COVID and the housing market | Page 210 | GTAMotorcycle.com

COVID and the housing market

Housing discussions are very polarizing and it will get worse. Canada is talking about 400,000 new immigrants per year and they will have to live somewhere, at least 100,000 family units. Add in the XXX number Canadians that want to leave their existing parental nest. How high can you stack used shipping containers?

Eliminating foreign buyers by punitive taxes will slap the snot out of the price market for a while but the demand will soon catch up.

Is this not more of an oligarchy where the laws favour the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

Personally I don't think any one in Canada deserves a house, not a soul. However I think everyone deserves the right to work for one.

Why is housing so expensive?

1) Expectations of granite counter-tops and multiple bathrooms etc

2) Expectations of vacations and toys concurrent with buying a house.

3) Foreign financial interference

4) Nanny state building codes and development costs that end up funding bridges to no where

5) NIMBYs

Re #4, building codes. Go back a generation and smoke detectors and sprinklers were unheard of. But think of the children. If you care about your children DON'T SMOKE in the house. DON'T STORE OILY RAGS. DON"T MESS WITH ELECTRICITY. Save the costs.

If you're stupid enough to kill off your family it makes the world better and easier for the next generation.

Learn to read advertising and how it screws your mind into buying what you don't need.
1) Our last house in a GTA suburb was hard to sell as it didn't have a main floor bathroom (22x24' outside dimensions so no room for one). It recently sold for 1.2M. Obviously at least some current buyers have moved on from that sentiment. No granite either but granite looking laminate.
2) Vacations and toys concurrent with house should have very little to do with house prices (if anything, they should drive them down)
3) Big issue. Intentionally hidden by the politicians as they benefit from crazy price appreciation (LTT, GDP bump etc). I would lump in domestic investors and corporate buying into this pool too. The numbers work differently if it is a pure investment play vs a place you can afford to live (eg. who cares if you never pay off the loan, spend to the moon, the appreciation will make you rich).
4) Building code is a mess. They keep mandating more insulation (higher cost to construct, less livable space as setback sets the outside of the walls but we have lost at least another 4" on each face to insulation since the mid 80's). They also mandate light into bedrooms which means bigger windows which means a ton of heat lost (far more than was saved by adding insulation to walls). As for smoke/CO detectors, I think cost/benefit for them is entirely reasonable (although they do add some cost).
5)Everybody wants development to stop once they own a home. Very few realize or are willing to acknowledge that their home was a field not that long ago and if people at that time had their way, the current homeowners wouldn't have been able to buy a place.

I'll add:
6) Development charges. Interesting concept (new dwellings foot the bill for the municipal services required to support the dwellings) but I suspect they have run away from reality. It is an easy source of money for the municipalities and well into six figures per dwelling in many municipalities. DC's alone eliminate the possibility of real affordable housing.
7)Architectural control. Lots of expensive to construct details that are expensive to maintain with little benefit other than an architectural wank. Most of the time the maintenance is neglected and they look like crap in short order. Boxouts, steep roofs, wall finishes, etc. Sure, they can look nice but they add a lot of money with zero impact on livable space. Hell, from inside the house, you can't even tell where that 100K went.
 
Last edited:
Housing discussions are very polarizing and it will get worse. Canada is talking about 400,000 new immigrants per year and they will have to live somewhere, at least 100,000 family units. Add in the XXX number Canadians that want to leave their existing parental nest. How high can you stack used shipping containers?

Eliminating foreign buyers by punitive taxes will slap the snot out of the price market for a while but the demand will soon catch up.

Is this not more of an oligarchy where the laws favour the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

It's capitalism imo.

I was chatting with a group of early 20 year olds ytd evening and it really got me thinking.

I've mentioned in this thread before that our system more or less encourages psychopathic behavior. When coupled with very common Eastern parenting ways, it's a recipe for mental disorders: you are either better or worse than someone else, and **** being worse. This is often measured via money or net worth. Everyone hops on this rat race.

