News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

^ ^ ^
i'm confused too because i didn't read what you posted and read the article.
nothing mentioned 25% units being vacant and usually if the online version has been edited, it states it on the article's title.

that being said, i say a good portion of new construction is vacant at least for the 1st year while the flippers try to assign/resell it as still being 'brand new'.

when my sister and her husband bought a condo unit, they noticed alot of the windows on the outside were always dark, and even their floor had empty units.
 
^^^
agree cdr that in a new building there are investor speculators who have no intention to become landlords or have changed their mind in light of the rapid "profit" they can make.

It must vary building to building but I think it is more likely higher in the larger taller developments since these are higher profile and probably attract more of the "foreign buyers" than smaller projects more geared to an end user target.
 
^^^Guys, I think you need to go back and reread the article. It does not say they are vacant. It says they are rented out or am I misunderstanding.

"Mr. Holt, citing a recent CMHC survey of condo owners, said nearly a quarter of condos in the Greater Toronto area are rented out and not occupied by their owners.

“This is the ghost city phenomenon,” Mr. Holt said."

As well from the article:

"Condo developers in Eastern cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, appear to be rushing to sell and build units before interest rates start to climb, and the market crashes.

“There’s little question now that Canada’s residential construction sector is heated, with the big-city condo market boasting the highest temperature,” said Bank of Montreal economist Robert Kavcic.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warned recently that developers appear to be willing to build new units until sales dry up, which could lead to a crash. And the last buyers in could get burned, he warned in a meeting with the Globe and Mail’s editorial board last month.

“I do worry about the last person buying a condo in Toronto, and people getting caught,” Mr. Flaherty said. He characterized the pace of condo construction as “remarkable.”

This echoes exactly what I said that I thought: that the person who bought in the past 2 years will be under water when these are ready. The above statements suggest that builders despite comments in the past by others that they are smart and won't get caught out are exactly setting up that scenario. Of course with larger deposits and our laws, they can go after the last purchasers for the difference between sale price and agreed to price if the buyer fails to close.

They completely changed the article for some reason. The original one said that 25% of units were vacant and not occupied.

Here was the exact quote from the article:

CMHC estimates that roughly 25 per cent of condominiums in the Greater Toronto Area are sold but sitting vacant -- shades of Miami at the height of its collapsed condo bubble in 2007. Other analysts say the 25 per cent figure may be too low.

The headline also read "How the condo boom threatens 'ghost city' phenomenon".

They either changed it because the information was inaccurate, or because they didn't want to start mass panic in the "investor" community.
 
^^^
Thanks ILuvTO:

I guess when I read it the article was already corrected.

I would tend to believe that 25% to 30% of all condos are in the rental pool. I do not believe that 1 in every 4 condos is vacant (except for maybe the first few months of the move ins when people are trying to sell as cdr suggested.)

Believe me, if 1 in 4 were vacant, and people are out in the evening, then you would only see lights in 1/2 of a building at night or possibly less. I have seen this in Miami where there were real ghost buildings and trust me, you really tell at night when you see 1 in 10 lights on.

My guess is the author initially misread the CMHC info, formed a hypothesis and tried to compare to Miami, and on realizing the error altered the text to its present form. If it is the second suggestion you had, that they do not want to start a mass panic, it would not be poor journalism but essentially journalist fraud and I am quite sure that is not the case.
 
Agree on both counts.

The question which no one tracks in Canada (which I find incidentally unbelievable) is how much is foreign investors. If it truly represents less than 3% it won't be too bad (even at the margin though there would be a decrease for sure)....30% potentially disastrous.

In condos in downtown TO I am sure it is much higher than in SFH in Toronto. Still, I really have no clue as to how much the actual number is.

