Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Kraftwerk posted:

I've been driving for Uber in 12 hour shifts during my winter vacation from work. I often discuss the housing bubble with some of my fares since most of them own condos in the south central part of Toronto in that stretch at Spadina-Fort York- Bremner.- Lakeshore. It's really amusing to listen to them acknowledge that yes we are probably in a housing bubble but Toronto is completely immune. Listening to these people almost convinces me there isn't a bubble at all and that real-estate will rise forever.

There's a guy who bought a condo on the east end on Sherbourne somewhere. $200/sqft was what he got it for. It's worth 500/sqft now. The numbers in this thread a certainly convincing but I have a feeling we aren't dealing with rational actors here. People want to live in Toronto. They especially want to live in those nice houses between St.Clair and Lawrence. One look out there makes me think this thread's warnings of a housing bubble are simply wishful thinking because we've all been marginalized from owning property due to our low incomes.

There seems to be plenty of people who can easily afford the kind of crazy real estate prices that are flying around here. As long as people can afford it the prices will go up. That being said I drove a development company employee who told me that even the "premium" builders are charging way above what you're actually getting. In spite of this people still eat that poo poo up and pay for it.

Vancouver and Toronto behave differently as real estate markets from all the other cities in Canada. This is because within Vancouver and Toronto you have two markets - the average housing market and then the premium market. The premium market is expensive and I imagine will stay expensive even if there is a crash. If there is a crash I doubt Vancouver and Toronto will move very much, it's going to be the 'me too, have not' cities like Winnipeg and such that will have the greatest deviation since they don't have that inherent value and resilience.

Basically anyone talking about the real estate market as a singular entity in Canada is an idiot.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 16:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 10:12

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Horatius Bonar posted:

One summer I worked at the front desk at the Oswego. It ties into the real estate discussion because one thing about that hotel is that all the suites are individually owned. About 50-70% of the owners were from Calgary. Some would come in once a year, most never did. The profits were shared out to the owners, I think on a room type and square footage basis but don't quote me since I never saw the financial reports of it. A few suites were bought and sold while I worked there, and dealing with the realtors was a pain. They didn't quite seem to ever understand how hotels worked, or much of anything really.

It pulled in pretty good revenue I think, based on our occupancy levels and rates compared to similar hotels in Victoria.

It seemed like a potentially risky business model to me, since they were not really livable condos just up-sized hotel rooms, so no living in the suite if tourism in Victoria took a hit, but it worked there. I guess the same one didn't work for the new Oak Bay Hotel. I don't know of any other major hotels in Victoria with the same business structure.

There's that place on Blanshard and Humbolt that I believe is the same model. It had a lot of financial problems and ended up being bought out by some other company, no idea what happened to the individual suite owners.
Also hello fellow Victorian! I often feel like I'm the only one.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 16:46

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

cowofwar posted:

Vancouver and Toronto behave differently as real estate markets from all the other cities in Canada. This is because within Vancouver and Toronto you have two markets - the average housing market and then the premium market. The premium market is expensive and I imagine will stay expensive even if there is a crash. If there is a crash I doubt Vancouver and Toronto will move very much, it's going to be the 'me too, have not' cities like Winnipeg and such that will have the greatest deviation since they don't have that inherent value and resilience.

Basically anyone talking about the real estate market as a singular entity in Canada is an idiot.

I don't expect anything in "nice" areas of Toronto to budge too much, but I do wonder how houses in the surrounding areas will adjust. Stuff like Etobicoke and Scarborough, where you're close to the city but it's not all that pleasant. Or going further out to the GTA, suburby places like Markham/Stouffville.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 16:48

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Merry Christmas everyone! gently caress Alberta!

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/63c7...l#axzz3MduwybXp

quote:

Opec will not cut production even if the price of oil falls to $20 a barrel, the cartel�s de facto leader said, spelling out a dramatic policy shift that will have far-reaching implications for the global energy industry.

In an unusually frank interview, Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, tore up Opec�s traditional strategy of keeping prices high by limiting oil output and replaced it with a new policy of defending the cartel�s market share at all costs.

�It is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their production, whatever the price is,� he told the Middle East Economic Survey. �Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is irrelevant.�

He said the world may never see $100 a barrel oil again.

The comments, from a man who is often described as the most influential figure in the energy industry, marked the first time that Mr Naimi has explained the strategy shift in detail.

They represent a �fundamental change� in Opec policy that is more far-reaching than any seen since the 1970s, said Jamie Webster, oil analyst at IHS Energy.

�We have entered a scary time for the oil market and for the next several years we are going to be dealing with a lot of volatility,� he said. �Just about everything will be touched by this.�

Analysts say that Saudi Arabia is throwing down the gauntlet to all the high-cost sources of crude � from the oil sands of Canada and US shale to deepwater Brazil and the Arctic � in an attempt to face down the threat they pose to its market share.

