Canadian Money Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Yesterday the local news talked about average single family homes selling for $1.5 million or more in the GTA area.

Then they focused on how great a bargain our local prices of $750,000 are comparatively speaking.

But when they talked to a local mayor and realtors, they said that people who live in the community are already "priced out" and the sales are to people selling in the GTA and moving........and for them it is a bargain, but they have a 120 kilometer commute from hell to deal with, especially in the winter.

Our son is sending me real estate listings of these homes and I keep telling him.....you only earn $130K a year family income and it isn't enough.

It is a ridiculous situation that low interest has caused. Government created this mess.......and government has to fix it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaeJS

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,156 Posts
It is a very ridiculous situation indeed. An issue that has been talked about ad nauseum, but one I still love talking about. Especially since nothing has been done.

Personally, I think our economy needs a break.
We need to limit immigration for a while.
We need to focus on building more dwellings.
We need to find a way to increase wages.
We need to stop foreign AND investment banking purchases of retail/residential real estate.

But who will listen? Who will implement?

In my opinion, house prices are only going to continue upward. 300k immigrants every year to Canada, and most of Canada is a cold place with little infrastructure. Everyone wants to live in Van, the GTA, or Calgary.

Space is limited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,156 Posts
Also... Not exactly sure where you live, sags. Not sure if you're willing to shed light on it. But I'm in the Kitchener/Waterloo area and townhouses here are going for 600-700k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,055 Posts
Personally, I think our economy needs a break.
We need to limit immigration for a while.
We need to focus on building more dwellings.
We need to find a way to increase wages.
We need to stop foreign AND investment banking purchases of retail/residential real estate.

But who will listen? Who will implement?
Nobody that we can vote for, that's for sure. Not a single one. Our governments and institutions are fully captured by financial and foreign interests -- have been since they killed JFK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Also... Not exactly sure where you live, sags. Not sure if you're willing to shed light on it. But I'm in the Kitchener/Waterloo area and townhouses here are going for 600-700k.
They were talking about Brantford on the news.......not exactly a mecca for anything, but it is Wayne Gretzky's home town.

In our city of London......$750K will buy a nice home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
I agree none of the parties are even discussing what is needed.

After the war, during the baby boom........as in when the baby boomers were born in the biggest demographic bubble at the time, the government stepped up and started building subdivisions. Some cities serviced land and hired private modular home builders to sell homes there. Full subdivisions today are full of Alcan homes......and people would never know to look at them. They are all on concrete basements and were well made.

The homes at the time were 3 bedroom brick bungalows, or side splits. A few ranch styles were mixed in. They were all around 1000-1500 square feet.

Everybody had kids and they finished the basements themselves. Most of us teenagers spend our lives down in the family room in the basement. Add a couple bedrooms and a bath and it was plenty of room for everyone.

There is no desire or reason for home builders to erect those kinds of homes today. They make a lot more money building a two storey, double garage 3500 square foot home.

That is the key........massive building supported by government. Small homes on small lots, that can be finished in the basement or add an addition onto later.

Our parents used to say......buy a house for today and add on as you need to.

There is no reason that these types of homes couldn't sell for $250K or less today.

If people spend less on housing, they have more to spend on other things which is good for the economy.

If our parents had to spend most of their income on their mortgage or rent payment, Canada wouldn't have grown as it did.

From 1968......and those houses are still there in Woodstock today and look better than they ever did.

My sister actually owned one, and over the years they finished the basement with a bar and rec room, bathroom......added a sunroom on the back of the house and put in an inground pool.

It was a very nice home to raise their 3 kids.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The process for buying those homes was simple and straighforward.

You go to the sales office and meet with a sales agent. You look a couple of display models and pick one out. You pick a lot from the drawings. You sign for a mortgage......done.

The people who push back on such a concept are the following and it isn't difficult to figure out why they are opposed.

Land developers

Builders of homes

Real estate agents

Mortgage brokers

Real estate lawyers

Speculators

All of them want their "cut" of the action and that drives up the price with no benefit to the buyer who just wants a home.

When you buy a new home and have to feed all those people to do so.....no wonder it is so expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,055 Posts
There is no reason that these types of homes couldn't sell for $250K or less today.

