Toronto has been looser with development than Vancouver which I like to think was to maintain affordability than just an overworked planning staff making room. It has led to some incredibly dense communities that overwhelm local infrastructure and amenities. There's no quick resolution to many of the issues either. They could still be around 50 years from now.
 
UrbanRED said:
You have this wrong.

Vancouver and Toronto's house prices are partially if not wholly supported by foreign buyers, who are buying both detached homes and condo units. You mention that the goal is to make detached prices expensive but non-detached prices stable and affordable? In both Vancouver and Toronto non-detached prices are not stable nor are they affordable - look at the condo market in Toronto, which continues to be on a tear despite the downturn in detached housing prices.

Vancouver and Toronto are far from what we want - certainly they are denser cities, but the current boom is stretching wallets for most of the citizens of those cities and making them unaffordable.

We need well designed, well-planned urban development. We don't need policies to change tastes through making things unaffordable. Instead, we need policies to encourage effective and tasteful public spaces, easy access to transit, and walkable neighbourhoods with work, housing, and retail.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/non-resident-real-estate-1.4455861
Im sorry i don't think youve been keeping up with the news, its become very clear that foreign buyers aren't truly behind the housing booom in those cities. Coupled with low interest rates and higher price expectations, demand has been out pacing supply. There have been some relief recently for housing sales in these areas to the changes in mortgage rules. And as far as raising families go, people don't have to stuff into condos, it can be townhomes that are in rows or clusters that provide 3 bedrooms in addition to built basements. One of the reasons developers wont make 3 bedroom condos is due to lack of demand, I think this was mentioned on another forum. I'm just saying many of the approaches Canada and America are taking aren't going to be enough to end sprawl. Theres also no denying Vancouver has a taste for condos, do u think that taste would be there if detached homes were in the same price range? The 1972 Canadian tax law changes have made renting developments unfavourable for private investors which is why Seattle outpaces Vancouver in rentals while Vancouver outpaces Seattle in condos. Policy can really go a long way. Im sure u can put this theory to the test for a year and see how consumers change their buying habits you'll get some results.
 
The article is naive in concluding foreign buyers aren't staged locally. It doesn't make any sense to have sales offices in China for projects in Canada for a measly 5%. More importantly, is not who is buying but who is selling and financing these developments. There's probably nothing built in Canada that is near 100% Canadian when you delve deep and add faces to all the entities involved.

The driving force behind the escalating values is not the lack of supply. There's amply supply being built to satisfy growth expectation and than some. Both Vancouver and Toronto have thousands of units not being used. It's speculation prices will continue to rise, money laundering and, for savings. 3 and 4 bedroom are also in demand. They simply aren't affordable to most buyers so they don't get built as market housing. It's not exactly how you put it.
 
I'd like to see some of your claims backed up because its become pretty clear in the news recently that housing costs in those cities don't have as much to do with foreign interest as initially perceived. People are always quick to blame foreigners for many of their own created problems. And as far as 3-4 bedroom condos go, they aren't enough in demand according to a Calgarian developer to justify building them, you're right in that they are too expensive to sell due to topping costs such as building the parkade, condo fees etc. The parkade for 1 underground stall can cost $40000 or more to construct. But the developer said some of these costs can be mitigated such as the parkade and also if the city would provide density bonus to allow more 3 bedroom floors to be built on top. Here's also a recent link on some of the housing troubles that plagued the Greater Toronto area and led to much of their bubbled prices. http://business.financialpost.com/r...-supply-challenge-and-the-growth-plan-paradox. Not enough homes on the market due to sellers believing prices will only rise more. On top of that the demand for detached homes are not being met and the substitution of condos have roughly 3 year delay to complete and meet demand if they do get approved through the bureaucratic system (this was the initial goal to increase density by Toronto). One thing that did work out of all this mess is that Toronto has more multi-fmaily homes sold versus single family unlike the average Canadians preference. Demand simply hasn't kept up. Theres not enough homes on the market due to price speculations by sellers and delayed developments to help the market shift from a sellers market to a balanced one.
 