Mr Naimi said that if the kingdom reduced its production, �the price will go up and the Russians, the Brazilians, US shale oil producers will take my share�.

Oil has slumped by nearly 50 per cent since mid-June amid a massive supply glut fuelled by surging US shale output, combined with weakening demand for crude in Europe and Asia.

In the past, Opec has cut production when prices fall, such as during the 2008 financial crisis. But at the cartel�s meeting in Vienna last month, members held output steady at 30m barrels a day, sending prices into a tailspin.

The price plunge has thrown the economies of big oil exporters like Russia and Venezuela into disarray and forced oil companies across the world to rewrite their investment plans.

But it could prove to be a major boon for the global economy. The International Monetary Fund said on Monday that a prolonged price slump could boost global growth by up 0.7 per cent in 2015 and 0.8 per cent in 2016. China would be the biggest beneficiary, with its GDP boosted by up to 0.7 per cent in 2015 and 0.9 per cent in 2016.

Oil prices fell further on Monday as markets digested Mr Naimi�s remarks. Brent crude, the international oil marker, was down $1.08 to $60.30 a barrel, after falling as low as $59.84 in afternoon trading. It is now hovering at five-and-a-half year lows.

In the MEES interview, Mr Naimi said Saudi Arabia and other Gulf oil producers would be able to withstand a long period of low crude prices, largely because their production costs were so low � at only about $4-$5 a barrel.

But he said the pain will be much greater for other oil regions, such as offshore Brazil, west Africa and the Arctic, whose costs are much higher.
�So sooner or later, however much they hold out, in the end, their financial affairs will limit their production,� he said.

�We want to tell the world that high efficiency producing countries are the ones that deserve market share,� said Mr Naimi added. �If the price falls, it falls . . . Others will be harmed greatly before we feel any pain.�

The bluntness of Mr Naimi�s message took even seasoned Opec observers by surprise. �I�m more bearish than most people looking at the oil price, but even I am stunned how aggressive his comments are about this radical departure from policy,� said Yasser Elguindi of Medley Global Advisors.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:03

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

Sale of the Week: the home that shows how far $1.1 million goes in High Park (hint: not very)

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/toronto-real-estate/2014/12/22/sale-of-the-week-371-parkside-drive/

The Property: This three-storey, six-bedroom home across the street from High Park requires work. The bones of the structure are in good condition, and some of the original fixtures are worth saving, like the leaded and stained-glass windows, high baseboards and fireplaces. The rest, though, is in poor shape. The property was sold as-is.

The History: 371 Parkside was originally built around the turn of the century. Its previous owner, a 103-year-old man, had lived most of his life in the home, and apparently saw no reason to remodel.

The Fate: Although the property was marketed to contractors and builders, ultimately it was a family that bought the place. They�ll need to renovate before they can move in. Fortunately, they have a couple things working in their favour: one, the home�s ample size eliminates the need for a pricey expansion, and two, the lack of prior renovations means fewer layers to peel back.

The Sale: With few foothold properties left in High Park, buyers are turning to homes they can purchase for the right price and renovate to their liking. This place received 11 offers. The high selling price undoubtedly has a lot to do with the house�s proximity to High Park and the downtown core.

By the Numbers:

� $1,120,000
� 3,000 square feet, approximately, not including the basement
� 130 per cent of list price
� 15 days on the market
� 11 offers
� 6 bedrooms
� 3-car private driveway
� 0 previous renovations

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:06

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Doug Saunders is one of my favorite G&M columnists. Last weekend he got absolutely bitchlapped live on twitter by an economist, Stephen Gordon, for propagating the myth that Canada is overly reliant on oil.

WARNING: CANPOL SJWs COVER UR EYES PLS

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/12/saunders.html

quote:

Doug Saunders has written a dreadful column about the "resource curse", and I'm going to explain why it's dreadful

This column by Doug Saunders on the "resource curse" in last Saturday's Globe and Mail is quite dreadful:

When the price of oil is the foundation of your country�s economy, a sudden plunge to half its value focuses the mind wonderfully, doesn�t it?

One's heart sinks at the very first sentence: the premise is wildy at odds with the facts and can lead to nothing useful.

Here is the share of NAICS sector 21 (Mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction) and NAICS sector 31-33 (Manufacturing) as a share of GDP:

quote:

Do you think that looks like an economy whose foundation is the price of oil? Me neither, but the facts be damned: there's a narrative to construct! (In case you're curious, NAICS sector 21 accounts for less than 25% of Alberta's GDP.)

