|
jet sanchEz posted:I don't know about Vancouver but there are still homes in the downtown core of Toronto that are well under a million. A friend of mine just bought a house for $635K within walking distance of a subway station, for example. And, of course, there are thousands of condos for sale within walking distance of any hospital, even though I know you said you wanted a house. A $635,000 house in the downtown core is probably about half the size it should be for that price, like just about everything else in the GTA housing market at the moment.
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:So this guy is making a minimum of $211k per year? Doing what exactly? Isn't $211k per year a shitload of money in Canada, or am I just poor and retarded? It is a shitload of money. The median household income in Toronto is just shy of $70,000. You can get almost nothing for $210,000, and there's still not much worth looking at if you go up to $280,000. Housing prices cannot go up independent of income forever. A 40% drop is not unrealistic. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Signs of a Canadian housing downturn are everywhereNational Post posted:The Canadian economy is highly levered to the real estate market and its derivative industries, such as construction. These housing-related industries account for 27% of the Canadian economy, compared to 24% at the peak of the housing boom for the U.S. In other words, employment in construction and real estate is generally much higher now in Canada than it ever was in the U.S.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
I think that prices really began to decouple from fundamentals in the early 2000s (around '02 or '03). By the time the U.S. housing bubble burst, you could look at Canadian data and tell that something was wrong here. Unfortunately, it's gotten worse since then, and I think we're at the point where, once the poo poo hits the fan, you will have a lot of people demanding that the government provide them with the money they had been counting on from the perpetual increase in value they thought they were entitled to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Add another 8,000 lost at Canada Post. edit: And probably disproportionately in urban areas, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Not even ahead of Phoenix. Not even ahead of Detroit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Long-term mortgage rates to rise soon, Stephen Poloz says
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I struggle to comprehend how flipping is profitable, especially nowadays (easier in 2000-2007 one presumes). The transaction costs of real estate are bloody enormous. A few thousand here and there for legalities, land transfer tax, incidentals, and realtor bastards - and pretty soon you're talking real money. And that's before the actual 'value add' of the renovation itself. It's pretty much only reliably profitable if you're in the runup phase of a bubble. But you'll find no shortage of people who tell you that Canada is different, don't you know, so it's not a bubble.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
So Canada lost 46,000 jobs in December. But everything is fine and housing prices won't go down because it's different here.™
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
I know Garth Turner loves to point out this sort of thing, but a lot of those claims, especially the ones that guarantee that the condo will have increased to a certain value by a certain time, would put you behind bars if they were about stocks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale pricequote:Her dilapidated Roncesvalles home sold Wednesday night for $803,649 — more than $150,000 over the asking price — after a flurry of more than a dozen offers from contractors and families looking to put down roots in one of Toronto’s most up-and-coming neighbourhoods. The seller made a lot of money from the house. The buyer certainly won't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Saltin posted:The Fed changing the rules for 1mil+ mortgages has really lit the 750-950k market on fire in ok neighbourhoods in the city. Not that the change was a bad thing - no lie I watched a young couple move their futon into a million plus place in Playter Estates (Toronto) before they changed the rules. A loving futon from the back of a U haul. I think it's pretty safe to say that there aren't any houses actually worth (i.e., when we're not in a huge credit-fueled bubble) $1 million in Playter Estates unless they're built on several normal-sized lots that have been combined into one parcel. jet sanchEz posted:I live in this neighbourhood and I think that the buyer got a pretty good deal provided they actually intend to live in the house. I don't see much room to make money by flipping it but I could be wrong, a house two blocks over that is just as big was listed the other day for 1.35 million and it needs a lot of work as well. For $1.35 million, I could buy a home on the Atlantic Ocean and have NFL players and PGA Tour members as neighbors. (And the lot would be three or four times as big.) And it's not going to crater in value in real-dollar terms by the time I want to sell it. In general, it's not some magical neighborhood character that's making the houses expensive in a given area. Your dilapidated house in a dingy area of the city isn't on the market for a zillion dollars because it's really worth a zillion dollars and real estate is a great investment that always goes up; it's on the market for a zillion dollars because the bank is more than happy to write me a mortgage that's four times the size it should be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:Aside from the fact, you know, the entire economy will be a smoking wreck. The damage was done as the bubble inflated; it's just a question of how quickly it's allowed to damage the rest of the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:If (when) this whip-saws and you think it won't be a shitshow for everyone, you're in for a surprise. It's not going to be great for the economy if, by some miracle (?), it doesn't implode and people are still stuck for decades paying for the decision to buy a house for 50% more than it was worth, because they're not going to have any disposable income to speak of.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Houses, yes. But not the land underneath them. Nobody in Vancouver is buying a million dollar property with a three bedroom for the house. The land is basically like gold, though, in that it's not going to appreciate faster than inflation in the long term, no matter how much the
