- Reaction score
- 1,415
- Points
- 1,260
Cost of housing in Canada
- Thread starter mariomike
- Start date
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,035
- Points
- 990
I had to quadruple take when I was reading it, first at the authors disdain for 1000sqft bungalow with finished basement, then at how small the main floor looked, then at how we're to get a 1000 sqft footprint on 24x36.
On one side that place is tiny and 600k seems crazy to me. On the other, 1000 sqft of living space is 1000 sqft, does it matter that it's like this, a bungalow on a pad, or a condo?
the sq. ftg includes the basement so you are actually getting half that with an equivalent half finished in the basement to rent out or so basic math tells me
The GST removal on new rental builds is a good step.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,035
- Points
- 990
See post 880
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,122
- Points
- 1,260
The only thing that can correct the housing problem is the buyers and renters. As long as real estate agents and land lords can get ridiculous rents and mortgages they will keep them that high.
- Reaction score
- 7,665
- Points
- 1,160
But everybody needs a roof over their heads.
And most people prefer their own private roof.
Demand.
- Reaction score
- 1,415
- Points
- 1,260
The price on this one caught my eye. "Toronto's cheapest home."
Story says it's,
But, it's actually Hearst, ON.
www.narcity.com
Story says it's,
But, it's actually Hearst, ON.
This Is Toronto's Cheapest Home For Sale & It Could Be Yours For Less Than $250K (PHOTOS)
There's just one thing to keep in mind 👀.
www.narcity.com
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,465
- Points
- 1,040
Agree.
Everyone in the first few deciles will have homes. If there aren't enough of the kind of homes people want for the money they have, though, they will look further down - buy and renovate or demolish/build. This moves "affordable" properties out of reach of the people lower on the scale. Unless the demand of the top tiers is saturated, we can assume this is happening.
Unlikely. "Creative destruction" doesn't take a holiday. Oddball businesses that are viable today become non-viabl and the workers are freed up to work elsewhere. The only things at risk are Ponzi social welfare schemes, and it's in the power of legislatures to recalibrate those.
Another factor is people living alone. I'd be curious to see how the numbers have changed over the past three or four decades.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Points
- 1,160
Living solo - Statistics Canada
Living alone: by choice or circumstance? Whatever the answer, more and more Canadians live alone, reflecting a long-term pattern of growth over the years. In 2021, 4.4 million people lived alone, up from 1.7 million in 1981.
"Living alone: by choice or circumstance? Whatever the answer, more and more Canadians live alone, reflecting a long-term pattern of growth over the years. In 2021, 4.4 million people lived alone, up from 1.7 million in 1981. This represented 15% of all adults aged 15 and older in private households, the highest proportion on record.
In 2016, one-person households became the predominant household type (28%) for the first time in Canada’s 150-year history. One-person households continued to hold the top spot among households in 2021, representing just under 3 in 10 households (29%).
The continued rise of one-person households, despite the economic downturn and housing affordability issues in some areas, is almost entirely due to aging of the population. As a result, living alone is still most prevalent at older ages.
Elsewhere in the world
Among G7 countries, Canada continues to have one of the lowest proportions of one-person households (29.3%). Only the United States had a smaller share (28.5% in 2021). In contrast, in some European countries, such as Finland, Germany and Norway, more than 4 in 10 households were one-person households.
As population aging accelerates in Canada, the more likely it is that the share of one-person households will continue to grow. Cultural preferences also play a role in the prevalence of living solo. For example, Japan has the oldest population in the world, but not the highest share of one-person households.
Is it a question of age?
The prevalence of living alone has always been highest at older ages, and this was still the case in Canada in 2021: solo dwellers represented 42% of all people aged 85 and older in private households, compared with 7% of people aged 20 to 24.
In contrast, the prevalence of living alone has increased over time in middle adulthood. For example, the proportion of people aged 35 to 44 living alone doubled from 1981 (5%) to 2021 (10%). This trend may reflect the fact that members of Generation X and millennials, who made up this age group in 2021, tend to postpone starting a family until they have finished school and found a stable job.
Solo living: Quebec tops the list, while Nunavut still the lowest
As has been the case since 1996, Quebec posted the highest share of persons living alone (19%) in 2021. In contrast, Ontario (12%) and Alberta (13%) had the two lowest shares of adults living solo. Nationally, solo living was lowest (8%) in Nunavut, which has held this position since 2001.
Differences in sociodemographic characteristics, economic conditions and housing conditions are some of the factors that have contributed to these variations in solo living across Canada over time.
Therefore, the higher prevalence of solo living in Quebec can be attributed to lower shelter costs, tax rebates for solo dwellers in certain circumstances and other sociocultural factors, including greater instability of unions.
Alone? Yes, but not forever . . .
As life brings its share of twists and turns, for some, living alone is only a short-term situation. This is especially true for young adults: among people aged 20 to 34 who were living alone and not in a couple relationship in 2017, most said that they were open to living common-law in the future (72%), that they intended to marry in the future (60%) and that they intended to have a child someday (67%). For others, living solo may be more permanent, reflecting their preferences and choice to live alone."
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,826
- Points
- 1,040
The economic collapse which is coming soon will correct it. Prices are simply too high to sustain the status quo. We have gone too long without small corrections, basically done everything we could to prevent them. Soon we shall have no choice but to pay the piper and all the negatives that come with it.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,122
- Points
- 1,260
Then the market has no reason to change.
Our forefathers lived through the dirty 30s in shacks and under bridges and came back to build a strong vibrant economy and country. We can do it again. Adversity, suffering and loss makes you better; comfort, opulence and extravagance makes you fat and weak.