Phrases such as �resource curse� suddenly sound a lot less like airy academic vagaries. Boasts such as �energy superpower� sound less confident and more tragic. And it becomes harder to dismiss as fictions or insults terms such as �staples trap� or �Dutch disease� or �bitumen cliff.�

Oh dear lord. If God provides you with an abundance of something that the rest of the world values highly and is willing to pay through the nose to obtain, then this is a blessing, not a curse. If the 'resource curse' has any meaning, it has to do with politics, not economics. In countries with weak institutions, resource rents are often captured by elites and can reinforce their power. (Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson's Why Nations Fail is probably the definitive take on this point.) In Canada - and Alberta and Norway, come that - strong political institutions have made sure that the resource wealth is widely-shared, and not squirrelled away in oligarchs' offshore bank accounts.

Those all refer to a well-known phenomenon: When an economy is built on the extraction of raw materials, the incoming flood of easy money makes it very difficult for a country to thrive in non-resource fields. During a resource boom, your pumped-up currency and labour costs hurt other export industries and many service sectors.

I can only infer that it is received wisdom on the Globe and Mail's op-ed pages that high wages are a Bad Thing. It wasn't so long ago that Gary Mason was using the same platform to tell us that low wages were the path to prosperity, because, well, he doesn't seem to understand just what it means to be prosperous. Nor does Doug Saunders, apparently. (Again, please read Joe Heath on this.) According to the Globe op-ed page, workers' leaving the manufacturing sector in search of higher wages is something to be regretted, because <reasons>.

Your competitiveness plunges.

Whose competitiveness plunges? As Paul Krugman once explained at great length, "competitiveness is a meaningless word when applied to national economies. And the obsession with competitiveness is both wrong and dangerous." This sort of statement makes sense in the context of a firm whose business model is based on having access to low-wage workers, but to go from there to claim that the Canadian economy is somehow worse off when wages rise is, well, 'both wrong and dangerous'.

You lose interest in innovation, research and development, because you make more money taking things out of the ground.

This is what Macleans' Colby Cosh calls the 'Beverly Hillbillies' theory of the oil sands: "One day [Jed Clampett] was shootin� at some food, and up from the ground came a-bubblin� crude." The notion that Alberta's oil wealth is just sitting there, waiting to be gathered up by unskilled yobs is both widespread and wrong. As Cosh puts it, "The oilpatch isn�t distinguishable from other kinds of mining or manufacture, or even service businesses, in the degree to which it involves risk, innovation, or scientific sophistication."

Despite the wealth flood, you run up public and private debt, because rates are low and the boom seems perpetual. You become dependent on imports of both goods and debt, which are cheaper when your currency is strong.

I can barely parse this. Is he talking about external debt or total debt? If he's talking about external debt, it should be noted that external assets have grown even faster. Indeed, the recent depreciation of the CAD has increased the net international investment position by pushing up the CAD value of foreign assets. To the extent that public and private debt have increased in Canada, the obvious explanation is the recent recession and record-low interest rates. Other countries that don't export oil have seen the same. Moreover, the whole point of engaging in international trade is to obtain imports: the improvement in Canada's terms of trade has increased our purchasing power.

Then the boom comes down on you. At the moment, most petroleum-based countries are feeling it. Russia is devastated: After spending its reserve savings trying to save the ruble, it�s now facing ruin. Hyperinflation has kicked in. Food prices rose by as much as 30 per cent. Mortgages, which most Russians put in more stable foreign currencies, have become unsustainable.

Venezuela, which used oil revenues to prop up an artificial economy by subsidizing food and fuel, is faring even worse. (Indeed, reports suggest that Cuba�s rapprochement with the United States this week happened, in part, because Havana feared the total demise of its partner state.)

But what about Canada? We�ve been hurt � the dollar�s plunge and Alberta�s looming fiscal crisis are just a start. But we�re not Russia or Venezuela. They can fairly be called rentier states: That is, everything their governments do depends on payments for petroleum. Canada is more than a pool of oil and a flagpole, isn�t it?

Yes and no. Canada has many other industries, although a good number of them are also resource-based � and during the 2000s, there was a �commodity convergence� so the prices of everything from oil and gas to food grains often rise and fall together.

In 2000, raw resources accounted for 40 per cent of Canada�s economic activity. By 2011, it had risen to almost two-thirds.

If you saw this column in the print version, this is what you read. And if you are even remotely familiar with the facts of the Canadian economy, you probably said something like this:

quote:

The online edition was quickly edited and now reads:

In 2000, raw resources accounted for 40 per cent of Canada�s economic export activity. By 2011, it had risen to almost two-thirds.

The goalposts have shifted from "the price of oil is the foundation of your economy" to "raw resources", but let's let that pass. It's still wrong. Total exports in 2011 were $620.1b, and here are the components that could be ascribed to the "raw resources" category:

Farm, fishing and intermediate food products: $24.1b
Energy products: $103.7b
Metal ores and non-metallic minerals: $20.7b
Forestry products and building and packaging materials: $30.4b
Adding those up gets you to 29% of total exports - less than half of the claim made in Saunders' column, after the correction. Energy exports account for 17% of total exports and about 6.8% of GDP. Petro-economy, indeed.

Was Canada�s resource boom actually destroying the viability of other industries?

