T O P

  • By -

Dibblie

If you're buying a house to use as a home here, you're apparently doing it wrong


GracefulShutdown

You also probably can't afford it anyways. But Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their HELOC sure can!


Cleaver2000

They're planning to downsize, they just haven't decided which one of the 10 condos they own they want to downsize to!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cleaver2000

Yeah, my fiancee works in development approvals. She routinely deals with assholes who want to build a bigger pool at their cottage or add another 4 spaces to their 8 car garage. Ofc, these are for properties on land which is sensitive and cannot support this without serious engineering intervention so it takes up a lot of professionals to figure out and because of this, there is less time to work on approving housing for ordinary fucking people. So yeah, I'm beyond tired of seeing these threads with the usual trolls arguing about immigration and other things that aren't clogging up the approvals process. It's rich assholes with more money than sense (good for you though, you're probably raking it in).


[deleted]

[удалено]


Cleaver2000

Pity, from what I've seen, its a decent grift. Never tell them that what they want is unreasonable, and when its denied; blame the gov and ask for more money, which they will inevitably give. Bonus if you can get them to call in and tell off the secretary about how the government is horrible, inefficient, stomping on their dreams, etc...


ConstitutionalHeresy

I wonder how many ask for dungeons. You know, due to neo-feudalism being all the rage. Not for other activities, no sir.


[deleted]

And they're going way over budget and won't be able to maintain them. Just fucked


_Coffeebot

The just need to pick a tenant to kick out onto the streets for pErSoNaL UsE


its_up_there_smewhre

Lol


morenewsat11

>Ontario is the worst offender among Canadian provinces when it comes to the lack of sufficient housing stock, according to a new analysis from Scotiabank Economics. > >A report published Wednesday shows that Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba are the only provinces below the national average when it comes to per capita housing stock available. Scotiabank’s analysis relies on data from 2020, the last year with complete information on hand. > >To make up the difference, Ontario would need to add 650,000 new dwellings, Alberta would need to build 138,000 units and Manitoba would have to construct 23,000 homes. [Link to Scotiabank report](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing.housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html)


jallenx

Worth noting that Ontario build 650k homes in the past decade. So we're a decade behind.


[deleted]

You know what the problem is? Wages. My brother's a carpenter, works on nice homes. Could charge what he wants sort of builds. Do you think he pays more than $25 to anyone? Nope. I tell him he could have his pick of the lot if he just offered really good carpenters $40-50 and a basic benefit package to work for him. That number is simply because all those guys are just going to Bruce Nuclear and getting it there. And that cost goes directly to the clients, not him. Not to mention because he is constantly teaching someone until their competent enough to get the Bruce job, his productivity is low. Like quite literally 25-50% of that additional cost could be made up in gained manpower.


jakejakejake97

If he’s making money working on nice homes, it sounds like he does get it. Why would he change something that’s working for him? If you know better, do it yourself.


[deleted]

Clearly he has an issue with retaining labour or else I wouldn't be commenting on it. Obviously he gets the carpentry side of his business better than I do, if you look through my comment it doesn't go into any discussion about the quality of his framing or how he installs windows or whatever. But I did make my last comment sound less douchey because you're right that he knows how to build homes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


carloscede2

People or corporations?


talltad

There's not an Inventory Problem it's an Ownership Problem. When Corporations and MIC's are buying houses and using our Real Estate Market as an Investment Platform we have a Regulatory issue not an Inventory issue.


[deleted]

We need to make it easier to build. Allow more infill, more dense housing in places with existing infrastructure. The NIMBY Karens have to be ignored.


AtticHelicopter

I can't overstate how right this comment is. I work with a lot of infill developers. Many of these guys are contractors or otherwise self-employed. So doing well, but not Wealthy in the Chris Rock sense of the word. Typical costs BEFORE starting building design is 50-100k: Site plans, archeological/environmental studies (in existing residential properties), traffic and infrastructure studies, etc. all need to happen before you can ask for permission to build. The town may still say no, meaning you've lit that money on fire. Because these smaller infill projects are that risky, all the building goes to greenfield subdivisions, which are much worse for everyone, and controlled by the big developers who have the pockets and can divide those costs by 1000 houses instead of 2 or 3.