Those 20 year olds mentioned the mindset I have is a mix of Eastern + capitalism + boomer, and it seems the younger generation wants zero part in this rat race because even if you do succeed, there's a high chance you end up with substance abuse issues (I know very few hyper successful folk who don't have some substance abuse filled skeleton closet.) So, despite me being hyper ahead of this rat race, those 20 year olds had a point.....wtf is the long term point if you rise and grind but overall "feeling ok" goes out the window without substance abuse.

And the #1 thing that would contribute to this rat race? Getting property.

.....I have no idea what would work better than capitalism btw, because communism is always broken due to humans having to lead the system.
 
It's capitalism imo.

I was chatting with a group of early 20 year olds ytd evening and it really got me thinking.

I've mentioned in this thread before that our system more or less encourages psychopathic behavior. When coupled with very common Eastern parenting ways, it's a recipe for mental disorders: you are either better or worse than someone else, and **** being worse. This is often measured via money or net worth. Everyone hops on this rat race.

Those 20 year olds mentioned the mindset I have is a mix of Eastern + capitalism + boomer, and it seems the younger generation wants zero part in this rat race because even if you do succeed, there's a high chance you end up with substance abuse issues (I know very few hyper successful folk who don't have some substance abuse filled skeleton closet.) So, despite me being hyper ahead of this rat race, those 20 year olds had a point.....wtf is the long term point if you rise and grind but overall "feeling ok" goes out the window without substance abuse.

And the #1 thing that would contribute to this rat race? Getting property.

.....I have no idea what would work better than capitalism btw, because communism is always broken due to humans having to lead the system.
If you separate the land from the dwelling, prices become far more reasonable (except in the past few years when everybody seems to have gone literally insane). Assuming the landowner just wants to cover expenses and will let the appreciation make them the money, dwellings become roughly priced at the cost to construct. It would be an interesting experiment to try that with some government owned land. Mortgages would be rough at first as the appraisers may have trouble valuing them so the gov't may need to be the mortgage provider as well (they already cover it if it defaults, they might as well get the offsetting income for the ones that are paid).
 
If you separate the land from the dwelling, prices become far more reasonable (except in the past few years when everybody seems to have gone literally insane). Assuming the landowner just wants to cover expenses and will let the appreciation make them the money, dwellings become roughly priced at the cost to construct. It would be an interesting experiment to try that with some government owned land. Mortgages would be rough at first as the appraisers may have trouble valuing them so the gov't may need to be the mortgage provider as well (they already cover it if it defaults, they might as well get the offsetting income for the ones that are paid).

I'm confused if giving the government more control is a good thing or bad thing. But our current path is not working for the vast majority so.....probably should try something new lol
 
I'm confused if giving the government more control is a good thing or bad thing. But our current path is not working for the vast majority so.....probably should try something new lol
Is it giving them more control? They own the land now. We need dwellings. Conventional path would be transfer land to a developer who sells dwellings under the traditional model ($$$$). Alternative path would be to maintain ownership of land and try the new model ($$). Not sure the best path to construction. Partner with a builder? Hire a competent construction manager?
 
Is it giving them more control? They own the land now. We need dwellings. Conventional path would be transfer land to a developer who sells dwellings under the traditional model ($$$$). Alternative path would be to maintain ownership of land and try the new model ($$). Not sure the best path to construction. Partner with a builder? Hire a competent construction manager?

I don't know enough about this field or these systems to provide useful ideas =(
 
If I needed a 'roof over my head' , it could realistically be anywhere. But my friends, my lifestyle and how I want to live is here.

Would i be opposed to a group home next door, a half way house for citizens re entering society, subsidized housing within a bicycle ride. Yes i would . Because I'm a selfish capitalist .

I'd like a solution to the housing market , but I seriously don't think almost free and as TVO alluded, housing geared to indigenous? and race? I see that as a way to create an almost ghetto environment. Without pride of ownership comes falldown.
 
Like others note, TVO pretty much says it all.