To the extent that it was destroying the viability of industries whose business model was based on paying low wages, perhaps it was. I don't have a problem with that.

During peak boom years, it was unacceptable even to ask.

This is must be some kind of joke. The question has never stopped being asked ever since oil prices started rising in 2002. The Ontario manufacturing lobby has never been in the habit of staying quiet when things didn't go its way.

When the Opposition leader noted in the House of Commons, in 2012, that a federal study had shown that Canada was falling prey to �Dutch disease� (named after the 1960s oil boom, which devastated other exports in the Netherlands), Conservative MP Kellie Leitch offered the government�s response: �The leader of the Opposition wants to call Canadian employers a disease.�

Even some far better informed Canadians made light of the problem. One popular counterargument was best expressed by Mark Carney, then Bank of Canada governor, in a 2012 speech in which he acknowledged that some �Dutch disease� factors were present, but said we shouldn�t worry because it was good money...

Here I think I'll just direct people to this blog post I wrote for Maclean's: "Why do they call it Dutch 'disease', anyways?"

...and, besides, oil prices were going to remain high for a very, very long time.

�The bank�s view is that a large, sustained increase in demand is the primary driver of elevated [oil] prices,� Mr. Carney said. �The breadth and durability of the commodity rally underscore this conclusion.� He pointed out that �rapid urbanization� of the developing world would keep demand high throughout the foreseeable future.

He, and much of Ottawa and Moscow and Caracas, failed to consider the possibility that it would not be lack of demand but rather abundance of supply (led by huge new U.S. reserves) that would kill the boom.

Once again, the goalposts have been moved. The claim is now that because oil prices stopped rising, it was a bad idea to take advantage of higher oil prices when they were rising. This doesn't make any sense. Or at least, it makes at least as much sense as this tweet from circa 2005:

quote:

Sauders - and many, many others - appears to be labouring under the notion that economies must decide upon a given allocation of productive resources across sectors and stick with it for eternity. The idea that labour and capital can be re-allocated as relative prices evolve is an alien notion to these people. But textbook economics would tell you that it's good idea to shift away from resources when their prices fall, and that it's a good idea to shift toward resources when their prices rise. Governments don't have to get involved.

There were two ways to avoid a resource trap:

Given the size of the resource sector, this question isn't of much interest. How about ways of avoiding the manufacturing trap?

By investing heavily in �smart� industries (which Canada did a bit of)

Who, exactly, was supposed to have done this investing, and why?

and by keeping the oil revenues out of your own economy like Norway (which puts more than 90 per cent of its petroleum earnings into non-Norwegian investments, to keep the money beyond its borders).

This wouldn't have affected the shift to the resource sector.

Canada did the opposite: We spent, even more than we earned.

There's no factual basis for this claim. Net wealth has increased, and Canada's net international investment position has improved.

Much like those other energy superpowers, we somehow used a money flood to build up large levels of both public and private debt,

That's not what happened. See above.

much of it denominated in foreign currencies that are becoming more expensive by the day.

This doesn't pass the smell test. If that were the case, then the depreciation of the CAD would have the effect of reducing our net international investment position, as the CAD value of foreign-currency liabilities increased. The opposite is happening: this increase is more than offset by the CAD value increase in foreign assets.

Resource curse indeed. It might be time to start taking those insults seriously.

Maybe it might be time to start taking some basic textbook economics seriously.

This column is yet another example of anti-economics. Nowhere does it make reference to or mention of such basic concepts as comparative advantage, and its grasp of the basic facts is shaky at best. And yet it is confidently presented on the op-ed page of Canada's Newspaper of Record.

Coda: Today's Globe has this remarkable chart:

quote:

Both series are measured in the same units, but by having two y-axes and telescoping the scale of the axis used for energy exports, it produces a chart in which the scale of variation of the energy series is exaggerated to support the claim just above the chart.

Here is what you get using the same axis for both series:

quote:

Such is the quality of the economic analysis we can expect from the Globe.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:09

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

It's sad how even in GTA with a average 1 bedroom rent of $1200-$1300 in the more expensive areas, people still feel the need to rush out and buy a condo.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:10

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Also, lol, andrew leach pwned

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:11

peter banana: Sep 2, 2008; Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

triplexpac posted:

Sale of the Week: the home that shows how far $1.1 million goes in High Park (hint: not very)

http://www.torontolife.com/informer/toronto-real-estate/2014/12/22/sale-of-the-week-371-parkside-drive/

The Property: This three-storey, six-bedroom home across the street from High Park requires work. The bones of the structure are in good condition, and some of the original fixtures are worth saving, like the leaded and stained-glass windows, high baseboards and fireplaces. The rest, though, is in poor shape. The property was sold as-is.

The History: 371 Parkside was originally built around the turn of the century. Its previous owner, a 103-year-old man, had lived most of his life in the home, and apparently saw no reason to remodel.

