Real estate in Calgary - another bubble?

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The problem is too many people want to live in already highly dense regions of the country, and they want/expect to live in detached homes when they start families.

This is my uneducated opinion, but I don't feel like there are too many family friendly builds going on in new condo buildings. I've lived in enough 600-900 ft2 narrow rectangles to know that I wouldn't want to try to raise kids like that. Maybe when affordable 1100-1400 m2 3 bedroom/1.5 bathroom condos with decent sound proofing become the norm, we can start tackling the issue.

There's a really nice urban friendly development in Mahogany of all places that you could live at without needing a car very often if at all. Too bad all of the properties for sale in that development are extremely expensive!

[_Q_]

Maybe, what we should be doing, is creating opportunities for new immigrants to move to smaller cities rather than Toronto and Vancouver.

Why not try to get people to live in Halifax, Lethbridge, Moncton, etc. As it stands, it seems like all economic activity is centered around BC and the GTA.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Maybe, what we should be doing, is creating opportunities for new immigrants to move to smaller cities rather than Toronto and Vancouver.

Why not try to get people to live in Halifax, Lethbridge, Moncton, etc. As it stands, it seems like all economic activity is centered around BC and the GTA.

I can imagine that many immigrants may want the safety net of an established community of other migrants from the same country.

As far as prices go, places like Halifax are already seeing out of control rises in prices. Part of it may be related to supply chains and material costs. But Canada is already at the point where most cities can no longer accommodate the existing populations.

I do agree with you that Canada needs to encourage growth in new cities. It's also a question of our undirected educational system too. Canada does very little to encourage people to educate themselves in fields in proportion to job demand.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Where does that 10 million come from? According to this older stat,

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...429-1&indgeo=0


So that leaves 4.6 million rental households, but it would be inaccurate to say every one of them is looking to buy. Considering ~25% of seniors rent, I'd imagine a lot of them aren't looking to buy at this point in their life. So I'd suspect a more realistic number is closer to 2 million than 10.

Households will have more than one person. Average household size in Canada is 2.5, but that also includes a lot of empty nesters. So take your numbers and multiply them by three plus.

Also many existing homeowners are looking to upgrade to larger places but can't. Many people in their thirties and forties with growing families would like to make the transition into a detached home or suitably sized townhouse but can't. The townhouses don't exist. House prices in places, even like Edmonton, are getting out control.

Average house price in Edmonton is almost $500k now:

https://wowa.ca/edmonton-housing-market

The combined capacity of Canada's smaller more "affordable" cities is probably a combined 1-2 million. Even if everyone who could moved to a less sought after destination, that wouldn't solve the problem. Lethbridge has a population of 100k. How many people can that accommodate before housing there runs out? 15-20k?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

This is my uneducated opinion, but I don't feel like there are too many family friendly builds going on in new condo buildings. I've lived in enough 600-900 ft2 narrow rectangles to know that I wouldn't want to try to raise kids like that. Maybe when affordable 1100-1400 m2 3 bedroom/1.5 bathroom condos with decent sound proofing become the norm, we can start tackling the issue.

I think this is why upzoning central neighborhoods will never really provide "affordable" family sized housing. The cost of acquiring the land, building up and the needed infrastructure/utility upgrades means that whatever replaces old SFHs in desirable neighborhoods will also be expensive.

Despite whatever urbanists say, sprawl is the only thing that creates affordable family sized housing (by North American standards) on a large scale.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I think this is why upzoning central neighborhoods will never really provide "affordable" family sized housing. The cost of acquiring the land, building up and the needed infrastructure/utility upgrades means that whatever replaces old SFHs in desirable neighborhoods will also be expensive.

Despite whatever urbanists say, sprawl is the only thing that creates affordable family sized housing (by North American standards) on a large scale.

Upzoning will create more supply, which will trickle down, making all housing more affordable. If you have a bunch of families paying 700-900k for a townhouse in a desirable neighborhood, then that alleviates pressure in other neighborhoods. These are families that would have been bidding on detached homes in slightly less desirable places, but now are taken out of that bidding by an increase in supply.