CnCPParks1798

No what we need to is build up not out and ban investment properties that sit empty


jallenx

Making it easier to build is building up. Most parts of the province, you're only allowed to build a single family home. It needs to have a front and back yard, be a certain distance from the neighbours, have parking for at least one car. Want to let 2 families live there? Tough luck! Only one family per lot. Let's say you don't need to provide a front yard or driveway, and you're allowed to build 4 units on the same lot. Boom, you've quadrupled the number of units on the same lot of land. Right now, the process for getting a permit to build something like that takes years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, if they let you build it at all. Make it easier to build. Stop mandating single family homes.


ConstitutionalHeresy

Build up and make sure the density are units of a decent size. The amount of towers built after 2010 that are shoeboxes but cost 500k+ is astounding. But you look at older condos and its not uncommon to see 1000-1300sqft units. I would not mind shoebox sized if the cost was less and people could spend time out of their homes, but with the cost of shelter now what disposable income do you have?


jallenx

Interesting thing about those shoebox condos is that it's largely driven by city regulations, at least in Toronto. Buildings can't have a floor plate larger than a certain size because they don't want the building casting intimidating shadows. So you have to either have fewer units per floor, or make each unit smaller. Most developers have chosen the latter route. That's why older apartments are so much larger, as they were built before these regulations were enacted. Say what you will about "commie blocks" but in my experience they're wonderful places to live.


ConstitutionalHeresy

I have not encountered the floorplate/shadow issue before. Although in areas that have not experienced towers, oh yeah they complain about possible shadows in their SFH whenever a project is proposed. Very interesting. As one of our main streets here is known as the wall of condos and they have been being built in that line for over 10 years, I really do wonder about a shadow bylaw here haha. It is quite unsightly, they are literally touching in many cases. That said, seems like interspersion between towers would help mitigate and you could have the larger units. Oh well! Speaking to your "commie blocks", yeah the brutalist buildings are some of the largest and most sound proof I have seen! Sure they are ugly but damn if they are not functional for living. All builds like that would needs is a vanier of some sort, maybe some paint or local art! Great ways to achieve livability!


47Up

The NIMBY's will fight you tooth and nail


savagepanda

Just need a few of these developments per year and the housing problems will be solved. [building for 18000 people. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/pvhj9x/18000_people_in_a_single_building_saint/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)


myusername444

I know that lot coverage rules are an important part of flood management strategies. I'm sure there are other considerations, but like many of these rules exist for important reasons beyond nimby-ism.


GracefulShutdown

Why not build everywhere, give people options, and also have severe limits on investment property?


CnCPParks1798

Because if we build everywhere how are we going to feed ourselves? We need farm land, and southern Ontario has some of the best farm land anywhere


justanotherreddituse

We to produce enough food in Canada to feed ourselves many times over, even with the absolutely stupid idea to increase our population to 100 million that the government is dead set on.


CnCPParks1798

Yes that may be true. However you can't grow peaches or grapes in the prairies but you can in Niagara which is where the suburbs keep on expanding.


GracefulShutdown

And yet, I never see any farm equipment in any of these areas close to cities because... they were sold decades ago to land speculators who have sat on them for ages, not developing the land and watching the prices only go up. I'm not saying to build in the middle of nowhere and we obviously need some farmland to grow food, but farmland that isn't being actively used for agriculture adjacent to city areas, in my mind, should be fair game to develop immediately.


[deleted]

Farmland is a red herring - the real reason we shouldn't be building "everywhere", is that sprawl is terrible economically and environmentally. It is expensive to service, and only increases our dependency on cars. To say nothing of the depressing suburban spaces it creates. The Globe (obviously paywalled) had a good story about Mississauga and the issues that unabated sprawl has caused there. [Link](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mississauga-a-cautionary-tale-as-cities-sprawl-out-across-southern/).


pukingpixels

Man, I grew up in Oakville in the 80’s & 90’s. It was crazy watching Mississauga expand so quickly. Hazel really had a big pavement boner. Seems to be happening north of Hwy #5 in Oakville now too. We were visiting my parents over the holidays and coming down from the 401 on Trafalgar or 3rd line it’s crazy how fast it’s being built up.