The Fate: Although the property was marketed to contractors and builders, ultimately it was a family that bought the place. They�ll need to renovate before they can move in. Fortunately, they have a couple things working in their favour: one, the home�s ample size eliminates the need for a pricey expansion, and two, the lack of prior renovations means fewer layers to peel back.

The Sale: With few foothold properties left in High Park, buyers are turning to homes they can purchase for the right price and renovate to their liking. This place received 11 offers. The high selling price undoubtedly has a lot to do with the house�s proximity to High Park and the downtown core.

By the Numbers:

� $1,120,000
� 3,000 square feet, approximately, not including the basement
� 130 per cent of list price
� 15 days on the market
� 11 offers
� 6 bedrooms
� 3-car private driveway
� 0 previous renovations

oh no! I know that house! I used to live just a few up.

The guy that lived there was old and had a lot of mobility issues. Obviously, he was 103. One day my husband and I walked past and the lawn was all overgrown with weeds. We came back the next day and asked if he'd like us to help him. He tried to pay us but we wouldn't let him. He sat on the porch and we had a great conversation and our cats came by to watch as well. He had a bird feeder on the porch and our cats loved chasing them. You could see the roof sagging from down the street. It'll probably need to be replaced. If the house has been sold, it's probably be cause he couldn't live alone anymore or he died :smith:

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:12

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

triplexpac posted:

I don't expect anything in "nice" areas of Toronto to budge too much, but I do wonder how houses in the surrounding areas will adjust. Stuff like Etobicoke and Scarborough, where you're close to the city but it's not all that pleasant. Or going further out to the GTA, suburby places like Markham/Stouffville.

Yeah, if there's a crash it will be just like the USA where the least capitalized people who are overleveraged and who work in FIRE and live in the suburbs will fold first. It would be a suburb problem and not a city problem.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:25

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Wow, a 6 bedroom house in High Park went for 1.1 million? That's hardly unreasonable considering that nearby three bedroom houses less than half the size have gone for 8-900k. And don't think they were all given modern renovations beforehand either. Most of the houses in the High Park/Keele area were built in the 1910s and 20s.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 17:38

jet sanchEz: Oct 24, 2001; Lousy Manipulative Dog

Kraftwerk posted:

There seems to be plenty of people who can easily afford the kind of crazy real estate prices that are flying around here. As long as people can afford it the prices will go up. That being said I drove a development company employee who told me that even the "premium" builders are charging way above what you're actually getting. In spite of this people still eat that poo poo up and pay for it.

I have friends that are rich and a lot of them have bought houses in the last couple of years, most of them have spoken to me about the bubble and none of them care if they lose 20% as they have bought their houses because they needed a house. People who have been speculating on the market and buying up condos or houses to rent are the ones who will get burned.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 20:47

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

cowofwar posted:

It would be a suburb problem and not a city problem.

The cities busted too eventually in the US. Even the 'fortress' cities that weren't ever supposed to go down in price ever short of Mad Max poo poo, at least according to the realtors and banks at the time. It just took longer for the nicer areas to get their drop. Yes this even includes stuff like real mansions that were selling for millions prior to the bubble and sold for tens of millions during the bubble and then dropped back down to near pre bubble prices again.

Nice or even exceptional areas aren't immune to having bubbles or busts.

eXXon posted:

Wow, a 6 bedroom house in High Park went for 1.1 million? That's hardly unreasonable considering that nearby three bedroom houses less than half the size have gone for 8-900k.

If you're in a market bubble you have to look at affordability vs wages to judge 'unreasonableness' rather than comparable or surrounding property prices.

As near as I can tell the median household income for the city (Toronto) is around $70K.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 23:12

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

The cities busted too eventually in the US. Even the 'fortress' cities that weren't ever supposed to go down in price ever short of Mad Max poo poo, at least according to the realtors and banks at the time. It just took longer for the nicer areas to get their drop. Yes this even includes stuff like real mansions that were selling for millions prior to the bubble and sold for tens of millions during the bubble and then dropped back down to near pre bubble prices again.

Nice or even exceptional areas aren't immune to having bubbles or busts.

Yes, for sure it would eventually spread to the major cities if given sufficient time but it would start first in the suburbs and they would be the last to recover. A number of lovely suburbs in Nevada never recovered.

# ? Dec 23, 2014 23:17

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; D&D: HASBARA SQUAD
THE SPEECH SUPPRESSOR

Remember: it's "antisemitic" to protest genocide as long as the targets are brown.

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

The cities busted too eventually in the US. Even the 'fortress' cities that weren't ever supposed to go down in price ever short of Mad Max poo poo, at least according to the realtors and banks at the time. It just took longer for the nicer areas to get their drop. Yes this even includes stuff like real mansions that were selling for millions prior to the bubble and sold for tens of millions during the bubble and then dropped back down to near pre bubble prices again.

