Time for another mega-post! Sarcastic yay. I've removed every quote I agree with in order to unclutter the post.
I'm not sure how one 'proves' this; except to say, that if you brought demand down to historic norms, in light of current supply, I find it difficult to imagine sustaining current prices.
There is no question there are other contributing factors stimulating demand as opposed to immigration alone; but based on a historically normative curve, I don't see supply as the key issue.
It is is a key issue if we intend to sustain current trends on population growth though, no question there.
I see it this way as well. Running the Scotiabank data through a correlation calculator (adjusting prices to USD), the housing supply: housing price ratio is -0.3828, which is weak correlation. I didn't do price increases, nor did I adjust for cost of living.
It's probably mostly our doing anyways.
Immigration targets do not include foreign students, or TFWs.
I'd like to see a total immigration to housing price increase graph, something I don't have time for.
Are you sure? Maybe check the per ft2 numbers? I have a funny feeling that SFH sizes have not shrunk nearly as much as multi-family units in size. (but in fairness, I haven't checked that yet)
Condos are currently 42% of the price of a detached SFH, while it was 60% in 2010. I don't have time to find average sqft, so take from that what you will.
Yes, but we also need to drive up incomes; that that happens when you constrict labour supply, not bloat it.
You need fewer workers than jobs to drive productivity investment, and wage growth.
We have the opposite problem.
I'd argue that productivity is a poor metric. Here's a chart of productivity by province:
Here's one by industry:
Hardly seems like an economy I'd be looking for.
Another reason I...question...the notion that immigration alone is the cause of house prices skyrocketing is to look at a country that's fairly close to Canada, and where immigration levels
have held steady: the US. Just looking there, you'll see that over the past two years US house prices have increased by double digits annually.
I do think there's a really bad supply/demand imbalance, but I think it's being caused by multiple factors:
- Millenials are hitting their peak home-buying years, and...there's not a lot of supply around.
- People want ground-related housing, and zoning rules have made it incredibly hard to build more of it.
- Both these factors mean that anyone who wants to buy a home to live in will bid more than they would prefer, thus pushing median prices higher.
- Supply is being snapped up by investors, many of which can use a house that they currently own to finance a downpayment on a new property, thus crowding out first-time homebuyers. Since investors are optimistic they will overpay for future returns, again pushing median house prices higher.
We can't really do anything about (1). I disagree about (2) - unless you want a suburban hellscape like Houston or Dallas, you can't really build SFH for everybody. I agree that investors are probably a major source of our increases though.
That's correct, but it's unlikely that they are directly pushing up home prices. Unless the reasoning is that investors see them as a pool of renters, and are willing to pay top dollar for a house to carve up and rent out? But if that's the case, why all the empty units that are anecdotally reported? (FWIW, I think it's far more likely that home owners are building out lots of secondary suites, legal or not, and renting it out to these TFWs/foreign students; see Brampton as an example.)
TFWs and foreign students are still going to have to live somewhere. It will be owned by somebody else, but they are still using a dwelling. If you removed TFW and foreign students owning houses completely, there would still be a similar amount of demand for housing.
I don't know that checking sqft numbers matters, because what the home-buyer (not investor) cares about is the final cost of the unit, since that's what drives your down payment and monthly mortgage costs. That said, in the last quarter of 2021, the gap between detached and condo prices is the largest it's been since 2017.
View attachment 381154
What about in percentage points? It doesn't seem to be as large as you make out. The gap definitely has increased, although how much of that is due to the fact that condos are being built faster than SFH.
We consistently disagree on the primary cause of wage stagnation. I think it's because Canada over-concentrates on low-growth and/or low-productivity industries (government, construction, resource extraction as a few examples) and you believe that it's primarily caused by an over-expansion of the labor market. Maybe there is no primary cause and it's both.
I think it probably is both. If there's any lesson to be learned from previous crises, it's that the cause is never simple.
Agreed, but it's signaling, and sometimes that matters.
COVID sure hasn't stopped investors. Nor has the huge amounts of shoebox condos.
This isn't actionable as is. It's a nice goal, but the meat is through the specific measures they've suggested later. I think it should be removed.
Like you said, it's about signaling.
I understand where you're coming from, but I suspect that even this limited plan would get opposition. My take is: strike while the iron is hot. People want something to be done about housing and house prices. Let's make single-family-only zoning a relic of the past.
I'm on the fence on this one. More limited consultation will probably draw less attention, but eliminating SFH is the ultimate goal. I personally don't think there is enough support for the latter just yet, but I like pleasant surprises.
Same comment as with the as-of-right zoning. I think you'll get a lot of pushback regardless, so just go for the max.
There are different levels of pushback. One is more feasible, the other is a "better" goal. The only issue with trying to eliminate SFH zoning at once is that, if you fail, the chances of getting something else passed is much less, because you've just drawn attention to these measures.
While I agree with you in principle, I think in practice municipalities put in rules to make it hard to intensify - even when zoning permits. I'm more militant on this as a result: put in the same rules, and let the cities deal with the mess they brought on themselves.
I'm with Northern Lights on this one. What would work in Toronto probably wouldn't be well received in London, or Ottawa, or North Bay. That being said, the housing crisis is expanding - if you read the housing thread on SSP, you'll know all the banter about housing prices in the Niagara Region (Ottawa and London, off the top of my head, are also experiencing housing affordability issues).
It's not clear to me that the current rules are actually doing anything to improve materiality. If they aren't they should be removed.
I don't really care about material quality. We certainly don't really see much with the current plans. I know it's not a binary choice, but if I
had to choose, affordability beats building quality every time.
As to your supply point: not all supply is the same. My contention (from looking at the increase in the condo -> detached price gap) is that ground-related housing is in much more demand, and there's very little supply freeing up for multiple reasons. If we increase supply there and make it hard for that supply to be eaten up by investors, I hope we'll see prices moderate over time.
There we go, the proper formatting.
That's the point I wanted to make. There is no magic bullet - deconstructing this crisis will take strong leadership by politicians (truly the hardest part of the plan!), a painful crash, high interest rates, reduced immigration, and a crackdown on money laundering. At least, that's how I see it. I hope we can do this, but I have no faith in our elected "leaders" to implement policy that will solve this issue. /sigh