The demand for townhouses is definitely there. Zoning prevents it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

Households will have more than one person. Average household size in Canada is 2.5, but that also includes a lot of empty nesters. So take your numbers and multiply them by three plus.

Also many existing homeowners are looking to upgrade to larger places but can't. Many people in their thirties and forties with growing families would like to make the transition into a detached home or suitably sized townhouse but can't. The townhouses don't exist. House prices in places, even like Edmonton, are getting out control.

Average house price in Edmonton is almost $500k now:

https://wowa.ca/edmonton-housing-market

The combined capacity of Canada's smaller more "affordable" cities is probably a combined 1-2 million. Even if everyone who could moved to a less sought after destination, that wouldn't solve the problem. Lethbridge has a population of 100k. How many people can that accommodate before housing there runs out? 15-20k?

Edmonton is not overpriced.

The Median family income supports the median SFH. There is still room for that to go up. Alberta was undervalued due to the lack of growth the last 5 years.

A homeowner looking to change the type of home does not affect a housing shortage. They are already housed in a non rental property.

Alberta is not an example of an overpriced market.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Evidence?

Two examples:

https://betterdwelling.com/this-week...te-in-ontario/

Millions of homes sit vacant across the world, and Canada is one of the worst offenders. OECD data shows 1.34 million vacant homes in Canada, the fifth highest for advanced economies.

Ontario’s largest segment of home buyers already have at least one other home. Teranet, who operates the land registry, found multiple property owners bought 25% of supply in 2021. At the same time, first-time home buyers fell to just over 22% of the housing supply. Over the past 10 years, multiple owners advanced 8 points of market share. At the same time, first-time home buyers fell as investors displaced them.

Yes, this second quote doesn’t say that the multiple property owners are leaving them vacant, but the number sure shows that they aren’t there for their own home ownership



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/tens-o...port-1.4621000

By analyzing demographic and housing information from Statistics Canada for the country’s largest 150 cities from 2006 to 2016, Point2 Homes determined Canada’s empty homes represent 8.7 per cent of the market, increasing from 8.4 per cent in 2006. In contrast, the vacancy rate in the U.S. “never climbed higher than 2.8 per cent” during the same 10-year time period according to the Federal Reserve Bank, the report states.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

Edmonton is not overpriced.

The Median family income supports the median SFH. There is still room for that to go up. Alberta was undervalued due to the lack of growth the last 5 years.

A homeowner looking to change the type of home does not affect a housing shortage. They are already housed in a non rental property.

Alberta is not an example of an overpriced market.

I'd agree that Alberta overall is still affordable. That looks to be changing quickly. Also what kept Alberta affordable was an awful job market. Once again, there's the issue of where do people go that they can actually afford to live. You can afford a house in Edmonton, if you can find a job

With oil prices high, things will obviously change for the job market, bit it looks like prices are already skyrocketing before that extra demand even hits.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

We have to build more, rezone more land for higher density housing, make investments in our cities so that they aren’t so dependent on car infrastructure. Everything a NIMBY from the suburbs hates but ah well, they have had their fun.

We’ve been over this before - the notion that there’s a large population of Canadians interested in raising families in high-density urban neighbourhoods is fantasy. The overwhelming majority of people starting families even in Vancouver and Toronto want to live in detached homes. And as we’re seeing, they’re willing to pay through the nose to do it (or commute 60 min each way). But keep building those condos nobody wants.

[Wormius]

Condos might not be what people want, but it’s something they’ll need to start getting used to.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We’ve been over this before - the notion that there’s a large population of Canadians interested in raising families in high-density urban neighbourhoods is fantasy. The overwhelming majority of people starting families even in Vancouver and Toronto want to live in detached homes. And as we’re seeing, they’re willing to pay through the nose to do it (or commute 60 min each way). But keep building those condos nobody wants.

I really disagree. Living in Vancouver, almost everyone I know here would buy a townhouse if they could, vs a detached home further away. There's a reason why Toronto and Vancouver continue to have so many people living there, despite the lack of housing.

When townhouses do go up for sale, desire being overpriced due to artificial scarcity, they get snapped up immediately. People are now paying $1.5 million for 1000-1200 square foot strata units. The demand for these places is massive.