Nice or even exceptional areas aren't immune to having bubbles or busts.

Even now, bubble deniers keep pointing out that New York and San Francisco didn't see the kind of price drops that the hardest-hit places did. The thing they willfully ignore is that New York and San Francisco never had anything resembling the huge speculative runup you saw in places like southern Florida.

Toronto and Vancouver have had massive runups over the past decade. That alone is enough to make the comparison to New York not fit.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 00:12

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

tagesschau posted:

Even now, bubble deniers keep pointing out that New York and San Francisco didn't see the kind of price drops that the hardest-hit places did. The thing they willfully ignore is that New York and San Francisco never had anything resembling the huge speculative runup you saw in places like southern Florida.

Toronto and Vancouver have had massive runups over the past decade. That alone is enough to make the comparison to New York not fit.

New York and San Francisco also have real economies.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 02:31

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

If you're in a market bubble you have to look at affordability vs wages to judge 'unreasonableness' rather than comparable or surrounding property prices.

As near as I can tell the median household income for the city (Toronto) is around $70K.

I don't think looking at the price of a 6 bedroom, 3000 sq ft home, probably in the 95th percentile or higher of home sizes in the GTA, and then comparing it to the median household income is reasonable at all.

This is not to deny the bubble or anything. But when houses less than half the size sell for 80-90% of the price, this is seriously not the most egregious example you could point to.

Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Dec 24, 2014

# ? Dec 24, 2014 04:24

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

eXXon posted:

I don't think looking at the price of a 6 bedroom, 3000 sq ft home, probably in the 95th percentile or higher of home sizes in the GTA, and then comparing it to the median household income is reasonable at all.

What architect designs this poo poo? Why would you need 6 bedrooms, unless you're a gently caress-machine who hates condoms, and also believes all their many children deserve complete privacy? This is some TLC-level poo poo.

I've been to honest-to-God hotels (like, amenities, restaurant and bar included, not some B&B) that only have 8 bedrooms. These people are two bedrooms away from being a goddamn hotel.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 05:36

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

You could ask the architect but seeing as the house was built 100+ years ago, he probably won't be able to answer.

Seriously, it's a huge turn of the century brick house with what looks like all of the original wood trim in good shape. Of course it's expensive. It was designed and built for a rich motherfucker a century ago and its owners for the next century will almost certainly all be one percenters too.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 05:51

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

eXXon posted:

You could ask the architect but seeing as the house was built 100+ years ago, he probably won't be able to answer.

Seriously, it's a huge turn of the century brick house with what looks like all of the original wood trim in good shape. Of course it's expensive. It was designed and built for a rich motherfucker a century ago and its owners for the next century will almost certainly all be one percenters too.

Pretty much any houses built that long ago in the west would've been built by folks that said, "You think you need your own fuckin' bedroom? Well, then put up some walls in the barn, you entitled prick!" I grew up in a house that was built in the 1900s, and even after fairly extensive renovations, there were two bedrooms and maybe a space that could be used as a third bedroom in a pinch. We have a family photo of the original family that built the house: somehow, they all fit in without individual bedrooms....

# ? Dec 24, 2014 05:57

EvilJoven: Mar 18, 2005; NOBODY,IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, HAS ASKED OR CARED WHAT CANADA THINKS. YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY. YOUR MONEY HAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND ON IT. IF YOU DIG AROUND IN YOUR BACKYARD, NATIVE SKELETONS WOULD EXPLODE OUT OF YOUR LAWN LIKE THE END OF POLTERGEIST. CANADA IS SO POLITE, EH?; Fun Shoe

A hundred years ago stupid little sitting rooms with maybe a table and two chairs were considered all the rage. Now they just say '6 bedrooms' when in reality it's 3 bedrooms with what would now be considered a few big broom/storage closets. We saw a lot of this when we were thinking of renting in some of the older neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 06:54

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

EvilJoven posted:

A hundred years ago stupid little sitting rooms with maybe a table and two chairs were considered all the rage. Now they just say '6 bedrooms' when in reality it's 3 bedrooms with what would now be considered a few big broom/storage closets. We saw a lot of this when we were thinking of renting in some of the older neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.

That makes a lot more sense, but in terms of marketing, I'd consider using the terms "bonus room", "games room" or "exercise room" instead of advertising you have more bedrooms than any sane person needs or wants.

poo poo, i could be a REALTOR!

# ? Dec 24, 2014 07:01

melon cat: Jan 21, 2010; Nap Ghost

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

As near as I can tell the median household income for the city (Toronto) is around $70K.

You're pretty much bang on the money- it's $68,000 according to Wiki. And that is shockingly low, considering that the average semi-detached costs ~$700K in Toronto.