If people spend less on housing, they have more to spend on other things which is good for the economy.

If our parents had to spend most of their income on their mortgage or rent payment, Canada wouldn't have grown as it did.

From 1968......and those houses are still there in Woodstock today and look better than they ever did.

There's no reason they couldn't sell for less than $100k today! i.e. 1 year's salary for a moderately successful person. With all the productivity improvements in manufacturing of construction materials and methods, it would be easy.

Even the crazy unrealistic dreamers that want improvements for the middle class, can't even dream of a society/economy that's better and easier to live in than the 1960s... only as good as that was, or somewhat worse, despite the economy being 5x+ more productive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
As per the linked article.........they built each fully finished home in 20 days back in 1968.

With today's production technology they could roll off homes at a much faster rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
I'm hearing almost a year now to get a house built, after choosing a lot (when/if available) Maybe they just like to drag out the build to justify the $350 per square ft. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
The vast majority of jobs (at least well paying ones) are now in cities. Recent immigrants also tend to move to bigger cities, where their established communities are. Therefore, demand is only going to continue to rise, to live in big cities, as jobs continue to disappear in rural areas and youth migrate to cities.

Taking it further, many of these jobs are in the core of these cities. People do not want to sit in traffic all day, so oftentimes, it's more desirable to live centrally in a city, therefore, those prices are highest (This is reflected in most big cities around the world, location, location, location)

Increasing housing stock does not address that issue. The damage is done. Building a bunch of houses on the far outskirts of a city results in 2 hours commutes. Canadians are also clear they feel entitled to live in single family homes, and refuse to live in apartments like in other big cities (NYC, Paris etc).

What's the fix? Beats me. But I would never ever buy a house in Toronto or Vancouver when I could buy a house at a reasonable price somewhere like Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg (don't give me that B.S about how amazing Toronto is, it isnt. It gets cold in winter like the rest of Canada) And yes, there are lots of jobs in the cities I listed.

Everyone would prefer to live near family and friends, but that's the sacrifice sometimes. Many of us have made the sacrifice. Many people before us (immigrants to Canada throughout the last hundreds of years) sure made the sacrifice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,574 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
I doubt there are many affordable home options anywhere in Ontario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
That is the key........massive building supported by government. Small homes on small lots, that can be finished in the basement or add an addition onto later.

Our parents used to say......buy a house for today and add on as you need to.

There is no reason that these types of homes couldn't sell for $250K or less today.

If people spend less on housing, they have more to spend on other things which is good for the economy.

If our parents had to spend most of their income on their mortgage or rent payment, Canada wouldn't have grown as it did.

From 1968......and those houses are still there in Woodstock today and look better than they ever did.

My sister actually owned one, and over the years they finished the basement with a bar and rec room, bathroom......added a sunroom on the back of the house and put in an inground pool.

It was a very nice home to raise their 3 kids.

It's not the house size but the lot value is insane. Here in greater Vancouver an average lot is over 1M. My childhood home is Vancouver was on a tiny 33ft lot is now worth almost 2M, the house itself is assessed at <30k. I would be happy to split my 66ft wide lot into 2 or even a quad-plex but the neighbours would not support it. If someone tries to build over a certain height here, they almost riot because it will spoil their views.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Not sure why everyone is looking to "fix" the rise in house values. Values rise.....that's the evolution. You can't stop it or reset it without a major catalyst, which will bring on worse issues that people will complain about.

Let's talk about the price of apples - I've paid as low as $0.59/lbs......the norm today seems to be $1.99/lbs. I'm not a baby boomer if anyone is thinking that.....so I haven't been buying apples for that long. Why isn't anyone asking the government to fix that?

Point is there is a natural progression and increase in property values. If they would stay flat, why would anyone invest in them?

Low interest rates is the government's response to maintaining your property value and keeping the RE market active. Is there a better solution? Doesn't look like anyone has one.

Immigration needs to remain high. Our population is so little that we need new immigrants to increase government coffers. They create demand and increase spending. Why would you refuse more people contributing to the economy?

We have choices to make in life. Government did not oblige you to own multiple cars, cell phones, internet, cable, lattes, etc. So if you really want those luxuries, someone was smart about by finding ways to make you afford them. If then you can't afford a home, don't blame the government for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,156 Posts
Not sure why everyone is looking to "fix" the rise in house values. Values rise.....that's the evolution. You can't stop it or reset it without a major catalyst, which will bring on worse issues that people will complain about.