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's a mid-century bungalow they put granite counters into. That poo poo just grows in value every month. Granite counters are like a fine wine and get better with age. Tons and tons of people actually think this—that if you spend $10,000 on a renovation, the value of your house necessarily goes up by at least $10,000. They don't seem to comprehend that in a market that values these things correctly, you will see some, but not all of what you pay put back into the value of your house. The only time spending $10,000 renovating your bathroom and kitchen is going to make you $15,000, guaranteed, is when you're in the runup phase of an inflating bubble. If the average person can borrow too much, you'll always find someone who'll pay too much for your house.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Is pre-furnishing of the condo any different? I mean they are throwing in all these appliances for free*! At least those appliances are part of the condo. Your bank probably would not be too happy to discover that the condo you've borrowed money for at 3.75% is worth less than its list price, and the difference is made up of things for which loans usually require a higher interest rate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
RBC posted:My god, that article and the framing are bizarre. Wait until they try to sell us their houses, and discover that they aren't worth nearly as much as they've been led to believe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Three posts later... 24% of Canadians see their homes as main source of retirement income The Globe & Mail posted:“We were really quite surprised to see such a high percentage of Canadians thinking of using their homes as a primary income source of retirement and another 17 per cent saying they weren’t quite sure,” Kevin Dougherty, president of Sun Life Financial Canada, said in an interview.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:A very real worry for a lot of people, but apparently not for you? I'm pretty sure my in-laws aren't relying on their house to fund their retirement. My parents don't live in Canada. There will be major macroeconomic implications, of course, but I don't see how I will be directly screwed by anyone near me counting on a million dollars that never really existed to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Not everyone's house is worth 1 million. Some folks who've owned their homes for years and planned to sell shortly before or after retirement and live on whatever they got are going to be severely impacted by this, quite aside from other implications of a potential crash. Assuming that no equity in your home ever existed to begin with is foolish, though I do think that planning for the future based on what housing prices are now is also foolish, but to say that the wealth present in your home never really existed is silly. I guess it would be better to phrase it as $300,000 that never existed if the house is nominally worth $1 million, but it's not silly to say that the extra padding in the retirement fund will not be there, and the value never was there, if these people go en masse to sell their homes upon retirement. Everyone's home is worth something, but it's totally fair to say that eye-popping, bubble-induced valuations are not representative of any real value that was ever present in these homes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Don't worry in the event of a crisis they have already set up a contingency plan; the tax payers will be safe! 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:One third of Canadians would engage in a "bidding war " for a house. Keep buying you loving retards. With what money? They're poorer than they think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
quote:Mr. Dunning, who...is chief economist of the Canadian Association of Accredited Mortgage Professionals, which represents mortgage brokers Nope, no conflict of interest there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:You know it's been about a year since prices stopped rising IIRC. That doesn't mean things won't collapse at the first sign of trouble (like a major euro collapse or Russia doing something insane), but until that happens it's not exactly crazy to describe what is currently happening as a "soft landing". Great, now all it has to do is continue flatlining for another 15-25 years to remain a "soft landing." That's totally possible, right?  edit: It's possible for that timeline to be shorter, but there would have to be a lot of inflation outside the housing sector for that to be the case. tagesschau fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
First-time home buyers in Toronto plan to spend $408,300 on average: BMOToronto Star posted:A Bank of Montreal report on first-time home buyers says the average budget has increased to $316,100. I have to believe that the only people left in the market are either independently wealthy or planning to borrow far more than is healthy because they're deluded about future interest rates and their own future earning potential. Given people's actual incomes, the number of houses being bought and sold, and the pigeonhole principle, the overwhelming majority have to fall into the latter category.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Everything has an impact, but I don't see how mainland Chinese investors are market-movers in Vancouver-area housing. There are too few of them, and there's too much cheap money to be had, for anything other than the "prices will always go up in the best place on earth" mentality to be the actual driving force behind the bubble.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Fears of a housing bubble in Canada overblown, report saysCBC News posted:Fears that a housing bubble is brewing in Canada are overblown, according to a new report by the Conference Board of Canada. So if we ignore the market-distorting effects of prolonged low interest rates, we can say there's no market distortion. Got it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Are there still really people in 2014 who still expect China to grow indefinitely? Probably, in that there are people in 2014 who are not familiar with the...uh...malleability of Soviet economic statistics.