News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

hi guys.
it is a very important discussion.
boomers will try to sell their properties to cover their expenses.
where will the boomers live after selling the house ?
thee answer is quite important because i think (maybe i am wrong) that could flag an area in RE where the outcome can be positive.
 
hi guys.
it is a very important discussion.
boomers will try to sell their properties to cover their expenses.
where will the boomers live after selling the house ?
thee answer is quite important because i think (maybe i am wrong) that could flag an area in RE where the outcome can be positive.

You bring up a good point.
I think brockm's response to my question is a very reasonable one.

I am however, not so sure that people want condos. By way of personal example, my father lived in his home until his late 80's.
He commented to me that if he had to move, he would rent and not buy. He talked of the Manulife center because the subway and shopping was underground and did not believe in condos. I appreciate that condos in downtown have become the defacto rental supply.

Also, a number of older people (in their 60-70's) I know moved to condos to move out and sell 2-3 years later as they missed their patch of grass and ability to walk out into a small garden from the kitchen. Hence I think you see the interest in outside space in condos being expressed; to combat this. I know of at least 2 examples of people selling the condo and buying a townhouse (strange I know because of steps though I suppose one can get elevators if one is wealthy) as the reasonable common ground.
 
I think you're erring on the side of holding current variables constant; the boomers represent a major demographic crunch. Whether they sell their homes or die and pass off their property as inheritance there will be massive negative pressure on housing demand. The property which boomers vacate, either by cashing in or croaking represents new housing supply from the perspective of the market.

Personally, I think house prices in the 905 are going to start nosediving as more and more baby boomers start hitting 65-67 and try to wind down their lives and cash in. The problem will be that only the first batch of boomers will make it out safe. Prices are set at the margins, and boomers looking to sell their homes and downsize to condos is not going to work out in their favor -- their home equity will evaporate from under them, and the retirement home and condo stock they're looking to downsize to will conversely face upward price pressure as boomers try to move to them.

Basically what I'm saying is: boomers using their houses as retirement investment vehicles in North America have made a huge god damned mistake.

brockm; please read my response to avenirv in post 6276.

I agree this is definitely a possibility. However, as I have said in previous posts. In many societies, generations live together. As people get poorer, will the boomers kids who can't afford housing live with their elderly parents, especially if the parents who counted on their houses as their "retirement fund" can no longer do so. If they live in these big houses, will the kids move in with their families and make a "granny suite" for the parents?

Also, with all the talk of the ongoing increasing costs of condo ownership, will this not become a problem as well.

Eventually older people will have difficulties and need bungalows or condos/apartments for 1 story living.

I accept your arguments and think in particular the 905 may have some problems. I think it will vary from location to location in the 905. I agree that demographics put the greater risk on the late rather than the early boomers.
 
I've spoken with a couple of realtors who focus on the luxury home market and it seems there are generally 2 main camps of boomers who are selling. The first is selling and downsizing into larger condos still close to the city core and the second group seem to be moving further out either for more tranquility or to be closer to where their kids and extended families are.
 
^^^
James,
I have also read that a lot of boomers are staying in their neighbourhoods, so for eg. if they were in Markham, they are downsizing but staying in Markham....not necessarily leaving the burbs to go downtown or midtown but rather just shifting from home to townhome or condo but in the same neighbourhood.
 
so it seems it is nice to invest in condos in the burbs and townhomes everywhere....
but the SFH will feel some downwards trends....
 
^^^
Not sure I agree with that conclusion avenirv.

I never thought the burbs were smart places to invest in condos. The burbs have much more land and can therefore put more condos up. I have always felt the downtown core was safer in that regard. After all; 1 main downtown core.....many, many burbs and more land on which to build. And if the Ontario Government decides to review the "greenbelt designations" in the future then one has to wonder if suddenly there is a lot more room to build again.

The problem with the downtown is too many condos rather than the location.
 
Interesting, according to this article:

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1223395--toronto-condo-buyers-welcome-back-to-the-driver-s-seat

Housing experts are being cautious about TREB’s June numbers which show condos sales dipped 20 per cent in the 905 regions last month compared to June, 2011, and 18 per cent in the City of Toronto.

Is that so? So while overall the 905 was likely positive condo sales are down 20% and only 18% in the 416 ?

That surprise me a little, so the housing (i.e. non condo) market in the 905 must be very strong. The 416 number seems really close the the total number, which isn't surprising as condo sales must make up a large part of it.
 
Very curious to see how 10 York will do. Location is good, Builder has excellent rep. That will be a great litmus test for the market.

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/1223395--toronto-condo-buyers-welcome-back-to-the-driver-s-seat
"The biggest barometer of the market could turn out to be Tridel’s 75-storey Ten York project, slated for Toronto’s waterfront area. The launch of the tower, which could house up to 795 units, has been delayed until late September, but only because of design and approval issues, says Tridel vice president Jim Ritchie".

Oh, so they are agreeing with me or maybe they just visit UT to get my insights. :cool:
 
Last edited:
^^^
Not sure I agree with that conclusion avenirv.