Interested, I think AFTER Canada's housing bubble has been pricked will the federal government then start to consider tracking foreign investment/ownership in our housing stock. They've never had to before, previous bubbles that got pricked were totally domestically induced. But you would've thunk that with all the financial press world-wide asking about the foreign ownership issue in our housing stocks, that they couldn't find any figures, that this would've nudged the government to start taking track. But of course not. Just some every-6 week announcement from the BOC on how they're keeping interest rates low yet again, but some cryptic talk about having to watch personal debt levels, but nothing about foreign ownership/speculation in Canadian real estate. We all know how this is going to end ... crash and then government suddenly starting to track foreign money EXITING Canada.
 
They completely changed the article for some reason. The original one said that 25% of units were vacant and not occupied.

Here was the exact quote from the article:



The headline also read "How the condo boom threatens 'ghost city' phenomenon".

They either changed it because the information was inaccurate, or because they didn't want to start mass panic in the "investor" community.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/08/torontos-condo-market-not-so-ghostly/
Toronto’s condo market not so ghostly?

This morning, media outlets, including the Financial Post, picked up and ran with a research note from Scotia Capital citing statistics that said up to 25% of condos in Toronto remain empty after being sold. The note referred to the phenomenon as creating a “ghost city.â€

The Scotia note cites the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as providing the 25% estimate. But as CMHC explains, it does not track data on how many condominiums in Canada remain unoccupied after being sold.

The Scotia Capital note was citing comments made by Shaun Hildebrand, senior analyst for the CMHC in Toronto, during a conference in Toronto last year. According to an article from mortgagebrokersnews.ca, Mr. Hildebrand had said that up to 25% of Toronto’s condo market is “investor owned.â€

However, Mr. Hildebrand said on Tuesday that “investor owned†does not necessarily mean empty. He said the CMHC defines such condos as being owned by investors and rented to tenants.

“We simply don’t track that,†he said in reference to how many condos remain empty after being sold.

As well, Mr. Hildebrand clarified that the figure is actually about 22% (he made his original comments last June).

Scotia Capital originally said that CMHC had estimated 25% of Toronto’s condo market was sold but unoccupied, and added that some analysts estimated the number is actually higher. Investor occupied condos are of great interest to many market watchers, given the questions raised over how much foreign buyers are driving prices higher. Unfortunately, data on that topic remains largely anecdotal.

Update: Scotia has released a clarification of its earlier note:

Just a clarifying note on Toronto condominiums in relation to our earlier morning note. We took an overly strong interpretation of CMHC figures.

The correct figure cited by the CMHC is that about one quarter (22%) of condos in the Greater Toronto Area are being rented as one portion of the investor owned segment. This is drawn from a survey of condo boards, the last one having been conducted last Fall.
 
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/08/torontos-condo-market-not-so-ghostly/
Toronto’s condo market not so ghostly?

This morning, media outlets, including the Financial Post, picked up and ran with a research note from Scotia Capital citing statistics that said up to 25% of condos in Toronto remain empty after being sold. The note referred to the phenomenon as creating a “ghost city.”

The Scotia note cites the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as providing the 25% estimate. But as CMHC explains, it does not track data on how many condominiums in Canada remain unoccupied after being sold.

The Scotia Capital note was citing comments made by Shaun Hildebrand, senior analyst for the CMHC in Toronto, during a conference in Toronto last year. According to an article from mortgagebrokersnews.ca, Mr. Hildebrand had said that up to 25% of Toronto’s condo market is “investor owned.”

However, Mr. Hildebrand said on Tuesday that “investor owned” does not necessarily mean empty. He said the CMHC defines such condos as being owned by investors and rented to tenants.

“We simply don’t track that,” he said in reference to how many condos remain empty after being sold.

As well, Mr. Hildebrand clarified that the figure is actually about 22% (he made his original comments last June).

Scotia Capital originally said that CMHC had estimated 25% of Toronto’s condo market was sold but unoccupied, and added that some analysts estimated the number is actually higher. Investor occupied condos are of great interest to many market watchers, given the questions raised over how much foreign buyers are driving prices higher. Unfortunately, data on that topic remains largely anecdotal.

Update: Scotia has released a clarification of its earlier note:

Just a clarifying note on Toronto condominiums in relation to our earlier morning note. We took an overly strong interpretation of CMHC figures.