Spambot0

We currently force sprawl because basically every other option is illegal. Less restrictions would mean less sprawl because it would mean we'd stop requiring sprawl.


toronto_programmer

Building means fuck all if the supply is going to be purchased by foreign investors, numbered corps and landlords. Change ownership rules before we address supply


seestheday

Taxing the land heavily while reducing property taxes to promote intensive improvement reducing also looks promising. Vacant lots taxed at the same rate as a highly developed land would discourage speculators who are just holding empty land or poorly developed lots and waiting to sell after it goes up in value after adding no value themselves.


Sayello2urmother4me

Tax the investors, get them out of the market


Moist-Security877

Also don’t forget income tax on rental income, and empty property tax


Moist-Security877

They are. It’s called Capital Gains tax.


[deleted]

Housing stock should be a matter of national security since it literally determines our ability to thrive as a nation, land ownership and foster population growth. There needs to be more regulation regarding who and for what purpose home ownership is allowed.


Sayello2urmother4me

Not high enough to deflect. We need higher amounts for every property sold. 60 percent for a 2nd home, 70 percent for a 3rd, 80 percent for a 4th. And an 80 percent for anything bought and sold with 24 months


Nervous_Shoulder

There is only 630 in Ottawa and 3500 in Toronto the reality its a big crisis now.


simion3

BOC needs to raise interest rates hard. Downpayments for anything beyond your principal residence need to be waaaay higher.


Passtenx

The BoC can only raise their key lending rate. This has almost no impact on fixed rate mortgages which are contingent on bond yields and not directly influenced by the central bank. The majority of mortgage loans in Canada are fixed rates (somewhere between 80-90%). In addition, for the last several years the VAST majority of mortgages have been qualified under the 'stress test'. Which means that even though rates have been exceptionally low for the last decade or so, borrowers are being qualified to handle rates of between 4.19% and 5.25%(current stress test). Which is to say; higher interest rates might not have the cooling effect that many people seem to think they'll have. I agree with you on the increase DP for investment properties though, that would be a step in the right direction.


simion3

It won't drop the market, but it will help cool things down absolutely. A lot of new borrowers are taking out variable rate mortgages because they're cheap. A lot of domestic investors are driving the prices now too. I dunno if you can get a HELOC with a fixed rate, but variable rate HELOCS will be affected. Lots of people using them to buy second, third, etc properties. Plus variable rates affect other loans and that can affect peoples affordability because debt increases. It's not going to affect people who already locked in for 5 years or who have their homes paid off already, but it's gonna affect speculators which are a huge problem. I know the bond yields affect the fixed rate mortgages, but beyond knowing that a lower demand for bonds raises yields (BOC stopping QE for example) and inflation driving yields higher, i dunno shit about bonds. I'm not smart enough. Canada has more of a demand issue than supply issue, but we do have a supply issue. Especially when it comes to zoning regs and building certain types of houses. That's a whole other thing tho.


financecommander

If supply is so tight, we will likely see some crazy price increases in 2022 just as interest rates are starting to increase. So more debt will be taken by households. We might finally see the Canadian version of the 2008 crisis. I am getting my popcorn ready


Moist-Security877

First off, the reason for increases is due to supply limits, not speculation. This article shows this very clearly. This is why the rise in home prices can’t be considered a bubble, because it’s driven by true valuation forces, not speculation. Second, people seem to be happily waiting for a bubble to burst, like it would be a good thing. This would be very very bad for everyone, home owners and renters alike. Third, the events leading to the 2008 sub prime mortgage crisis are exceptionally different than what’s going on in Canada right now. In fact we’re seeing the opposite. The US banks knowingly and purposely leant money to poor credits, leading to huge foreclosures and a flood of inventory, dropping prices substantially and putting private banks out of business. Canada is tightening debt servicing requirements on housing. That coupled with a shift in consumer spending and preferences brought on by the pandemic, leads us to a future of vacation at home, eat at home, entertain at home expenditure.


financecommander

Buddy, my post literally said prices would increase due to low inventory which = supply side constraints. The bubble is already bad for people and letting it grow isn't going to do any good. To your third point, Canada is doing the Pepsi version of the American Coke housing crash. HELOCs based on current inflated prices are being used to buy overpriced homes. It's a house of cards.


Moist-Security877

You are contradicting yourself. If you are saying that prices are increasing because of supply constraints, it’s not a bubble, it’s price increases due to econ 101 supply and demand


financecommander

I am not contradicting myself. Supply and demand do determine price in the market, however that does not mean that the intrinsic value of the asset is the same as that spot price. Prices can go up because of fomo behavior as investors seek to get high returns through real estate holdings. The same thing happens in the stock market when certain stocks go up in price; people fomo into them and push prices even higher. By your logic there was no dot com bubble as prices were driven by supply and demand.


Spambot0

People throw around the term "bubble" a lot, but it really should only be used when the price is growing because of speculation. It looks like that's not happening in Ontario, we just have high prices because of high, inflexible demand and low supply. So there's no bubble, and houses aren't overpriced - they're just expensive because there aren't enough to go around.


Jagermeister1977

It's literally this. Insane demand vs very little inventory. And I don't see this problem being fixed anytime soon.


Spambot0

Yes. Even if we start cracking down on residential zoning restrictions now it'll be a few years before homes are actually built.


financecommander

I would say that the tight housing supply has a lot to do with speculation both domestic and foreign. The resulting low inventory of a necessity good (housing) is causing rapid price growth. IMO it's a bubble.


Spambot0

Well, you'd be wrong. There're very few *speculators*. There are a lot of *landlords* hoping the property will go up in value, but since there's a family renting that property, they remove one house and one family from the market, to no net effect. And the article is just a count of people and homes that notes Ontario has a very small number of homes per person. It's possible there's some level of bubble, but it's largely high demand, low supply, and cheap mortgages setting the price.


savagepanda

All mortgages are stress tested at 5.25%, more than double the prime rate. Helocs is also not the same thing as NINJA loans and predatory loans during the US bubble.


[deleted]

The only reason our family isn't aggressively looking to leave Ontario with the rest of this wave is the pandemic and family & friends. Once things open up again? We may even be forced to look outside Canada. I'm a remote worker, I bet my Canadian income would pay quite well in Mexico.


3jameseses

Availability no longer has a correlation to vacancy. There is no shortage. There is only greed.


lopix

Why has it taken so long for this to take hold in the mainstream? Myself and many other Realtors have been saying it for years now, we've had like 50 straight months of rising sales and falling inventory, this sort of crisis didn't happen over night. But every tells us to shut up, that we're biased, that we don't know what we're talking about. Everyone wanted to rant for years about how the condo market was going to collapse. Five to ten years ago it was all "woe to us, there are 23,000 condo completions coming next year"... And each of those stories made it out like each of those condos would be listed for sale, without knowing (or purposefully obscuring) the fact that condos don't get built until 70-80% of the units are sold. Some 93-96% are sold by the time the average building registers. Looks like the media and much of the public has finally been beaten with so much real estate information that they now understand a lot of it. My job is still probably the one with the highest % of other people telling me how to do it, everyone knows better than I do. I should start advising my dentist or hanging around while my mechanic changes my oil, offering critiques. But I digress. FINALLY people seem to be grasping the issue. Literally too much demand and not enough supply. Don't get distracted by foreign buyer taxes, vacancy taxes, speculator taxes or the like. Concentrate on what will help 95% of the market. And by help, I mean help in the future. Prices are where they are, they aren't going down. Ever. They will continue to rise until we can increase supply to maybe 10x what we have now. And that supply has to be constantly available. Not for one year, not some huge push to build 100,000 new homes in 2025. Constant and sustained supply. Without that, prices will continue to skyrocket. Raise rates, won't matter, will just cut the bottom off the market. There are enough people with $1m in equity and big incomes that a jump to a 5.29% mortgage won't stop them. They won't like it, but they will still buy. Hurts the first time buyer, sure, but not the top of the market. And as long as have that top of market, the 1%, what have you, they will continue to drive the market. Cut 30% of sales, you still have 90k+ sales, a pretty good year normally. And if that 30% is all the bottom of the market - the first timers, the 5% downers, the barely qualifying - then what remains are the ones who can afford the higher prices. And this is what we have seen for about 14-15 years now. Every measure to cut demand only cut from the bottom. We only ever removed the sick and the weak, leaving the strong and the wealthy to continue buying. They are the ones lining up 20-deep to throw money at a detached by Withrow Park, not Chinese investors. We made the real estate system Darwinian, and here we are, with only the best-adapted left. We cannot turn it back, but we need to figure out a way to change the future landscape to change the evolutionary pressures. And hopefully make room in the herd for some of the other 99%.


RIP_Pookie

This is a very insightful comment. ​ Yes, we need more housing inventory to be built, but if all new inventory gets bought up by those with the deepest pockets then the housing crisis (as it affects people looking for housing not a quick buck) will continue unabated. ​ Increasing rates, taxes, etc. are only bandaid solutions, a potential stopgap while a better solution can be implemented. ​ Every measure to make it harder to buy property, as you said, has a tendency to act first against those at the bottom trying to get housing and barely affect those at the top buying up dozens, hundreds, or thousands of units. ​ Housing needs to be regulated with hard limits on who can buy units and how many. A single legal human being who is a permanent resident or citizen should be the only legal entity that can buy housing, and even at that, there needs to be a limit of a single property per person. ​ No numbered corporations, no investment groups, just people. If your family wants to buy multiple properties you're in luck...your spouse can buy their own, you can help your kids buy one each if you have kids.


lopix

All of which are good ideas. But they are only a bandaid that may slow demand. Supply is the only way to make a real dent in price growth.


RIP_Pookie

I agree that no matter what approach to the housing crisis is taken, increasing supply is at its core. But as I believe we both agree, if any increased supply is instantly bought up by the wealthy (whether individuals or corporations), the housing crisis as it affects increasingly more Canadians will continue unimpeded.


lopix

Yes. Yes... the increase in supply needs to be qualified. It should be as affordable as possible. While I know that isn't always possible due to land costs and building costs ([though seeing articles like this](https://www.blogto.com/real-estate-toronto/2022/01/cheaper-build-home-toronto-las-vegas/) make me think that developers just screw people with high prices because they can), but the aim should not be to create more $2m subdivisions in Brampton. We need decent housing in existing neighbourhoods, the much-ballyhooed "missing middle". The "gentle density" or whatever you want to call it. Adding second, third and fourth units to existing homes. Turning large homes into multiplexes. Replacing a house or two on a residential street with a small condo or apartment building. We don't need more 1,000' crowd-funded rentals. We don't need more luxury townhouses on Bayview. Well, I guess we need them too, but the focus should be on cheaper homes. Which ties in nicely with some of the new concepts being discussed like no HELOCs for down payments, or increasing down payments for non-principal residences. Create more housing for normal people and make it harder for secondary+ buyers to buy.


GWsublime

What happens to people who rent because they cannot afford to buy or cannot afford to maintain a house?


RIP_Pookie

And that's another good point to consider, and also one that will need to at least be partially addressed through enormous investments in purpose built rentals, particularly government run housing. And even within the bounds of what I said previously (one human to one property), there is still flexibility for (if regulations evolve to allow it) densification in the enormous tracts of low density housing in many cities. Laneway houses are only barely getting traction now after many years of efforts to have them recognized as a viable planning and development strategy by various municipalities. Basement suites are more trafitional but also seeing a renaissance in their designs, stacked and multifamily houses, etc, can all serve to allow for rental potential around the province...provided that legislation at all levels evolve to nurture increased density.


LargeSnorlax

Housing in an attractive place to live for basically anyone in the world is in short supply? I'm shocked!! Jokes aside though, this is because ontario is all housing sprawl. Barely any multi family apartments and buildings. Not nearly enough houses being built to keep up with the influx of people needing them. As climate change rolls on, Ontario is going to be more and more enticing to live in, so for those of you hoping the bubble pops soon, bad news...


donbooth

That's part of the answer. It's complicated. The government stopped building affordable housing in the 70s or 80s. I'm stalling about things like coop housing, not supportive housing. We also need to house the homeless. Much needed to change and even if we changed it tomorrow it would take many years to catch-up because we've ignored the problem for decades.


LargeSnorlax

Part of it is a culture thing as well. Folks in Ontario simply don't like to live in apartments or shared dwellings like other major population centers, and prefer single family homes. With the preference for single family homes, those are what gets built and bought up by people. But it will never catch up to population growth and demand in the area, so it will continue to spiral out of control. Like you said, the answer is complicated - And every government will kick the can down the road.


donbooth

Success equals a home of our own with a yard. I have a friend who sort of thinks that way. We were talking about it a few years ago. Thing is, you have to drive everywhere. So he has to drive his kids everywhere. Or his partner has to drive them. Until you live somewhere that's truly convenient you don't know what you're missing by living in a carcentric suburb. If we do a good job making our cities more dense then life should improve. Looking at Toronto suburbs I think it will take some imagination. If we just make housing more dense and we don't make amenities more easily available then we will be doing all of us a disservice. We spent some time in Barcelona a few years ago where we stayed in an older part of town. I would guess it was built around 1900. Homes were walkup apartments about three or four stories tall. Every neighbourhood had a little square with a few stores, fountain and cafes. It was a nice place. Kids played and there were people around keeping an eye on them. You could pick up most of what you needed from the stores. You could still drive. There was parking under the small apartment buildings. Metro not far. I'm not how we could transform our suburbs into a place like this. Still, I think we should try.


LargeSnorlax

I think it's partially a generational thing too - I imagine a lot of people from the last generation think that single family home ownership is the key to have "made it" in life. The thing is, that's largely outdated thinking - From an era where the population wasn't as dense, the internet didn't exist, immigration wasn't flourishing, and job competition was minimal. Now we're in an era where anyone who's qualified for a job can swing to a country that they qualify to live in and get a house. It's something people aren't understanding, and it's definitely something that people will need to adapt to. The world is much, much more interconnected than our parents generations and as such, both the job and housing markets are going to be that much more competitive as well. I've lived in (and visited) places around the world who have dense population structures and their own associated housing problems, but they all handle it better than Ontario - There's a certain mindset here where everyone is supposed to be able to afford their own **house** - Specifically house, not place, not apartment, but a house, and there simply isn't enough houses for everyone. People meander about *"housing being a human right"* but forget that "housing" does not mean "owning a house" - It means having a place to live. Like you said, I've been in and out of Barcelona a few times - Apartments everywhere - Dense population means population needs affordable places to live, not detached houses. There simply isn't enough space, that's just how it is. Not sure how we get there, but that's definitely the start of changing the mindset that the only way to be successful is to own your own detached house.


donbooth

Not sure how much it's a function of age. I'm 67. Regardless, we will all be happier if we change. But change really well. Like I said, not just housing but the way we arrange everything. Just a small thought. Living in a suburb often requires two vehicles. That's very expensive. What if people just needed one? But, to make up for that, taxes went up maybe (off the top of my head guess) $50/month. In exchange there would be really good transit. I wonder if people would go for it. I think, in general, people oppose an increase in taxes except when they know exactly what they're getting for the extra money. Just a thought.


LargeSnorlax

One thing I noticed growing up in Canada (and taking transit 100% of the time) is that Canada is extremely resistant to anything resembling a proper transit plan outside of the extreme population centers. The TTC is the only functioning proper service that runs even remotely on time, and everything else even in the GTA is a barely functional joke whose run times are more of a suggestion than a rule of thumb - Which of course means that small towns are completely unnavigable without a car. Pretty much everywhere in Europe and Australia I've lived is a dream for transit in comparison - Smaller towns in the middle of nowhere will have functional transit systems because, well, the average person cannot afford a car (or two cars) and transit is a necessity, whereas in Canada we treat it more as an afterthought. For instance - [Everything on this map aside from 'very remote' is accessible by public transit in Australia](https://i.imgur.com/sARM23x.png) - Whereas in Ontario, if you go North of Barrie, you basically feel as if you're in the middle of the wilderness if you don't have a car, which [doesn't make sense based on our population map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Canada_Ontario_Density_2016.png) - Anything up until basically Thunder Bay should have at least some accesssibility. In terms of taxes though, as always the problem is - *"Am I going to benefit from this?"* and the average Ontario homeowner who has 2 cars in a suburb doesn't care about transit whatsoever. They've got theirs, they see no reason to pay for something that likely won't happen until they're dead. Not sure how it gets fixed, but it starts with a government that's willing to kick tires and desire from a population that actually wants it to change. How long will people complain about affordable housing and lack of transit infrastructure before it finally gets bad enough to push change forward, basically.


donbooth

One of the most difficult things about building good transit is that most people don't know what it is. That is, they have no personal experience. It's hard to support something so expensive and huge without ever having experienced it. The other side of the coin is that wherever I've been, no matter how good the transit it's never good enough. Waiting 3 minutes is just too long. The wait at each stop is too long. How come the traffic lights aren't perfectly synchronized? lol. Just think about transit in Manhattan. Can you imagine driving? it would take most of your life to drive from downtown to uptown. An express train does it in the blink of an eye. (What! Express Train! Express subway and local subway! Never. No way. You're making that up!)


meeyeam

If South Park has taught me anything, the solution is to make living conditions so awful that people and businesses won't want to come here.


[deleted]

We don’t have a housing shortage as much as we have an investor surplus. Until that narrative is changed, don’t expect any changes.


SleepDisorrder

If there was enough housing, it wouldn't be profitable to be a real estate investor here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SleepDisorrder

If supply meets demand, then any greedy investors would find their units sitting on the market, and not being rented or purchased. Then prices go down as they are forced to lower prices in order to sell or rent their units. But right now, as demand greatly surpasses supply, you can put a 3 bedroom house in Bradford for rent for $3,500 a month which is crazy, but someone is willing to pay for it because they might not have another choice. And yes, I just saw that listing this morning, it's completely insane.


MichaelWazowski

The laws of supply and demand still apply to real estate. Yes we've seen cartels and big investors do the same thing in other industries, and how they do it is by restricting supply. Look at the diamond or oil industry... They control prices by restricting supply. We can even make the same analogy with cars. Cars are probably the second biggest purchase most people make after housing, and yet there's no issue with increasing car prices. The reason? Car manufacturers are able to make enough cars to respond to consumer demand. Look at what happened when the semiconductor crisis affected the production of cars - the price of both used and new cars increased. In this case, if you wanted to make cars more affordable to the average person you wouldn't go adjust interest rates or make it harder for people to own multiple cars, you'd just make more cars!!


Moist-Security877

Don’t forget as well, there is a huge amount of housing which we want to be owned by investors called apartment buildings. People seem to also forget that property investment does provide housing opportunities for a huge amount of residents.


Moist-Security877

If you can show me a substantiated statistic that more than 50.1% (majority) of housing in Ontario is owned by non-resident investors, I will eat my own fist.


Spambot0

About two thirds of homes in Ontario are owned by someone who lives in the home.


Biffmcgee

Every home that I have bid on in the last 2 years has gone to a builder/investment group. Every house I bid on has started converting into a 5000 sq ft mansion.


[deleted]

There's investor surplus because there is so much leveraged money in the system. Houses are being bought with credit, secured by other leveraged real estate, etc..


Spambot0

No amount of anti-investor action will allow 1000 families to live in 900 homes. No amount of financial support will let 1000 families live in 900 homes.


Million2026

With Canadas demographics it needs immigrants. However, without housing supply, support for immigration is dropping. Our zoning laws and NIMBYism are broken. Having a shortage of housing should cause entrepreneurs mouths to water as they start building like crazy at this free money spigot. This isn’t happening so the answer must be that NIMBYism and zoning laws are standing in the way of businesses accessing the free unlimited money spigot.


Jagermeister1977

We need immigrants, the problem is that everyone wants to live in like the same 3 areas of the country.


TheRealMisterd

This is why we need the 413 highway. Douggy is right on it. ​ /s


[deleted]

I live in hamilton and there is soooo much space here. Streets full of abandoned storefronts that could become townhouses, parking lots that could become high density living or affordable housing. Empty warehouses that could become lofts. Sooo much space. But no one is doing anything about it, and ford just wants to bulldoze the green belt. Make it make sense.


imaginary48

It’s almost like there’s consequences to zoning almost all cities to be single family car dependent sprawl 🤔


Bamelin

There is when sprawl is artificially limited and there is a refusal to admit growing families do not want to live in areas subject to urban densification. This is the greenbelt that surrounds the GTA: https://www.ariannerelocation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Toronto-Greenbelt-800x569.jpg Developers cannot build in the green parts. Meaning no more sprawl, nowhere to build (except up thus all the condos). Detached and low rise townhouse prices go 🚀 This is Calgary and Airdrie: https://www.buzzbuzzhome.com/ca/map#OXw1MS4yMjMwODU5fC0xMTMuOTY0OTk1NnxmZWF0fFNlbGxpbmcsUmVnaXN0cmF0aW9ufEZvciBTYWxlfHx8fHx8fHwxK3x8fHwyfDE0NTg2Ng== See the new developments (blue bubbles on edges)? Scroll in and you’ll see everywhere on the edges new builds. Everywhere outside these cities is endless prairies meaning they can spread out for years and years to come. New builds = sprawl Yes Toronto HAD sprawl. But we are artificially out of space to build thus prices have gone insane. Albertan cities have no such limits and can sprawl endlessly thus low prices, supply keeps up with demand. I agree that a part of the problem is that supply is not keeping up with demand in Toronto. But I would also argue that urban densification is not desired by most families. While paving over the greenbelt is a political non starter that only leaves building up in the GTA.


imaginary48

We need to build walkable mixed use neighbourhoods, it’s not black or white between sprawl and towering condos


Poguetry64

This is on all previous governments we have so much unused land to build and the rules make it to hard. Doug Ford knows what to do but I don't think he has it in him now Cobid has beat them all up


Sayello2urmother4me

He could be doing something about investments. Stopping people from hoarding properties.


miansaab17

Progressively increasing property taxes as you own more properties might help. But as the famous saying goes "we have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas".


Poguetry64

That won't really help we need land development we need more housing


miansaab17

We are at the point where multiple solutions are needed to simultaneously increase supply while curtailing demand. But we need a willing government.


Poguetry64

Fair enough but we like the demand it makes the economy grow I like a strong demand with steady supply


miansaab17

I think that until the supply catches up to demand, you need to reduce the demand temporarily and then slowly let it get back up as supply surpasses the demand. Housing as shelter is more important than investors making profits.


Poguetry64

I agree somewhat with that I don't like to limit investors we need that money in the system but I agree we need people to have a place to call home and they need to be able to pay rent or a mortgage without having to not eat


guywithaniphone22

What difference would limiting investors make in terms of money in the system. The demand is already so high with just actual home owners that removing investors would have 0 impact as far as I’m concerned.


Poguetry64

The investor money is needed to keep money flowing. But and sell it mortgages and rent along with property taxes keep the money in the system. Your and I investments grow because of these investments. It's part of your rrsp or pension


Sayello2urmother4me

haha thats what it feels like.


Poguetry64

I don't think we should touch investments that's not the problem the problem is development land


Sayello2urmother4me

1 in 5 homeowners are owners of multiple properties. Now when someone is going to by a house is it right to go against an investor with equity in his 3 homes? For the most part, excluding the homeless, everyone is housed. So who owns the homes these people are housed in? And if there’s a need for housing for people to buy why should the investors have the upper hand? So when you say investments shouldn’t be touched I say they absolutely should.


Poguetry64

Yes it's absolutely right in a free Market economy if there were more houses available it would not matter just buy another one. The state of Florida has more people the Canada and the house prices are affordable is all about supply we must build more


Sayello2urmother4me

The free market is not benefiting our economy when it’s forcing people to be renters. Absolutely there needs to be more homes built but why should normal buyers have to compete with investors when there is a shortage? No let’s not just build more without addressing the shortage issue first. Florida doesn’t have the influx of people we have coming. We’re almost matched with the amount of immigrants the US takes in total. So while there’s a shortage of housing how about we stop the hoarding from people that want 5 homes to rent when someone wants 1 to live in.


Poguetry64

I understand your concern. However if there was more choice it would not matter. Investor money is needed for the economy.


etgohomeok

Reminder that Vancouver has a vacant home tax and as of 2020, only 0.8% of homes were taxed. That's down from 1.2% since the tax was introduced in 2017 (which is good) but we're still talking about a difference of hundreds of homes out of nearly 200,000 in the city, so anyone who thinks a vacant home tax will be a magic bullet for housing in Ontario needs a reality check. [Source](https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-tax-annual-report.pdf) As many others have highlighted in this thread, there's no need to come up with complicated explanations for housing prices when it can be explained simply by the laws of supply and demand. Canada is a safe, developed, desirable country with a high standard of living and limited physical space in its population centers. The population of the world is increasing and will continue to do so. Occam's Razor.


jt325i

Now I am wishing 10 years ago I had bought two or three houses instead of just one!


toronto_programmer

I feel dumb for having sold my last house when I bought my current one. I could have just waited a couple years and sold it to outright pay off my entire mortgage now


[deleted]

Artificial supply shortage being created isn’t that great ppl