk-ability of my neighbourhood, within 2 mins of walking out my front door I'm chatting with my neighbours, and have walked to the pub or the shops. I've never lived in a condo, but when I visit my friend's place at Yonge and Eglinton on the 37th floor, I don't get the same positive feelings I've described.

My feeling is that people settle for a condo because that's all they can afford, vs. what they really want. So, if we want people to desire condo living, perhaps there are missing appeals that could be added? Perhaps better transit, retail, parks? I could likely be happy in a low rise condo in Corktown Common, for example due to the nice parks.

 

[PinkLucy]

I chat from my balcony with my neighbour on his balcony. I grow herbs and flowers on my balcony garden. I can easily walk to restaurants, shops, coffee shops, etc. and chat with neighbours along the way. I chat with my neighbours at the pool and in the gym and at our social events. We have kids parties and movie nights. I pet dogs in the elevator and at the park. My neighbour picks up my mail when I'm away, and I move her car on garage cleaning days when she's at work. Neighbourhoods can happen anywhere.