The correct figure cited by the CMHC is that about one quarter (22%) of condos in the Greater Toronto Area are being rented as one portion of the investor owned segment. This is drawn from a survey of condo boards, the last one having been conducted last Fall.

Thanks for posting. :)

But I am confused. In the 2006 census, it stated that only 32% of residents in Toronto Centre were owners. So I would assume the other 68% are tenants in the homes that they live in. Now by CMHC's calculations, this figure has magically reversed itself and only 20% (I assume of net new condos) are occupied by renters.

Unless I am not understanding correctly, this just does not make sense to me.

Thanks to daveto for posting the graph quoted below. I had to dig around for it, but I knew I saw the 32% figure before.

 
Thanks for posting. :)

But I am confused. In the 2006 census, it stated that only 32% of residents in Toronto Centre were owners. So I would assume the other 68% are tenants in the homes that they live in. Now by CMHC's calculations, this figure has magically reversed itself and only 20% (I assume of net new condos) are occupied by renters.

Unless I am not understanding correctly, this just does not make sense to me.

Thanks to daveto for posting the graph quoted below. I had to dig around for it, but I knew I saw the 32% figure before.

i have to concur ... the dt core is made up of mostly renters and not owners.

many neighbourhoods are mostly transient tenants (ie. students and recent graduates).

but also young professionals early-mid 20s, and even older professionals who like having the option to live cheaper in a nice area by renting vs. buying, ease of mobility if career requires a transfer, better opportunities, etc.

being tied down to a house/condo makes being mobile less 'mobile' if you're underwater and a forced sale results in huge loss, etc.
 
We all know how this is going to end ... crash and then government suddenly starting to track foreign money EXITING Canada.

Sadly, I think the only thing that will drive the government is as you say an afterthought. I don't think they want to deal with this beforehand and they will plead ignorance. Remember a lot of us talk on this forum but we are by far the minority.

The other thing that might prompt them is if they can see a tax grab. Harper has abandoned most everything that he stands for but I believe him the economist in him suggests he not put anything that may even remotely resemble "capital controls" though he would do it if he thought they could get a few hundred million dollars from speculators. In the iterim, remember with a weak economy in the US and ours faltering, he does not wish to do anything that could potentially trigger a housing downturn as he would not want to be "blamed".
 
i have to concur ... the dt core is made up of mostly renters and not owners.

many neighbourhoods are mostly transient tenants (ie. students and recent graduates).

but also young professionals early-mid 20s, and even older professionals who like having the option to live cheaper in a nice area by renting vs. buying, ease of mobility if career requires a transfer, better opportunities, etc.

being tied down to a house/condo makes being mobile less 'mobile' if you're underwater and a forced sale results in huge loss, etc.



There is also a segment that buys for their family. I am not sure how that is being accounted for. Parents who buy for kids, foreigners who buy for citizenship and occupy transiently only. Are we not perhaps thinking that these are renters when we see young people there but in fact the unit is owned. Even if this gives another 10% however, it still does not change the absolute numbers grossly in favour of owners vs. renters.

I wonder also if there has been a shift of some early boomers to buying in the core for future use and hence renting in the short term but if asked they state they are owner occupied as they will be shortly (within a year or 2?)

the bolded statement is true but I think other than a period in 2008/2009 people still favoured ownership until perhaps most recently when we read anectdotally that people are holding off now. Your rationale cdr is absolutely correct but I am not sure the psyche in Canada has quite concluded about the underwater issue and rather "owns" their home.

It would take a local meltdown of relatively large magnitude here (and a prolonged meltdown)to capture those buying in the past 16-20 years in Canada, just as it has changed US investor/owner psyche in the US.
 
From the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...dian-condo-craze-gets-crazier/article2426997/

The fevered pace of building in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal is fuelling fears that the condo market is dangerously close to overheating.

