cuz it is always right to blame the rich for anything bad, because being rich itself, is a sin.
I have seen a lot of "poor" people in the US before. When they get $100, they spent it on fried chickens and beers within a week, rather than save it for their kids' education. When they get $2,000, they buy a plama TV or go on vacations, rather than invest it smartly for something more useful in the future. In the end, they kids are still poor when they grow up, all because the rich bankers and lawyers and doctors are too evil, supposedly.
Yeah, I am pretty well off now, but for a time back in high school I lived in a complex which was partially social housing. We had no money, so we saved it for stuff like groceries and clothes. I didn't even have a bed, just a mattress. It just royally pissed me off to see my neighbours spend their social assistance cheques on beer, pizza, and video rentals, and then complain they had no money.
back to real estate. There is little surprise wealthier and more established neighborhood hold their value better than poorer ones. I would be surprised if it were not the case. People with more disposable income tend to do better work in maintaining their houses, gardens, and care more about the beauty and safety of their communties. When there is a problem, they fix it. Poorer folks worry more about making ends meet than roof maintenance and neighbourhood charm. Why should anyone expect houses in poorer areas appreciate faster in value?
Actually, in some areas it is in fact true. There seems to be a ceiling for prices, which may partially explain the part about Bridle Path. While some say "luxury" in the GTA begins at around $1 million for a detached home, there is this concept of entry level luxury. Above that the target market becomes extremely small. There is the 0.1% (or 0.01%?) as it were, once you start hitting prices above $2 million.
It seems to me the best chance for average price appreciation is in nice neighbourhoods which have pre-existing nice homes representing some but not all of the homes.
To put it in practical terms: In the last real estate blip, the high end luxury market basically froze completely. The mid-range and upper non-luxury detached home market slowed significantly, with price drops, but didn't even come close to freezing.
in the end, you work more, you get more. Just because an area is cheap doesn't mean it has more "potential". Some of the so called up-and-coming neighourhoods, probably will have no chance of being desirable real estate, unless of course, the demographic composition moves upwards - which means, - allow me to be blunt, the poor move out and richer move in, or the poor become richer. Areas where poor people gather will always do worse then others, and this will never change. If you look at history in other major cities, there is no convergence in real estate. There is usually divergence.
Yes, it seems the true up-and-coming neighbourhoods, ie. the ones that actually are improving, partially improve because richer people move in.
However, in my area, it's not just the well-off moving in as the less well-off move out. It's the less well-off dying off, and the more well-off moving in... after some contractor has bought the old house, torn it down, and built a new one in its place.
I've never understood why this board has a reputation for being "left-wing"...
Well, cuz quite frankly it is. If you can't see it, then you should probably look again. Amongst my colleagues, I am left wing. On this board, judging by the posts I'm probably further right than most people here, despite the fact that in provincial and federal elections I have always voted centrist or left of centre (by general Canadian standards).
