News   Jul 16, 2024
 81     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 831     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 962     1 

Baby, we got a bubble!?

When I was a renter it always seemed the nicest places were always condos. The reason I stayed in an apt was because it was cheaper but it certainly wasn't as nice.

My condo rental friends also said their landlords were usually more responsive than most apt landlords.

Agreed. Lots of the old rentals are starting to get pretty grotty. We rented in four older buildings and definitely missed having a nicer place with a updated washroom and access to a dishwasher or en-suite laundry.

Plus, the existing rental stock isn't always conveniently located. My wife and I preferred midtown, so old apartments was all we had to choose from at the time. But if you want to live downtown old apartments aren't always so hot. There are some nicer buildings in the Annex and Forest Hill but the closer you get to downtown the crappier the apartments get. You can choose an outdated, overpainted apartment rental with a 1962 washroom in a meh area or a new condo surrounded by other new condos and an increasing array of amenities, well then the choice is easy peasy for people with a bit of flex in their budget.
 
Last edited:
Radioheadmike, for the print media, profit does not come from traffic to their website nor from newspaper sales. It comes from advertising. And as far as Toronto being better than NY or London....have you ever been to NY or London? Spent time there? I'm born and raised in Toronto, and love my city, but nobody in the world thinks Toronto is better than London/NY except for a few myopic Torontonians.

Wang888, I appreciate that you took the time to find a data source for the "50% renters in Toronto" claim. But you forget the second half, which is to think about the reasonableness of that figure. Why would Canada's wealthiest and most populous city has a home ownership rate significantly lower than the rest of the country.

Here are various sources confirming that Toronto's home ownership rate is consistent with the nationwide average.

63% ownerhsip in 2003
http://www.hnc.utoronto.ca/intro/context2.htm

66% in 2004
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020912_caownership.htm

And Stats Canada data in 2008 shows Toronto renter households at 579,010 out of 1,792,960, for a rental % of 32% and ownerhsip at 68%.
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&Temporal=2006&THEME=69&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

CN Toronto, an aptitude test? Sounds good! As has been said, Democracy is the tyranny of the uneducated majority. Furthermore, I must say that those who think they know everything, really irritate those of us that actually do.
 
Wang888, I appreciate that you took the time to find a data source for the "50% renters in Toronto" claim. But you forget the second half, which is to think about the reasonableness of that figure. Why would Canada's wealthiest and most populous city has a home ownership rate significantly lower than the rest of the country.

Here are various sources confirming that Toronto's home ownership rate is consistent with the nationwide average.

63% ownerhsip in 2003
http://www.hnc.utoronto.ca/intro/context2.htm

66% in 2004
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020912_caownership.htm

And Stats Canada data in 2008 shows Toronto renter households at 579,010 out of 1,792,960, for a rental % of 32% and ownerhsip at 68%.
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-r...&Temporal=2006&THEME=69&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

CN Toronto, an aptitude test? Sounds good! As has been said, Democracy is the tyranny of the uneducated majority. Furthermore, I must say that those who think they know everything, really irritate those of us that actually do.

The GTA's home-ownerships stats are very close to the national average.

However the 416's ownership percentage is about 20 percent lower, approx 54/46 owners to renters.

Of those 580 000 rentals in the GTA, 90 percent of them are in Toronto proper.

And if you think about why Canada's most populous, dense and urban area might have more renters than the average Canadian city, it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Follow up article on yesterday's financial post "Toronto's condo boom about to bust: report"

Toronto condo market seen as overheated

The Toronto condo market appears to be overheating and could soon be flooded with excess supply, says a new report from Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research.

The report is a rare warning in a condo market that most analysts say will continue to be supported by low rental vacancy rates and strong investor demand.

The market for condominiums in Canada's biggest city could undergo a significant correction and stagnant construction over the next several years, economists Ryan Bohren and Sheryl King say in the report.

"We think investors are underestimating the wall of inventory about to come on the market in the next 12-24 months, which could dampen price appreciation and investor returns," the authors said, adding Toronto could follow the path set by a recent overbuild in Kelowna, B.C.

They say multi-unit-dwell-ing construction across the country has surged back to record peaks. Toronto in particular has seen the strongest condo boom in more than a decade, with record numbers of units under construction. They noted that anecdotal evidence suggests up to 60% of preconstruction sales in the city are to investors.