Shockingly people buy somewhere not just because they like house but the area and the lifestyle. Their house is also an investment. So guess what they are going to resist change to the area or changes that devalue their property, shocking it is!
Devaluing is questionable. Few people have any vision. They see their single family home in a development of single family homes as the most valuable option. A developer sees a redevelopment to higher density as more profitable. If R1 zoning in Ontario was updated to four-storey up to four dwelling as of right, your $1.5M suburban house could become 4x750K ($3M). I really like the Seattle (IIRC) approach where they were considering something similar to allow the existing homeowner to have a better home for aging (single level apartment instead of multi-storey house) as well as income to fund their retirement from renting out another unit. Conceptually, to pay for the redevelopment, the builder you partner with gets the other two apartments. That means the builder is on your team as they don't want to build crap and the homeowner doesn't need the money up front (or substantial loan) to rebuild.
 
If I needed a 'roof over my head' , it could realistically be anywhere. But my friends, my lifestyle and how I want to live is here.

Would i be opposed to a group home next door, a half way house for citizens re entering society, subsidized housing within a bicycle ride. Yes i would . Because I'm a selfish capitalist .

I'd like a solution to the housing market , but I seriously don't think almost free and as TVO alluded, housing geared to indigenous? and race? I see that as a way to create an almost ghetto environment. Without pride of ownership comes falldown.
Group homes etc are complicated. On paper they are for reintegration. In practice, the residents very often do bad things in the surrounding community. I would be tempted to pull the plug on residents that did that and send them back to a more controlled setting but I suspect there would be almost nobody left in the halfway house if you did that. I really have no useful ideas other than the current approach sucks.

As for housing geared to physical or ancestral attributes, I agree, that's stupid and doomed to failure. I read the article as established owners vs non-owners that would like to own. No need to bring up ancestry in the discussion imo.
 
Devaluing is questionable. Few people have any vision. They see their single family home in a development of single family homes as the most valuable option. A developer sees a redevelopment to higher density as more profitable. If R1 zoning in Ontario was updated to four-storey up to four dwelling as of right, your $1.5M suburban house could become 4x750K ($3M). I really like the Seattle (IIRC) approach where they were considering something similar to allow the existing homeowner to have a better home for aging (single level apartment instead of multi-storey house) as well as income to fund their retirement from renting out another unit. Conceptually, to pay for the redevelopment, the builder you partner with gets the other two apartments. That means the builder is on your team as they don't want to build crap and the homeowner doesn't need the money up front (or substantial loan) to rebuild.
That is all pretty much bad for the existing homeowners in SFU areas, specially owners that don't want to "cash in" and stay in their home. In Toronto's tight lot frontages, four story MDUs on single 25 or 30 foot frontages (or smaller) is a monstrosity next to smaller homes and the only win for the existing owners is to sell and do the same. Once one is built beside you your property the value goes down as a SFU and the only upside is to sell the land and flee. Not too many can actually afford to develop themselves or "partner" and can afford to move out for a year+ while it all gets built, so again sell and flee (no real downsizing option here for existing owners in the same location). Maybe if you get in on the feeding frenzy early and move you win. Developers cash in of course. The other core problem in Toronto is developers wanting to build 25 story towers basically next door to houses.... where bylaws say six max.

The city may love the extra PT but sewer and road infrastructure is already at capacity (above really) and none of this added density pays the full flight to upgrade (if even possible). Transit is a shitshow for most as well, now.

Someone has to lose for someone else to win in these schemes. Schadenfreude is also a driving force in these schemes.

Toronto as an example has 60K emtpy condos now. Quite a bit of empty brownfield land (more than most people actually realize). Foreign money in the market, etc. Plus a population that will need to downside in the next 5 to 10 years. There are better ways to tackle this.
 

You're not surprised are you?

Our economy relies on them foreign buyers <_<

Schadenfreude

Holy ****, finally learned a word to describe psychopathic behavior without using the word psychopath because psychopath is REALLY strong. Thank you!

I'd like a solution to the housing market , but I seriously don't think almost free and as TVO alluded, housing geared to indigenous? and race? I see that as a way to create an almost ghetto environment. Without pride of ownership comes falldown.

I don't know about this...having a decent home is on the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; and personally I think owning property is a piss low ass bar to have pride in.

In college, I had a ton of great ideas. Some got sold, some went to ****, but there was a ton of pride in "gitting gud" and helping others. Same with motorcycling, getting faster, spreading advice, watching other riders get faster....tons of pride, felt amazing. Same for music, fitness, etc. etc.