A surge in condominium construction helped drive overall construction starts up 14 per cent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 244,900, the highest since September, 2007, and an increase from the March pace of 214,800, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. data released Tuesday.
More related to this story

Housing starts shoot higher on back of condo boom
Video: Rent or take on massive mortgage debt?
Ask Rob Carrick: Is Canada heading for a housing price correction?

Media
Housing starts: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver
Mortgage
Video
Is the variable-rate mortgage dead?
House and blueprints series XXL
Video
Video: Just how overvalued is the housing market?

Starts of multiple units, which include condominiums and apartments, climbed a sharp 27.4 per cent to 158,500, the second-highest monthly reading on record and a reflection of what Scotia Capital economist Derek Holt termed the “ongoing Canadian condo craze.”

Overall starts have now increased in seven of the past eight months, playing into concerns that the condo market is headed for a serious correction as developers continue to build. Canada now has the highest stock of unsold condos since the early 1990s, Mr. Holt said. A burst bubble would ripple through the economy.

The data put to rest “any doubts that Canada’s housing market, at least in certain sectors and cities, is at risk of overheating,” warned Bank of Montreal analyst Robert Kavcic.

The fear, particularly where downtown Toronto is concerned, is that the explosion of condo starts is outstripping the demographic trend.

“It’s starting to look like [condo construction] is running a bit ahead of household formation,” said Mr. Kavcic. “It seems the level of building is definitely in overheating territory relative to the underlying fundamentals.”

Building permits in Vancouver and Montreal have dipped, which could point to a slower pace of building, but Tuesday’s numbers still raised eyebrows.

Even Montreal developer Michael Dickey worries about Toronto and Vancouver, though not his city, which he sees as still playing catch-up with the others.

“I’d be worried if I was in Vancouver and Toronto,” he said.

“In Toronto, you’re getting an oversupply,” he said, adding that there is a danger the banks will start backing off on financing new deals.

Joe Vaccaro, president of Toronto’s Building Industry and Land Development Association, said the high construction rate simply reflects the breaking of ground on properties that were sold in 2010 and 2011.

“The statistics are a lagging indicator to those sales of previous years,” he said, adding that he’s confident Toronto can absorb new condos.

“Household formations are different today,” he said. “You’ve got baby boomers downsizing, born-again singles, young couples who want an affordable first home, and 100,000 new people coming into the [Greater Toronto Area] every year.”

Nancy Taza, a sales representative at a brokerage office in one of the CityPlace condo complexes in downtown Toronto, who has a direct stake in the market, also isn’t worried.

“Are there a lot of buildings going up? Yes. But, I really don’t worry about the market and my investments [three condos], because I see the demand every day and it’s so strong – especially in CityPlace where things are still developing and the area is growing.”

CMHC officials said on a conference call that they are monitoring the condo markets but also don’t see a problem at the moment.

Royal Bank of Canada chief executive officer Gordon Nixon said there are concerns about the condo market in Vancouver, but that they aren’t indicative of the housing situation across Canada.

He told a financial conference in Toronto hosted by Bloomberg that he’d “like to see the rhetoric [about a housing bubble] come down a little bit.”

Jim Ritchie, senior vice-president of sales and marketing at toronto condo developer Tridel, said few condo buyers in Toronto are from offshore.

Of 2,100 units Tridel has delivered in the past year, about 95 per cent were sold to local buyers, he said.

Many of those are investors, he told the same summit, and about 20 per cent of units are put up for resale as soon as they are complete.


Mr. Ritchie said that across Toronto, there were 173 projects under construction over all at the end of the first quarter, representing 48,000 units. Because builders are so risk averse, they will not start a project until it is at least 70 per cent sold, he said.

Most Tridel condos are in the $250,000-to-$500,000 range, he said, and the average age of a buyer is 33. One reason there are so many condos in the city is that the demographics of Toronto is ideal, with many singles or couples without children.

With files from reporter Tara Perkins in Toronto


Most of this article is "rehash". I find the 2 bolded parts interesting however as it gives insight into at least the largest condo builder in Toronto: I don't know if it is safe to extrapolate these figures to the overall condo market. 5% are to foreign buyers and 20% go on to be flipped which means the rest are investors who rent or end users.