The natural household formation rate for Toronto is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000 annually and apartments historically represent about 35% of that, or 12,000, the authors say.

"With apartment completions currently running at 18,000 and 37,000 condo units currently under construction, there is about 4.8 years' worth of inventory in the pipeline," Mr. Bohren and Ms. King say. That supply about to hit the market could put downward pressure on resale prices and rents.

However,ShaunHildebrand, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.'s senior market analyst for the Greater Toronto Area, said several factors suggest the risk of a correction is overblown despite the record number of condo completions in the works for this year and next.

For instance, more than 95% of units completed are sold, he said, leaving little risk of rising unsold inventory.

High-rise construction is also picking up the slack left behind by a drop in low-rise construction (such as singles, semis and row houses), he said. "We'll be looking more toward condos to ensure we keep up with household formation."

The rental vacancy rate in Toronto was 1.6% in April, one of the lowest in the country, CMHC says. Canada as a whole was 2.5%. With purpose-built rental apartments representing less than 10% of total apartment starts, Mr. Hildebrand said condos represent the only source of new rental supply, and will likely continue to meet with strong demand.

Ben Myers, editor and executive vice-president at Urbanation Inc., a group that monitors the Toronto condo market, agreed, pointing to recent media stories of bidding wars for rental listings.

"The condo rental market is extremely hot.. There is great demand for rental units and that's why investors are purchasing," Mr. Myers said.

"That isn't to say that prices will continue along their current path," Mr. Hildebrand said. "A flatter profile for demand and strength in supply will balance out the market and lead to much slower rates of appreciation. This should lead to a moderation in investor activity at preconstruction."

Acknowledging that it might be an extreme example, Mr. Bohren and Ms. King suggest a housing boom in Kelowna, B.C., where units under construction increased more than ninefold from 2000 to 2008, could serve as a warning for Toronto.

Demand collapsed during the recession but construction continued and inventories hit record levels, the authors say, noting that home prices remain about 15% below their 2008 peak in Kelowna.

But Mr. Myers said it is difficult to compare a large city such as Toronto with a small city such as Kelowna. Kelowna's rental rate was 6.6%, for example.

"You can't always draw the same conclusions from other markets. Most of the key indicators in the [Toronto condo] market right now are positive, so there really shouldn't be any talk about corrections or bubbles or anything like that."

http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/Toronto condo market seen overheated/5571375/story.html
 
I think of Kelowna partially as a vacation destination, with lots of the condos there being used as rental condos for skiers/snowboarders, etc.
 
...the 416's ownership percentage is about 20 percent lower, approx 54/46 owners to renters.

Of those 580 000 rentals in the GTA, 90 percent of them are in Toronto proper.
.

First, link to data source please.
Second, the math of your quoted stats don't hold water.

a. The GTA has an aggregate home ownership of 68% on 1.79m residences. (source Statistics Canada)
b.You say that 90% of 580k rentals are in Toronto 416, and this results in 54% ownership. There by representing 967k residences.
c. Therefore leaving 823k residences in the non-416, with only 58k rentals, for a home ownership rate of 93%.

Doesn't that seem a little suspect? That somehow the 416 has a 54% ownership, and the non-416 has a 93% ownerhship
 
Last edited:
Latest statscan census data by federal election tract.

The stascan link you posted is for CMAs - which, geographically, includes Oshawa (69 percent) to Burlington (75 percent), from Vaughan (94 percent ownership) to Toronto Centre (32 percent). The individual results are very interesting. More people owned in Scarborough-Rouge-River than do in Burlington.

It'll be interesting to see the 2011 numbers, particuarly re: Toronto condo boom.
 
Last edited:
First, link to data source please.
Second, the math of your quoted stats don't hold water.

a. The GTA has an aggregate home ownership of 68% on 1.79m residences. (source Statistics Canada)
b.You say that 90% of 580k rentals are in Toronto 416, and this results in 54% ownership. There by representing 967k residences.
c. Therefore leaving 823k residences in the non-416, with only 58k rentals, for a home ownership rate of 93%.

Doesn't that seem a little suspect? That somehow the 416 has a 54% ownership, and the non-416 has a 93% ownerhship

Yes, now that I'm reading it, it sure does. Because approx 80 percent of the Toronto CMA rental stock is in Toronto proper. My typo, 80. I'll fix that in the post above. Slightly above 450 k out of 580 k "416" residences are rental units according to Statscan. Give or take some rounding. That might be why I confused you. I'm sorry.