I never thought the burbs were smart places to invest in condos. The burbs have much more land and can therefore put more condos up. I have always felt the downtown core was safer in that regard. After all; 1 main downtown core.....many, many burbs and more land on which to build. And if the Ontario Government decides to review the "greenbelt designations" in the future then one has to wonder if suddenly there is a lot more room to build again.

The problem with the downtown is too many condos rather than the location.

"I have also read that a lot of boomers are staying in their neighbourhoods, so for eg. if they were in Markham, they are downsizing but staying in Markham....not necessarily leaving the burbs to go downtown or midtown but rather just shifting from home to townhome or condo but in the same neighbourhood"

my fault not being more precise.
i was talking in the context of the boomers.
 
^^^
James,
I have also read that a lot of boomers are staying in their neighbourhoods, so for eg. if they were in Markham, they are downsizing but staying in Markham....not necessarily leaving the burbs to go downtown or midtown but rather just shifting from home to townhome or condo but in the same neighbourhood.

I'd have to say that this does make sense, however we probably need to make a distinction between boomers in Markham and boomers in a luxury market, like Lawrence Park. It sounds feasible to me that those in Lawrence Park would be moving out of the neighborhood to capitalize on the rapid appreciation of their property and downsizing into a less expensive neighborhood with a smaller footprint, more amenities, lower property taxes, etc. It's probably just a simple matter of options. Selling a property in Lawrence Park will likely give you more options as to where you can downsize to versus selling a property in Markham.
 
Zoopraisal home appraisal tool - Free and online

I did some 10 second appraisals of my home (2-story large modern) and my neigbour's home (wartime bungalow). It was more accurate than I was expecting, being within about 10% of what I was expecting. I did fudge a bit though. Interestingly, my home with 3 bedrooms vs. my home with 4 bedrooms was quite a significant difference, despite my putting down the same total square footage. However, I just counted my home office (which is quite large actually) as a fourth bedroom.

P.S. Be sure to put in the city. Welland, ON sure is a lot cheaper than Toronto. ;)
 
GTA home resale prices overheating due to land shortage: report


By Susan Pigg Business Reporter

The shortage of land available for new housing across the GTA has caused resale home prices to overheat by 15 per cent and cost some 22,000 construction and related jobs, says a long-time housing analyst.
The lack of building-ready land for single-family homes in particular has hampered economic recovery and resulted in about 50,000 fewer houses than needed being built across the GTA in the last five years, says the report by economist Will Dunning who has studied and commented on the housing market here for three decades.
MORE:Toronto vs Vancouver: Which will have the highest house prices in a decade?
The fact there aren’t enough homes to meet demand is also impacting rents.
“Vacancy rates in the residential rental market are lower than they should be and rent increases are more rapid than they should be,” – about $25 per month as of 2011, he estimates, as more people find themselves locked out of the home market by escalating prices and forced to revert to renting longer than hoped.
New home construction has traditionally helped keep the resale housing market balanced, but the lack of enough new supply is pushing down inventory levels and driving up prices, says Dunning, which Royal LePage confirms in a report also released Tuesday.
MORE:Surge in Toronto homes for sale
The realty company anticipates 8 per cent price growth in resale home prices across the GTA this year.
Two-storey homes sold for an average of $668,829 at the end of June, a 7.3 per cent price jump over the same period last year, the report says. Detached bungalows had the biggest year-over-year increase, 8.3 percent, and now sell for an average of $560,187, according to Royal LePage's annual second-quarter report.
Condos increased by an average 5.5 per cent to $363,588.
From 2007 to last year, actual housing starts across the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area resulted in about 62,600 direct and indirect jobs per year, Dunning says in his report, Constrained Land Supply for New Housing Is Hampering the Recovery in the Greater Toronto Area.
MORE:Toronto home sales drop 5.4% in June
If starts had been at more realistic levels, there would have been more than 84,000 jobs, says Dunning.
He estimates that the shortfall in construction of new housing has cost municipalities more than $200 million so far in realty taxes – about one quarter of which would have been used to fund education. As the gap inevitably widens between the housing that’s needed and what’s being built, the loss of realty tax could hit $50 million a year, the report notes.
The financial fallout of inadequate new home construction is also impacting the federal and provincial governments, Dunning warns, which would be raking in an additional $712 million a year in personal income tax, sales tax, Canada Pension Plan and employment insurance benefits if new home construction – and the employment it generates – was at more realistic levels.
Dunning blames the shortage of new low-rise homes primarily on delays by municipalities in installing water, sewers and other hard services and giving final approvals to new subdivisions that would take the pressure off the resale market which has seen prices double in the last decade, despite global economic uncertainty.
Dunning doesn’t address the transportation problems that would be exacerbated by more sprawl.
While provincial green-belt policies and the Places to Grow Act, meant to push development up rather than out, aren’t having a significant impact yet, they will, he warns, and may already be contributing to another problem:
“Expectations of future shortages may already be influencing expectations and prices in the land market,” which will only drive up house prices more, he notes.
 

Back
Top