How does that even :psyduck:

# ? Dec 24, 2014 07:36

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Low interest rates bruh. Money is practically free. All you gotta do is afford the debt service rates.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 08:03

Saltin: Aug 20, 2003; Don't touch

cowofwar posted:

Vancouver and Toronto behave differently as real estate markets from all the other cities in Canada. This is because within Vancouver and Toronto you have two markets - the average housing market and then the premium market. The premium market is expensive and I imagine will stay expensive even if there is a crash. If there is a crash I doubt Vancouver and Toronto will move very much, it's going to be the 'me too, have not' cities like Winnipeg and such that will have the greatest deviation since they don't have that inherent value and resilience.

Basically anyone talking about the real estate market as a singular entity in Canada is an idiot.

This is accurate. Hate all you want but the best neighbourhoods in the best cities are going to be the least affected by whatever happens. I don't suggest they will be immune, but it's going to be an order of magnitude worse in "why they gently caress do people live here" places where McMansions stuffed onto tiny lots go for retard level prices. The markets in Toronto that are going to be harder hit are likely to be condos (that's a slam dunk) and multi-million dollar places.I would also expect places up in cottage country will get cheaper, vacation properties are always the first to crack.

Saltin fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Dec 24, 2014

# ? Dec 24, 2014 14:40

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

Low interest rates bruh. Money is practically free. All you gotta do is afford the debt service rates.

You can also easily find renters to make the large mortgage affordable.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 14:58

sbaldrick: Jul 19, 2006; Driven by Hate

PT6A posted:

What architect designs this poo poo? Why would you need 6 bedrooms, unless you're a gently caress-machine who hates condoms, and also believes all their many children deserve complete privacy? This is some TLC-level poo poo.

I've been to honest-to-God hotels (like, amenities, restaurant and bar included, not some B&B) that only have 8 bedrooms. These people are two bedrooms away from being a goddamn hotel.

In a house like that some of those rooms would have been for live in servants that wouldn't have been counted as bedrooms at the time (basically the whole top floor of the house ). My grandfathers house in Toronto when it was last on the market had 12 bedrooms, of which 6 where for family and guests.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 16:22

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

PT6A posted:

That makes a lot more sense, but in terms of marketing, I'd consider using the terms "bonus room", "games room" or "exercise room" instead of advertising you have more bedrooms than any sane person needs or wants.

I'm pretty sure the average homebuyer is smart enough to interpret "bedroom" as "room large enough to accommodate a bed but which does not actually have to do so".

# ? Dec 24, 2014 16:39

jet sanchEz: Oct 24, 2001; Lousy Manipulative Dog

I grew up in a monstrous home in Parkdale, just a few blocks from that big house across from High Park that you guys are talking about. We had 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, 2 fireplaces, a large dining room, a huge living room, a loving kitchen pantry and it was a semi-detached house. The Victorian homes in Toronto's west end are gigantic.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 16:41

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Our house is small and the perfect size for us, I do not covet McMansion heating bills.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:13

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

cowofwar posted:

Our house is small and the perfect size for us, I do not covet McMansion heating bills.

Yeah there was some thread were goons were posting their energy bills and most of them made my eyes pop out, I couldn't believe anyone could pay so much for electricity (literally 10-50x what I pay). Then I found out that's what they pay monthly, not bi-monthly. It's just insane how large houses are, but worst how inefficient they are. Good insulation will very quickly pay for its self, we should really raise the minimum R values in the code.

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 24, 2014

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:20

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

LemonDrizzle posted:

I'm pretty sure the average homebuyer is smart enough...

Well, there's your problem!

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:27

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

2.5 bedroom condo on the upper floor (4th) with just two people costs me $90 bi-monthly. My parents house is 3 people, 5 bedroom, and runs them $200.

But living in the suburbs is cheaper!!!!!!!!

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:41

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

eXXon posted:

I don't think looking at the price of a 6 bedroom, 3000 sq ft home, probably in the 95th percentile or higher of home sizes in the GTA, and then comparing it to the median household income is reasonable at all.

If multimillion dollar legit mansions are subject to huge price booms and busts then so are old 6 rm 3000sq ft houses in need of repair near a nice park, which is pretty from being a good or even exceptional property BTW. Sure as hell not worth anywhere near $1 million in any sane market.

Homes are only worth what people can afford and unless they've got access to incredible amounts of credit all there is to work with is the wages.

That is why even the nice homes in the nice areas still under went major price declines in the US. Yes that includes the ones were really in 95th percentile in terms of overall property and house quality and not just in terms of size or number of rooms.

PT6A posted:

What architect designs this poo poo?

Old homes (and by old here I mean pre WWII-ish) tend to have lots of tiny rooms because back then that is what people wanted. The 'moar rooms=moar bettar' BS was a sales factor but it also made it easier to heat the house in the winter. You'd just close off the rooms that didn't have people in them at the moment and heat the one you were in at the time. This was a big issue because while most homes back then were built better and made out of better quality wood than today they also were almost totally uninsulated.

It was of course common for there to be multiple tiny heaters or fireplaces throughout the house too. You'd go and light them up or put them out as needed.

