There are two assumptions that always drive me nuts:
* that I rent because I can't afford to buy
* that I choose condos because I can't afford a house
Ok, the second one is technically true at this point. But I was never interested in a SFH, so no loss (been there, done that).
My issues with the market have mostly revolved around quality -- just don't see it, especially in the newer condo builds. The next 10-20 years are going to be financial nightmares for many people who bought these cheap, lick-and-stick boxes. And most of the "affordable" homes are old, decrepit, and needing thousands in upgrades/repairs. To hell with that.
We rent in an older building (built early 80's) and, I must say, I'd be interested in a purchase if the price was right. But it won't be, and I can rent it for SO much cheaper and invest the difference. We can move easily, and aren't on the hook for anything that goes wrong. Of course, there are downsides, but there always are, no matter which side you are on.
I just don't see an intrinsic value in most Toronto housing stock; I see a bunch of crap for absolutely insane prices. Having a hard time feeling good about taking on such colossal debt for something that I think is low quality to begin with -- and going to cost even more down the road.
According to the average Canadian, that makes me a complete loser. Maybe so. Perhaps someday we will adopt a more European mindset around housing and there will be less stigma around renting and/or living in apartments. Until then, I guess I'll always be a "lowly" renter. Cause I sure as hell ain't paying these prices!
Our investment advisor told us to rent, not buy, when we sold our house and downsized.
It could be because he wanted the fees or our capital to play with or whatever. But I don't think so. I believe that having hundreds of thousands tied up in our condo constitutes a "dead investment" in that, we won't get a return (despite it's having increased in value about 50% since we bought in 2012) because we won't get the return until we sell and/or die.
I have no problem with renting and never did. But then, having grown up in Montreal, where there is STILL an amazing stock of affordable, spacious, solidly built duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and low-rises in beautiful establish neighbourhoods, there is no stigma. Just Google NDG or Outremont "a louer for rent" to see some examples. Renting is what many people do in Montreal -- although since the 80s, many of these properties were converted to co-ops.
Still, the tenancy rate is higher in Quebec than in any other province -- and the provincial government takes tenants' rights very seriously. On top of that, rent is way cheaper than Toronto and Vancouver.
So yeah, the quality in Toronto sucks, including much of the old stock and those glass boxes being thrown up today. Toronto evolved differently from Montreal because -- and this is just my theory -- French Quebecers were historically tenants on the Seigneuries and, when they came to Montreal for jobs, they had no money for buying houses and, in any case, didn't feel compelled to own them (although it was very likely a dream.) Meanwhile, the immigration to Toronto came from Britain where many people were used to their narrow little row houses and accepted/expected the same here. What's more, many parts of Toronto grew up when there were streetcars -- hence streetcar suburbs like Riverdale -- while in Montreal the streetcars generally came later. When you're putting up row houses and semis very fast, as they did in the late 1800s and in post WW1 Toronto, the quality wasn't the best, which is kind of like what is happening with condos now. Who would want to live in them?
ETA: It occurs to me that, given all those monumental churches that were built in Montreal, there were many skilled trades around. Now, ironically, many of those churches are ... condos.
I think our demographic is younger so daytime events aren't popular, but weekends and evening social events are. I haven't managed to get a book club up and running yet, but I am trying!