The 54/46 own/rent properties ratio is sound, of course give or take some rouding. Of the 23 ridings in Toronto, only seven have ownership rates above 60.
70 +: Scarborough-Rouge River
60 +: The three Etobicokes (North/Centre/Lakeshore), two Scarboroughs (Agincourt/Centre), and Willowdale.
50 +: Beaches, Davenport, DV-West, Eg-Lawerence, Parkdale, Scarborough Southwest & Guildwood, Danforth, YS-Weston.
40 +: Parkdale-HP, Don Valley East, York-Centre, York-West, St Paul's and Trinity-Spadina
30 +: Toronto Centre

Meanwhile out in the burbs there are rates like the Vaughans, Pickerings, Haltons and Markhams at/above 90, and the Oakvilles, Whitbys, Newmarkets, most Peel ridings, and Richmond Hills of the world above 80, the Burlingtons and Brampton Wests between 70 and 80. There are only a smattering of suburban GTA ridings where ownership is in the 60s - e.g. Oshawa, Miss East, Miss South.

It's all in the 2006 Statscan data online riding by riding. I think there will be some changes, particularly Spadina, maybe Davenport come the new data in February.
 
Last edited:
Sorry 80 percent of the rental stock is in Toronto proper. Typo, 80. Approx 450 k out of 580. That might be why you were confused. I'm sorry.

Using your revised figures, the same math produces a non-416 ownership rate of 85%. It seems equally unlikely, as contrasted with a claimed 416 ownership of 54% and a national average just under 70%.

Can you provide a link to your source data?
 
Last edited:
This is pretty neat actually. So I did a relook on the math. Taking the data from each riding in the GTA it gets the same ownership rate of 68% (1226k owned of 1811k total) as the referenced CMA data stated earlier, although despite the same percentage the CMA numbers are a smidgen lower, likely due to my rounding.

On the percentage of the GTA's rentals my longhand math was off, it's not 80 it's more like 76. It works out to:

Toronto - 76% (446k/584k total GTA rentals)
Peel - 14% (80k)
York - 5% (29k)
Durham - 3% (16k)
Halton - 2% (12k)

(If you include Burlington and Oshawa which aren't technically in the census CMA then it's Toronto 73, Peel 13, Durham, 5, York 4, Halton 4)

Otherwise, the percentage owned vs rented units is pretty much the same based on the riding by riding sampling from 2006.

York - 88% (223k owned/253k total units)
Halton - 87% (114k/138k) (drops to 83 if Burlington included)
Durham - 86% (132k/163k) (drops to 81 if Oshawa included)
Peel - 79% (302k/382k)
Toronto - 54% (520k/967k)

905 total - 84% ownership (706k/843k) which, against a national average of around 70% would make it likely that the wealthy outer burbs circling the commercial engine of the country would have higher than national average ownership rates. (Not to mention that only two are below the national average home ownership rate, and one of those is excluded because it isn't technically in the CMA.) RE; the 416, the poorest areas of the GTA are overwhelmingly in the 416, which happens to be he home of some of the least affordable real estate in the GTA (and the province) so below average ownership doesn't seem out of the norm (in addition to other factors, including rental stock availability, services attract the poor, urban culture, yada yada yada) ... so 84/54 905/416 may or may not be exactly correct, but strikes me as very believable.

Again, these have some rounded numbers for the sake of math sanity and it is the 2006 census, and this is owned vs rented units, by federal electoral district. So don't bet your house on them. But for discussion purposes it's pretty interesting. Ownership:
> 90 Vaughan, Halton, Markham-Unionvl, Oak Ridges-Markham, Pickering-Scar East(*)
> 85 Durham, Ajax-Pickering, Thornhill, Brampt-Springdale
> 80 Miss.-Streetsvl, Newmkt-Aurora, Whitby-Oshawa, Richmond Hill, Miss.-Brampton South, Oakville, Brama-Gore-Malton
> 75 Scarborough-RR, Brampt West
> 70 Burlington**, Miss. South
> 65 Scar-Agincrt, Oshawa**, Willowdale, Etobicoke-Ctr
> 60 Miss East-Cooksvl, Scar-Centre, Etobicoke-Lakeshore
> 55 Etobicoke-North, Beaches-EY, Tor-Danforth, Scar SW, Davenport, Eg-Lawrence
> 50 Scar-Guildwd, DValley West, York-SWeston, York-Ctre
> 45 York-West, DValley East, Tor-Spadina
< 45 Parkdale-HP, St Paul’s
< 40 Tor-Centre

Some things to consider...as far as I can tell, approx 1/3 of the Pickering-Scaborough East riding that has > 90 ownership is in Toronto, but I haven't accounted for that in my overall Toronto numbers. That will drive Toronto ownership numbers up a bit. Also, I haven't accounted for the bit parts of Halton, Caledon, Dufferin and Simcoe whose political ridings extend beyond the borders of the GTA but are included in the Toronto CMA but not in the ridings listed above. But those will likely drive the 416 ownership numbers a tiny bit - e.g. Dufferin-Caledon (88% ownership), Wellington-Halton Hills (87%), and York-Simcoe (88%). And there's always potential for mistakes, oversight, etc. (For quite a while, I didn't have Richmond Hill included.)

Either way, neat stuff. Wanna get really interesting? Try assessing links between partisan political results and housing ownership in the GTA...but that's another thread. :)
 
Last edited:
Jeff316, could you please provide the link to the data you are using? (ths is the 3rd time I've asked).
thx
dt
 
Sure Dave, although twice I've told you exactly what it is - the same stuff you referenced: the 2006 Statscan census result, just organized riding-by-riding instead of CMA overview. Two clicks away from your overview table (first census products, then federal electoral division view.)

But I'll save you the two clicks - http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-595/p2c.cfm

I totally get skepticism about some random poster's math. I'm open to math revisions. I dont' particularly care what the result is, I find demographics interesting. Although we all fall prey to it sometimes I personally avoid making definitive statements online, it only gets me into trouble later. :) But I'm going to make one now (haha!): in general, rounding erros aside, the numbers make sense I think and that it jives with info you've posted gives me a bit more confidence in it.

If the national average is 70ish, that means some places are above and some are below. What's going to be above average? The well-off burbs where single-family homes are the predominant form of housing. And what's going to be below? The less wealthy urban areas where rental housing is much more prevalent (than in the suburbs). Outside of isolated First Nations Communities, and maybe inner Hamilton, there aren't that many places in Ontario where poverty is worse than in certain parts of Toronto (although the hollowing of rural Ontario is starting to change things.) Ownership rates are going to be lowish, particularly in places where income disparity is huge, middle-income single-family housing is limited and there is ancient rental stock, like St. Paul's (Forest Hill, Wychwood and Cedarvale; bits of Deer Park, Chaplin and Moore Park; and even parts of Humewood-Hillcrest are upper-upper crust) and Toronto-Centre (even more polarized than St. Paul's, with Rosedale, Yorkville, Summerhill, Cabbagetown (I think) and also bits of Moore Park and Deer Park) .

I can't speak to the eastern burbs but I'm from the western ones and I'll tell ya, other than some spots in Mississauga there aren't huge swaths of rental housing. Moreso isolated pockets here and there. The 90+ number in Vaughan made me skeptical but then again visiting my relatives up there, it's all homes, almost no towers and the multi-res that is being built is relatively low-rise condo.

What surprises me from these numbers, if correct, is
1) the below average rate of ownership in Oshawa (wonder how different that number was 20 years ago)
2) the 80+ in Bramalea-Gore-Malton (which I always thought off as not-so-well off although that doesn't always correlate to lack of ownership, particularly if prices are low e.g. like places in northern'rural Ontario), and
3) the just-barely above average rate in a place as wealthy as Burlington (although looking back at growing up in Burlington there are a fair amount of apartments and rental townes, at least moreso than it's other suburban neighbours, jsut never thought about it. The rumour in Burli was that if they police evicted you they came with enough one-way bus tickets for you and your family to take to Hamilton.)

That being said, I wouldn't make wang's conclusion that Toronto is rental-focused. At 50+, Toronto is still an ownership-focused market. I expect this will increase with the condo boom and the 2011 numbers will likely reflect that, particularly in Trinity-Spadina and Toronto-Centre, less so in St. Paul's although there has been some decent condo development in the last few years at Yonge and Eg and around St Clair and Bathurst.

PS - these numbers are owned units as a percentage of all units in the electoral riding. Not how many people own/vs/rent, which is slightly different and not sampled for as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top