I was also told by an old construction guy that back then big and wide open floor plans weren't really something that was considered safe. They didn't have the engineered beams at all back then so you'd have to do it with huge timbers which were very expensive even at that time. Really big and wide open floor plans didn't start to become common in SFR until engineered LVL wood beams started to pop up and get relatively cheap in the 70's. Today's wooden I beams have really made a big difference too.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 24, 2014

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:49

Baudin: Dec 31, 2009

Baronjutter posted:

Yeah there was some thread were goons were posting their energy bills and most of them made my eyes pop out, I couldn't believe anyone could pay so much for electricity (literally 10-50x what I pay). Then I found out that's what they pay monthly, not bi-monthly. It's just insane how large houses are, but worst how inefficient they are. Good insulation will very quickly pay for its self, we should really raise the minimum R values in the code.

I just want to point out, again, that you live in Victoria where it generally doesn't get below -10C

# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:55

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

OSI bean dip posted:

2.5 bedroom condo on the upper floor (4th) with just two people costs me $90 bi-monthly. My parents house is 3 people, 5 bedroom, and runs them $200.

But living in the suburbs is cheaper!!!!!!!!

Sounds like it is cheaper per person.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 18:03

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Baudin posted:

I just want to point out, again, that you live in Victoria where it generally doesn't get below -10C

Or Florida where it's always like 120c and 500% humidity or what ever hellscape that requires 24/7 AC use. Heating is almost always "free" here, but that's just rolled into my rent so who knows what I'm actually paying.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 18:17

ductonius: Apr 9, 2007; I heard there's a cream for that...

computer parts posted:

Sounds like it is cheaper per person.

90 / 2.5 = $36 per bedroom OR if you delete the half bedroom $45
200 / 5 = $40 per bedroom

What is not known is if the suburban house uses natural gas for heat or not, because the condo surely uses electric. If the house uses electric heat it's *maybe* marginally better, but if it uses natural gas/heat pump/whatever then it is way worse. It should not be surprising that a stand alone dwelling loses more heat to the air than a dwelling literally insulated with other dwellings.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 18:24

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

ductonius posted:

90 / 2.5 = $36 per bedroom OR if you delete the half bedroom $45
200 / 5 = $40 per bedroom

What is not known is if the suburban house uses natural gas for heat or not, because the condo surely uses electric. If the house uses electric heat it's *maybe* marginally better, but if it uses natural gas/heat pump/whatever then it is way worse. It should not be surprising that a stand alone dwelling loses more heat to the air than a dwelling literally insulated with other dwellings.

The condo doesn't "surely use electric." Mine uses a natural gas boiler and/or a gas fireplace for heat, all of which is paid for by condo fees. I just wish they'd turn down the thermostats in the common areas. They don't need to be 22 degrees, people! 18 will do just fine.

# ? Dec 24, 2014 18:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 16, 2024 10:12

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

PC LOAD LETTER posted:

Old homes (and by old here I mean pre WWII-ish) tend to have lots of tiny rooms because back then that is what people wanted. The 'moar rooms=moar bettar' BS was a sales factor but it also made it easier to heat the house in the winter. You'd just close off the rooms that didn't have people in them at the moment and heat the one you were in at the time. This was a big issue because while most homes back then were built better and made out of better quality wood than today they also were almost totally uninsulated.

It was of course common for there to be multiple tiny heaters or fireplaces throughout the house too. You'd go and light them up or put them out as needed.

I was also told by an old construction guy that back then big and wide open floor plans weren't really something that was considered safe. They didn't have the engineered beams at all back then so you'd have to do it with huge timbers which were very expensive even at that time. Really big and wide open floor plans didn't start to become common in SFR until engineered LVL wood beams started to pop up and get relatively cheap in the 70's. Today's wooden I beams have really made a big difference too.

The bolded part is key here. Mansions of this age, especially those from the Victorian era, were built without central heating (it would have been added after the 20's, and even then it was lame). In the FUCKINGLOLHUGE estate houses you'd literally put a coat on to go out into the hallways, because they were so cold. This is why in period movies you'll see dinner delivered to the table in those insulated serving platters rather than open trays; since the kitchen was usually the furthest part of the house from the living quarters, the food had to get to the table without cooling down. So they had a ton of different rooms for different purposes, all individually heated with fireplaces. You'd have a mens parlor, a ladies parlor, study, sitting room, smoking room, etc etc etc.

The 19th century is pretty much the pinnacle of architecture as an art form, IMO, and it's quite fascinating to read through books such as The Victorian Country House and marvel at the intricate detail that went into every aspect of these goliaths. That we're tearing them down one by one, or renovating them into sterile shitholes like that link above, is a travesty. Might as well hand Starry Night to Pollock and tell 'em to dump a bucket on it in the name of progress. :argh:

# ? Dec 24, 2014 18:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »