[Kosy123]

Traditionally sure, the single-family house has been the gold standard. There's no denying it's still probably the end goal for the majority of people, but as a Gen Z zoomer, I can confidently say that this is changing and rapidly among the upcoming cohort of owners of renters. Many people around my age are either a) indifferent to the idea of owning a house or b) actively don't want to for various reasons. The huge cost of time and money for maintenance and care, feeling the need to buy more stuff just to fill the space, and the lack of options for transit/expectation of car ownership may not be super appealing to take on for some people, myself included.

Like I said, houses are still big and will be in the future for sure, but changes are very much on the horizon.

As a fellow Gen Z zoomer, I can confirm that there's more and more interest in non-SFH housing. Either because of cost or as a genuine lifestyle choice.

Plus I'm more than fine with renting for a bit and investing the savings too which is a bonus.

 

[Tropical]

As a fellow Gen Z zoomer, I can confirm that there's more and more interest in non-SFH housing. Either because of cost or as a genuine lifestyle choice.

Plus I'm more than fine with renting for a bit and investing the savings too which is a bonus.

This Millennial has zero interest in maintaining a yard I use under 1% of the time. And I have even less interest in a ton of square footage at the expense of a walkable, fun neighbourhood.

I'm happy to hear this!

 

[Kosy123]

This Millennial has zero interest in maintaining a yard I use under 1% of the time. And I have even less interest in a ton of square footage at the expense of a walkable, fun neighbourhood.

I'm happy to hear this!

Why have yard when walkable city is your yard

 

[Coprolite]

This Millennial has zero interest in maintaining a yard I use under 1% of the time. And I have even less interest in a ton of square footage at the expense of a walkable, fun neighbourhood.

I'm happy to hear this!

I'm GenX and I rent a little old house in the core. I've mostly been an apartment dweller, but I like living in it: it's in a great location for me and I like having a little garden to putter around in while I conspire with magpies and incite the yard geese. I wouldn't want to be the guy who owns this thing because it has more issues than National Geographic. I particularly wouldn't buy it off the owner at the price of the land it's on, meaning that this place is probably going to be torn down for redevelopment eventually. And I inherited a big old box of a 1970s house on a big old 1970s lot in the overwhelmingly built in the 1970s town that I grew up in, and I was so happy to cut that thing loose in a heartbeat because I didn't want to drive absolutely everywhere, especially as I age, because I saw how isolating that was for my mom.

The other half and I decided to buy a place (partly to allow us to live together somewhere we could both work from home, partly to accommodate for the possibility of one of her folks passing and the survivor needing relatives close at hand), but found that there was VERY little out there that really fit our priorities. There's quite the tapestry out there of too big, too long in the tooth, massively inefficient, and stuff that's all of the way out in Summerside, Smith-Smythe-Smith on Henday, Fauntleroy or freaking Narnia. Or heck, sometimes you nail the trifecta and you find an oversized house from the 1970s that needs a new roof AND it's out in Beaumaris of all places.

If it weren't for Blatchford, it would've been quite an ordeal to really find a place which checks all of our boxes.

 

[whattheheck]

I dunno. Owning certainly has its advantages, especially when considering the equity that can be built up. The problem is the type of homes being built. Too many are too big with massive garages. After 20 years, reno costs would be thru the roof.

A good family-size home should be around 1400-1600 sq ft, with a detached back garage. On a lot that's maybe 28 ft wide. Think Westmount, just off 124th street.

The way old Toronto single family homes were built is ideal. Those neighbourhoods - on a grid - are the places people want to be.

 

[Coprolite]

I dunno. Owning certainly has its advantages, especially when considering the equity that can be built up. The problem is the type of homes being built. Too many are too big with massive garages. After 20 years, reno costs would be thru the roof.

A good family-size home should be around 1400-1600 sq ft, with a detached back garage. On a lot that's maybe 28 ft wide. Think Westmount, just off 124th street.

The way old Toronto single family homes were built is ideal. Those neighbourhoods - on a grid - are the places people want to be.

Westmount, sadly, is a great place to find houses which already desperately need that costly renovation, or which have experienced renovations at the hands (hooves?) of folks with the design sense of actual bison. But the form of the neighbourhood is great. The houses in the neighbourhood which are actually GOOD command pretty hefty prices.

In the 35 years that my folks owned their house, the amount they had to put into it probably offset most of the appreciation in the value of the house, and this was a house bought for $50K back in 1986. That same $50K sitting in a balanced growth fund would probably have amounted to much, much more money than the final sale value of the house and without constantly devouring money. It still needed a lot of work when I sold it. I'm not pretending the townhouse that my other half and I bought is going to build anything. It's just a place that's ours.