The people need to take responsibility for this.
I completely agree with you.
From my own perspective & position in life... On the one hand, I desperately hope the housing bubble bursts and prices come crashing down because at the rate things have been going over the last few years, I'll never be able to get into the housing market. And I DON'T want to be $400k+ in debt just to own a decent place to live in a decent area. (Even in the crappier areas, prices come close to that)
I work with a lot of people & know a lot of people who work full time jobs, aren't overly sloppy spenders, keep our credit rating in good standing - and who will never own their own home at this rate.
On the other hand, I don't want the housing bubble to crash suddenly and violently (which I'm afraid seems to be what will happen.)
Each of my parents have their retirement plans tired into the equity in their homes, and if that equity just magically isn't there all of a sudden, it will cripple their ability to feel safe in their retirement. (Both of my parents are in their 70's, and both work casual/part time jobs already...a sudden loss of equity will destroy them financially)
And I feel like a lot of our folks are in the same boat
Plus it isn't fair that an entire generation of people who have worked hard, paid off chunks of their mortgage, and have been able to help their kids as they grew up & moved away end up screwed out of their own peace of mind in the end...
But if the bubble doesn't get deflated at least somewhat, or burst altogether, I don't see how what is happening now can be sustainable.
(I blame greedy landlords for a lot of this problem moreso than anybody else. And not all landlords, who simply charge what they think they can get...I blame the dickheads that raised rents in the first place, causing other landlords to follow suit)
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,122
- Points
- 1,260
I feel for you, but I don't have sympathy for people who have enabled this situation. Same with our medical system. The aged and old got us into this mess by allowing successive governments to spend for the now and not plan for the future.
Again, landlords will ask what they think is their maximum. Who controls that maximum you ask ? You and I. Stop paying it, and they have to stop asking for it.
- Reaction score
- 1,415
- Points
- 1,260
A grand a month in rental $ doesn't go as far as it used to.
A mattress on a kitchen floor - in a 300 square foot basement in Toronto.
No parking, outdoor space, or utilities. Appliances are not included.
Someone in Toronto is renting out a bed on the floor of a kitchen for $950 a month
Finding an apartment to rent in Toronto has been especially nightmarish lately, with the average one-bedroom unit now going for more than $2,500 as...
www.blogto.com
Average one-bedroom rents for "well north of" $2,800.
Toronto rents just skyrocketed again and here's how much you'll need to spend
It will now cost you well north of $2,800 to rent an apartment in Toronto, and renters looking to move into a new home will have to fork over more ...
www.blogto.com
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,826
- Points
- 1,040
I am fortunate enough to have bought a house before the nonsense price increases. I am basically living a 1950s Canadian dream lifestyle at the moment, single income household, fairly cheap mortgage, and decent standard of living.
I want this to be obtainable for all Canadians.
It sucks for those who have their whole retirement tied up on their ‘equity’ but, at the end of the day I am more than willing to sacrifice that so others can live a decent life. Most of that generation doesn’t get much sympathy from me. They have defined benefit pensions for the most part (which they then cancelled for future generations), made much more money in terms of value over their careers (and had access much better paying secure jobs), and still many of them failed to plan properly. When I have guys at my work (last of the boomers) bitching about their retirement payments, knowing it is substantially higher than what my estimate is, even though we do the same work it doesn’t make me too sympathetic.
I will technically lose equity and value if the market collapses (to the tune of almost triple the value I bought at), but I am ok with that. At the end of the day I haven’t lost anything, I still have my house, and you don’t lose or gain anything until you sell/buy.
- Reaction score
- 1,415
- Points
- 1,260
There's that.
But, what really blew their minds was the Sick Bank Retirement Gratuity.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,035
- Points
- 990
I think that's a question of the scale of the crash. Lot's of boomer/older x age people planned to retire off the equity in their homes. But were they planning on the post 2019 explosion? Does a crash to 2018 prices jeopardize their retirement, or clawback an unplanned for windfall?
- Reaction score
- 319
- Points
- 780
A couple of points to ponder.
Our forefathers in the '30s didn't drag themselves out of poverty on their own. They had a war, and the industrial benefits that came out of it, to partially thank.
In the past, large immigration numbers meant two things. New immigrants moved into smaller communities well outside major centres so they could afford to live and start off their new lives in Canada. Or conversely, they moved into cheaper areas of major centres, and the individuals who had moved up the financial ladder moved to the nicer parts of the city, or to the burbs.
The problem is, no matter how involved government is, we can't force people to live where they don't want to. There is a great example in Haiti, just outside PaP. Aid organizations built a beautiful new neighborhood, with relatively safe utilities and lots of "green" space. And it stayed empty. Because it was 30km outside the city, and there was no work or other support for them.
Our forefathers in the '30s didn't drag themselves out of poverty on their own. They had a war, and the industrial benefits that came out of it, to partially thank.
In the past, large immigration numbers meant two things. New immigrants moved into smaller communities well outside major centres so they could afford to live and start off their new lives in Canada. Or conversely, they moved into cheaper areas of major centres, and the individuals who had moved up the financial ladder moved to the nicer parts of the city, or to the burbs.
The problem is, no matter how involved government is, we can't force people to live where they don't want to. There is a great example in Haiti, just outside PaP. Aid organizations built a beautiful new neighborhood, with relatively safe utilities and lots of "green" space. And it stayed empty. Because it was 30km outside the city, and there was no work or other support for them.
Similar threads