Once again, it's an issue of compromising. We can have 3-4 more times the amount of townhouses to detached houses in the same space. Sure sure people would prefer a detached home, but that's clearly a lot of people who would prefer a townhouse in Vancouver/Toronto vs a detached house elsewhere.

Even in Calgary you see the same compromise. Townhouses near the city centre are now selling for more than detached houses in the further out suburbs.

I own a detached home. Quite frankly I find it a nuisance. Yard work, maintenance, repairs, etc.. I'd purchase a townhome if it was affordable. The only reason we bought detected was because we have a rental suite that pays 40% of our mortgage.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Sure sure people would prefer a detached home, but that's clearly a lot of people who would prefer a townhouse in Vancouver/Toronto vs a detached house elsewhere.

I guess we differ on what constitutes ‘a lot.’ High earning dual-income couples with no kids who want to lead an urban lifestyle make up a small proportion of the market. The no kids part is crucial. Peoples’ wants and needs around housing and location change dramatically once kids enter the picture.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I guess we differ on what constitutes ‘a lot.’ High earning dual-income couples with no kids who want to lead an urban lifestyle make up a small proportion of the market. The no kids part is crucial. Peoples’ wants and needs around housing and location change dramatically once kids enter the picture.

A lot of people with 1-2 kids (which is the norm amount these days) would like to purchase a townhouse in urban areas. The fact demand for any type of property in places like Toronto and Vancouver is so high speaks to that. A lot of people in urban areas are having children. In fact, I'd argue that people who's primary choice when having children to resettle in a smaller town or suburb are the minority. Most do so, as they are forced to.

[calgarygeologist]

When it comes to raising a family in an urban environment it was something that I really wanted and was trying to make happen but I couldn't find the right home. We lived in South Calgary and Altadore in large condos and our primary home search was in that area. We looked at many different options the one option that would have been ideal was a three or four floor brownstone type of row home with a central courtyard that would allow for a safe space for kids to play and an underground parkade instead of a garage. You really can't find that sort of setup in Calgary. There was one building that fit in the beltline on 15th Ave (if my memory is correct) but it had some maintenance and potential structural issues. There was one building on 35th Ave in Marda Loop that would have been good but it had no units for sale at the time.

As an example of what I would have concerned as ideal would be the newer buildings at 1615 28 Ave SW or 1715 27 Ave SW or 1808 27 Ave SW.

[The Fisher Account]

Listing my condo this spring. Hoping for the best!

[8sPOT]

What an interesting time right now. My GF sold her townhouse in Auburn bay for a tidy profit and is now renting a single detached home closer to downtown, and her monthly expenses are lower.

So sold townhouse, made profit, improved dwelling, and reduced expenses.

Only potential downside is if she wants to buy again shes at the mercy of the market whenever that may be.

I've had at least one other friend do this as well. Sold his home in the SW for a nice profit and decided to rent for the time being.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by 8sPOT

What an interesting time right now. My GF sold her townhouse in Auburn bay for a tidy profit and is now renting a single detached home closer to downtown, and her monthly expenses are lower.

So sold townhouse, made profit, improved dwelling, and reduced expenses.

Only potential downside is if she wants to buy again shes at the mercy of the market whenever that may be.

I've had at least one other friend do this as well. Sold his home in the SW for a nice profit and decided to rent for the time being.

I think the true analysis here should include the equity you would be building with a mortgage, if 50-60% of your payment translates into savings or wealth are you really saving anything? On paper you show less expenses, but your entire rent payment is money gone, mortgage payment isn't.

[Weitz]

Yep and in this market there is some growth in that equity (for now anyway).

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I think the true analysis here should include the equity you would be building with a mortgage, if 50-60% of your payment translates into savings or wealth are you really saving anything? On paper you show less expenses, but your entire rent payment is money gone, mortgage payment isn't.

Plus if their goal was to sell high and buy low when the market cools down I think they're going to be very disappointed in a few years when prices continue to go up. The only way I see selling your primary residence for profit as a good move right now is if you're at or near retirement and have zero interest in trying to get back into the market at a later date