Also, it is interesting to me that a developer who is not building in Toronto thinks TO is overheated. He has if you believe the article no vested interest, is a developer and is "concerned". I would put more stock in his view than that of those selling or involved in Toronto directly as his view should not be biased (unless I guess he is trying to get investors to buy in Montreal because it is not overheated and that could be his motivation I suppose...however, I am assuming he is giving his honest opinion).
 
How does Tridal know whether the buyer are locals or non-residents? If they do have that information, then why can't that information be supplied to the government so we have some real data - the same goes for the number of units that are flipped. There needs to be lot more transparancy in new condo development and having that information being made public would help consumers in making informed choices and government in setting policy.
 
How does Tridal know whether the buyer are locals or non-residents? If they do have that information, then why can't that information be supplied to the government so we have some real data - the same goes for the number of units that are flipped. There needs to be lot more transparancy in new condo development and having that information being made public would help consumers in making informed choices and government in setting policy.

I suspect companies may want to safeguard their data and unless forced, will not reveal information.

Think about it. Say I am a condo developer who sells 50% to China and the Middle East for example....would I want my competitors to know this. Also, if I am worried that the government may want to clamp down as a number of my sales are to people who are not paying taxes in Canada (or at least I suspect that...see previous threads on this) would I want to erode "my established base". I am not saying this is correct by the way. Just saying what is the incentive for the condo developer to "shoot himself in the foot as it where" until he is forced by the government to do so?
 
Thanks for posting. :)

But I am confused. In the 2006 census, it stated that only 32% of residents in Toronto Centre were owners. So I would assume the other 68% are tenants in the homes that they live in. Now by CMHC's calculations, this figure has magically reversed itself and only 20% (I assume of net new condos) are occupied by renters.

Unless I am not understanding correctly, this just does not make sense to me.

Thanks to daveto for posting the graph quoted below. I had to dig around for it, but I knew I saw the 32% figure before.

ILuvTO, yes, I think you've misread the article.

I'm not sure where you get your quote that "only 20% (I assume of net new condos) are occupied by renters".

The article was saying that 22% of owned condos are sitting empty (ie occupied neither by the owner, nor a renter). The article isn't saying anything about the proportion of renters in Toronto condos.

Leaving that aside, condos are still a relatively small portion of the housing stock in Toronto (think freehold properties, apartment buildings, city housing, student housing,etc.). It's entirely possible to see a owner # of one of the subcategories which is very different from the city wide home ownership %

Also, notwithstanding the above, note the 32% home ownership rate quoted for Toronto Centre is for C01, and not for the entire City of Toronto which I recall is in the 50% range.
 
^^^
Now I am confused Daveto.
I wonder if you are perhaps working off the earlier version of the article.

"However, Mr. Hildebrand said on Tuesday that “investor owned” does not necessarily mean empty. He said the CMHC defines such condos as being owned by investors and rented to tenants.

“We simply don’t track that,” he said in reference to how many condos remain empty after being sold.

As well, Mr. Hildebrand clarified that the figure is actually about 22% (he made his original comments last June).

Scotia Capital originally said that CMHC had estimated 25% of Toronto’s condo market was sold but unoccupied, and added that some analysts estimated the number is actually higher. Investor occupied condos are of great interest to many market watchers, given the questions raised over how much foreign buyers are driving prices higher. Unfortunately, data on that topic remains largely anecdotal.

Update: Scotia has released a clarification of its earlier note:

Just a clarifying note on Toronto condominiums in relation to our earlier morning note. We took an overly strong interpretation of CMHC figures.

The correct figure cited by the CMHC is that about one quarter (22%) of condos in the Greater Toronto Area are being rented as one portion of the investor owned segment. This is drawn from a survey of condo boards, the last one having been conducted last Fall.
Thanks for posting.

I read this to suggest they are talking about 22% of the condos are in the investor pool of rentals, not empty. Am I wrong too?
 

Back
Top