I can't say I feel any pride at all owning a home, aside from "hahahahaha bunch of you are more poor than me, hahahahahah".....pretty ****** up imo.
 
Last edited:
If you separate the land from the dwelling, prices become far more reasonable (except in the past few years when everybody seems to have gone literally insane). Assuming the landowner just wants to cover expenses and will let the appreciation make them the money, dwellings become roughly priced at the cost to construct. It would be an interesting experiment to try that with some government owned land. Mortgages would be rough at first as the appraisers may have trouble valuing them so the gov't may need to be the mortgage provider as well (they already cover it if it defaults, they might as well get the offsetting income for the ones that are paid).
In the GTA that is true.

I'm investing outside the GTA where land prices are cheap, the problem in those areas is building a 1000sq' single-family home is running $250,000, which is generally more than the price of existing housing stock. This dramatic increase in house building costs had driven up the price of resales in rural Ontario big time. 5 years ago you could get a 1200' starter home in Kingston, Windsor, Belleville, or Peterborough for $200K. For another $100K you could go to Innisfil, Guelph, Hamilton or the Shwa. Today you couldn't build the house for that money.
 
In the GTA that is true.

I'm investing outside the GTA where land prices are cheap, the problem in those areas is building a 1000sq' single-family home is running $250,000, which is generally more than the price of existing housing stock. This dramatic increase in house building costs had driven up the price of resales in rural Ontario big time. 5 years ago you could get a 1200' starter home in Kingston, Windsor, Belleville, or Peterborough for $200K. For another $100K you could go to Innisfil, Guelph, Hamilton or the Shwa. Today you couldn't build the house for that money.
Friends in PEI got the empty land when the father passed. They spent 400K building a beautiful house (GCing themselves as well) for what is basically a 200K existing house (and the 200K house comes with the land).

They did it knowingly as they wanted the dream home, intend to live their until they can't and they had the money (he was also a builder here in Ontario and sold a very nice home here).
 
If it wasn’t for the ridiculous building costs I would be waiting for my addition to be built right now.

But 200-300k with an unknown final number is not something I’ll will to risk….so we’re not doing anything major this year.

I’ll do the fence, interior insulation, maybe a larger window and that’s it for 2022.
 
Here is the house that I went to see a few weeks ago...the one that did the addition that I wanted (top left of the house). I posted a pic from the exterior before...

If I knew this was going to sell anywhere near the 2M mark...I'd be listing my house tomorrow.

 
You're not surprised are you?

Our economy relies on them foreign buyers


Holy ****, finally learned a word to describe psychopathic behavior without using the word psychopath because psychopath is REALLY strong. Thank you!



I don't know about this...having a decent home is on the bottom rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; and personally I think owning property is a piss low ass bar to have
I can't say I feel any pride at all owning a home, aside from "hahahahaha bunch of you are more poor than me, hahahahahah".....pretty ****** up imo.

Who the F is Maslow?
So when I say pride in ownership , I’m typing in Boomerspeak , I’ll translate. It’s not pride in the sense you own a house, be proud and gloat. Pride of ownership is keeping the lawn mowed , no cars missing wheels in the drive , actual curtains on windows not clan flags .
In Boomerspeak when someone refers to a homeowner as house proud , it’s a nice kept house .




Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app
 
Who the F is Maslow?
So when I say pride in ownership , I’m typing in Boomerspeak , I’ll translate. It’s not pride in the sense you own a house, be proud and gloat. Pride of ownership is keeping the lawn mowed , no cars missing wheels in the drive , actual curtains on windows not clan flags .
In Boomerspeak when someone refers to a homeowner as house proud , it’s a nice kept house .

That's conscientiousness over pride imo; as in wanting to do ones job to the best of their ability (which implies keeping **** in order to reduce chaos because chaos is default without manual intervention.)

Maslow's Hierachy of Needs is from 1943 (psychology.) Dude split needs into categories and there's info derived off this. For example: crime goes up if first two rungs aren't met. And it is impossible to hit the upper levels without fully meeting the lower levels.
 

Back
Top Bottom