As well i just came across an article that perfectly explains what i was trying to intend by raising detached home prices. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...-single-family-homes-slumped/article37738503/. "...if you were originally a detached-home buyer, you are now a townhouse buyer, and if pricing continues to rise you're going to be a [condominium] apartment buyer." As long as condo/townhome prices stay significantly cheaper than Detached home prices, people will flock to them basic concept of substitution. The goal for the city would be to provide quality housing for families to raise their families, such as added density bonuses mentioned for condo developers to make more 3 bedroom condos. Or even attached town homes can be more than sufficient enough space for a family of 4.
 
maestro said:
The article is naive in concluding foreign buyers aren't staged locally. It doesn't make any sense to have sales offices in China for projects in Canada for a measly 5%. More importantly, is not who is buying but who is selling and financing these developments. There's probably nothing built in Canada that is near 100% Canadian when you delve deep and add faces to all the entities involved.

The driving force behind the escalating values is not the lack of supply. There's amply supply being built to satisfy growth expectation and than some. Both Vancouver and Toronto have thousands of units not being used. It's speculation prices will continue to rise, money laundering and, for savings. 3 and 4 bedroom are also in demand. They simply aren't affordable to most buyers so they don't get built as market housing. It's not exactly how you put it.
Click to expand...

This, exactly this.

5% is only 'foreign buyers', but many foreign buyers obtain PR, send their children to school in Canada, or purchase multiple homes after they have become residents. That number is significantly higher than 5%.

Not only that, foreign buyers tend to buy more expensive properties and pay more for any individual property:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rea...-in-toronto-region-after-tax/article37451779/

@gsunnyg, you're wrong here. That article you linked only further proves my point - that while buyers are being priced out of the single family home market, condos are also increasing in price and becoming unaffordable for families as well. Increasing prices and additional foreign speculative investing in our local real estate markets are NOT the way we want to increase urban development. Besides, many of those condo units in Toronto are being built very poorly with a small shelf life - they may very well become the urban slums of 2050. That's the last thing we want from a sustainable urban development perspective.
 
haltcatchfire said:
I wouldn’t take what’s said or written in the news as gospel. They’re not doing research for a 6 o’clock news piece.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I've seen so many articles over the years that have errors and mistakes in them, that it's hard to take the articles seriously.

As far as foreign buyers and real estate go, I do not have any numbers or a lot of knowledge, but I have heard from people I know inside the mortgage banking industry that foreign buyers do buy properties using a local buyers. How much of that makes up the percentage is something I don't know, but it sounds like it does happen.
 
Take away foreign buyers and Toronto still has a pretty striking equation:

(1) the city added over 200,000 new residents over the last 10 years + (2) the supply of detached single family homes (DSFH) is basically capped (or even in decline) given that the city is built out = (3) real estate prices go up, particularly for DSFH (but even other types of homes as well because, giving zoning rules and other factors, DSFH neighbourhoods lock out other forms of housing from most of Toronto's land area)

However, getting back to the issue at hand. Leaving aside questions of whether and how to regulate the development of housing, one easier solution would be to simply stop prioritizing cars in development, particularly within the inner city. Design for transit and pedestrians and people (and developers) will adjust their housing priorities accordingly. From a sheer density standpoint, if we insist on accommodating cars everywhere all the time, we end up spreading everything out (e.g. the LRT entrance is no longer right up against the public space, it now has to accommodate two lanes of road in between; the condo no longer has a continuous line of retail units, it now has to sacrifice one of those units to accommodate the entrance to a parking garage, etc.) And for %^&* sake, cancel the ring road!!!
 
I was okay with the soccer dome as a temporary facility. My only worry was that it would stay for good. As they say, nothing so permanent as a temporary solution.
 
I just feel we need to have a hard stance on this whole area. Its a gem of a spot in this city. Its our only chance of having a high rise node outside the core (somewhat Currie too). Id rather have nothing than something in this case, who knows how the long the soccer field would have lasted even though they said roughly 10 years or so. People would have got attached to it and then maybe u would have had an uproar from the community when the time came to removing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJC
gsunnyg said:
I just feel we need to have a hard stance on this whole area. Its a gem of a spot in this city. Its our only chance of having a high rise node outside the core (somewhat Currie too). Id rather have nothing than something in this case, who knows how the long the soccer field would have lasted even though they said roughly 10 years or so. People would have got attached to it and then maybe u would have had an uproar from the community when the time came to removing it.
Click to expand...
That's my biggest worry too. Once it's in, how easy is it going to be to get it changed out later? I suppose if they put in a soccer field or some other temp use with the idea of having leases that get get renewed every 2 or 3 years, via a review it wouldn't be bad. That way there's at least an out.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top