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Saltin posted:For example, in Toronto, condos are pretty much tanking and have been for a while. Tough to unload. Million dollar plus homes have cooled off and generally go for a little under asking thanks to the CMHC rule changes for mortgages of that size. I understand this had a large impact in Vancouver as well where more homes tend to be "valued" above 1 mil. However, the 500k to 999k Single Family Home market in Toronto is still red loving hot, assuming factors like walkability, subway/transit, etc are in place. Good homes in this range are really really hard to find too. Homeowners are hanging onto their places. That still doesn't change the fact that the average household in Toronto can't comfortably afford the average house right now, even at a 50% discount. Your home should go for maybe three times your income, and yet in the east end, there are stupidly expensive houses along the Danforth and in old East York, where the typical family makes $60,000-$75,000 ($74,733 is the median family income in M4K, and M4B, M4C, and M4E are all lower than that), and the average home appears to be going for 7-8 times income. ocrumsprug posted:Don't underestimate the wife factor as well. I am so glad my fiancée is in agreement with me on this issue. Some of that, I suspect, is because I talk about the Canadian housing bubble too much, and we also watched the U.S. housing bubble burst, so we know there's no point in believing you're actually richer than you think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I don't disagree with your analysis. I would say your income figures are from 2006 and would suggest in these neighbourhoods in particular the complexion has changed somewhat. The influx of DINKS about to work on the no kids part is flabbergasting, they all earn. Again, I am not saying a correction is not due, it is, but you won't find the biggest bargins in the inner suburbs of a big city when they come. You'll find them in places like Ajax and St Catherines and Barrie, where the houses are just as stupidly priced , but required oceans of gas to be liveable and have none of the amenities to drive demand. I think the income figures are from 2006, but with wage gains averaging about 1% annually since then, it's not a stretch to say that there's no way that the astronomical price gains (what, 7% annually on average?) for housing in the area bounded by the DVP, the lake, and Victoria Park is due to anything but cheap, easy credit and people refusing to look past what their monthly payment is at 3%. There just aren't enough people with actual wealth or high income to move the market, and it's not like all that many people have moved in over the past eight years. The Maclean's article linked a couple of pages back mentioned a house at Dundas and Parliament that went for just over half a million dollars. I could get a two-bedroom oceanfront condo in Palm Beach with that money and still have $100,000 left over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I could write this verbatim and have it apply to me. The other line of reasoning you get is that Canada is Not the States, so if there was a damaging housing bubble in the States, Canada must be immune, because it's Not the States.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Yes, but the main weakness that exists in making the argument is you are fighting against recency. 10-20% yearly increases have been the "norm" for sometime now, so thinking you can flip a house for 75% more than you paid for it a few years back seems reasonable if you don't think about it too much. 1-2% yearly increases in salaries have been the norm for just as long, so I don't know who these people think is going to buy all of these houses at these prices, or who bought them to begin within. (Actually, I probably do know: they think it's incredibly wealthy investors from mainland China and not the incredibly overleveraged family whose income is maybe $80,000 a year.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip1078149 Those are things that happened in the U.S., and we're Not the U.S.™, so no matter what we do, it's not the same.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
krooj posted:Just popping in to say that I live in Toronto and really, really don't understand where people are getting the kind of money required for these $300k+ 500 sq. ft. shoeboxes that are popping up, literally, everywhere. The whole thing is like some unholy time-bomb of people living beyond their means, discovering that all these high-rises that went up in the last 8-10 years are built like poo poo and will have heinous maintenance fees, and gen-x/y-ers that are going to get baby-crazy and push back into the burbs for more space. It's even true in the older inner suburbs. It's disconcerting to look at the median household income for our area, compare it to our household income, and then look at (mostly single-family) home prices and realize that most people buying these homes can't really afford them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/regulator-set-to-release-new-mortgage-rules/article17925905/ That horse left the barn years ago. This ought to speed up the return of house prices to non-bubble levels, but people who suddenly discover that they're poorer than they think will likely blame the government for something that would have happened anyway and was largely due to their own imprudence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:No typical working-Vancouverite is paying $1.9M for that, who wouldn't otherwise have been able to in the absence of the worst foibles of the CMHC etc. That's global mobile capital poo poo right there Well, I'm sure the seller wishes that were the case, but it's a mediocre 65-year-old home that isn't actually near any amenities and is about as far from a main drag as you can possibly get. It's not like we're talking about arguably valuable downtown real estate—it's a forgettable property in the suburbs that you can drop a McMansion onto and not much more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Rural living and small towns are inefficient and any good business cuts its failing parts. Why have 10 small offices when you can have 1 big office and save? Gotta run things like a business, it's good for the economy. The resources freed up by no longer having to support failing small towns can be more efficiently used to create new better jobs. All those people could move to Alberta to work the tar sands or Vancouver to work the condo mines. Isn't this basically the past half-century in Newfoundland's outports?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Canadian real estate and housing boom may be ending, Scotiabank warns
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 07:06 |
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:Beaches. It sold for 1.2 and change, the list price was 1.1 Just chiming in with a reminder that median family income in M4E is $99,523, so there's no way this house isn't overpriced unless it (or the parcel it's on) is unusually large.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 17:52
|
|