Let's talk about the price of apples - I've paid as low as $0.59/lbs......the norm today seems to be $1.99/lbs. I'm not a baby boomer if anyone is thinking that.....so I haven't been buying apples for that long. Why isn't anyone asking the government to fix that?

Point is there is a natural progression and increase in property values. If they would stay flat, why would anyone invest in them?

Low interest rates is the government's response to maintaining your property value and keeping the RE market active. Is there a better solution? Doesn't look like anyone has one.

Immigration needs to remain high. Our population is so little that we need new immigrants to increase government coffers. They create demand and increase spending. Why would you refuse more people contributing to the economy?

We have choices to make in life. Government did not oblige you to own multiple cars, cell phones, internet, cable, lattes, etc. So if you really want those luxuries, someone was smart about by finding ways to make you afford them. If then you can't afford a home, don't blame the government for it.
I can't handle your post.

Do you understand money?

You are comparing an astronomical rise in leveraged assets with a much higher base price to a pound of unleveraged apples with a low initial cost.

And you don't think there is anything wrong with your analysis?

You could quite literally say you are comparing apples to oranges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
I can't handle your post.

Do you understand money?

You are comparing an astronomical rise in leveraged assets with a much higher base price to a pound of unleveraged apples with a low initial cost.

And you don't think there is anything wrong with your analysis?

You could quite literally say you are comparing apples to oranges.
Sure, my comparison is far fetched. Granted. Just trying to state the obvious that people are complaining to complain.

If you understand money that much more than myself, lets hear your solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,254 Posts
Maybe the price of apples is inconsequential to the average person, while the price of a house is not?

A "natural progression" would be for housing to increase at a slow and steady rate similar to inflation. Not by 30% a year. Who would buy property if the price stayed flat? Is that even a serious question? Gee, maybe people who want to live in it -- what a concept!

A house is only an investment if you're renting it out and generating cash flow. If you buy a house and don't live in it or rent it out, it's speculative asset. If you're renting it out and not generating cash flow, then you fail at investing.

Whose idea was it for the government to "maintain property values" as part of their mandate? And why shouldn't they have to take responsibility if their efforts to maintain those values cause prices to spiral out of control?

Maybe it's time to completely remove the federal government from the housing market, since they've proven their efforts to make housing affordable are a complete failure. Phase out CMHC, ban the BoC from purchasing mortgage bonds, and get rid of all first-time buyers programs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Maybe the price of apples is inconsequential to the average person, while the price of a house is not?

A "natural progression" would be for housing to increase at a slow and steady rate similar to inflation. Not by 30% a year. Who would buy property if the price stayed flat? Is that even a serious question? Gee, maybe people who want to live in it -- what a concept!

A house is only an investment if you're renting it out and generating cash flow. If you buy a house and don't live in it or rent it out, it's speculative asset. If you're renting it out and not generating cash flow, then you fail at investing.

Whose idea was it for the government to "maintain property values" as part of their mandate? And why shouldn't they have to take responsibility if their efforts to maintain those values cause prices to spiral out of control?

Maybe it's time to completely remove the federal government from the housing market, since they've proven their efforts to make housing affordable are a complete failure. Phase out CMHC, ban the BoC from purchasing mortgage bonds, and get rid of all first-time buyers programs.
There is a natural progression if you look at it over a long period of time. There are always abnormalities such the most recent increase which was caused by a lack of supply while the demand was still there. These abnormalities are short lived. Their followed by a plateau and eventually pick up again.

Government does not maintain property values. Values are dictated by supply and demand. Government mandate is to create affordable housing for everyone - and prevent a high rate of homelessness. Before CMHC, housing was becoming less affordable due to the high DP requirements.

Phasing out CMHC and limiting BoC will cause a housing crash. Not sure you'd be interested then in investing in a property to live in without looking for alternatives first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,156 Posts
Sure, my comparison is far fetched. Granted. Just trying to state the obvious that people are complaining to complain.

If you understand money that much more than myself, lets hear your solution.
You wouldn't like my solution.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top