Canadians 'drowning in debt': 47% will borrow to cover costs, survey says

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Fair enough, but we aren't talking about - "honey, I don't like the color of the granite counters any more, we need to put in quartz"

Strictly maintenance type stuff. I bought my house 11 years ago, and paid a bit over $500k, and it's probably worth that now. We haven't spent $55k on it the entire time, even including very discretionary appliance upgrades. We will need to do windows soon, which will be way more than $5k, but even at the $30k I'm budgeting for that we will be well under $5k per year averaged over time. It's a 37 year old house, so not like I was on a new house maintenance holiday.

I don't think 5% on average is too high if you want to maintain a nice home. You'll need a roof every 25 years ($15k?), you'll need new windows every 40 years ($30-50k?), you'll need interior paint every 15-20 years ($12k?), fence every 25 years ($4k?), deck/trees/exterior landscaping care ($300-$800/year minimum), exterior paint for the structure(s) every 10-15 years ($5k), appliances: hot water tank every 15 years ($1k), dishwasher every 12 years ($500), stove/fridge/washer/dryer replace every 20 years ($5k bare minimum for econo machines).

The above just barely keeps your house at the standard it is at today. Everyone I know likes to improve things over time, too, with the odd reno or update. Change some fixtures, buy a storm door, plant some annuals, etc. Have you been to a house that hasn't been renovated in 50 years? It looks like crap every single time. Nothing lasts forever. If you've only put $55k into your house you have either let things go, haven't tracked your spend well, or have been incredibly lucky with your timing.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think 5% on average is too high if you want to maintain a nice home. You'll need a roof every 25 years ($15k?), you'll need new windows every 40 years ($30-50k?), you'll need interior paint every 15-20 years ($12k?), fence every 25 years ($4k?), deck/trees/exterior landscaping care ($300-$800/year minimum), exterior paint for the structure(s) every 10-15 years ($5k), appliances: hot water tank every 15 years ($1k), dishwasher every 12 years ($500), stove/fridge/washer/dryer replace every 20 years ($5k bare minimum for econo machines).

The above just barely keeps your house at the standard it is at today. Everyone I know likes to improve things over time, too, with the odd reno or update. Change some fixtures, buy a storm door, plant some annuals, etc. Have you been to a house that hasn't been renovated in 50 years? It looks like crap every single time. Nothing lasts forever. If you've only put $55k into your house you have either let things go, haven't tracked your spend well, or have been incredibly lucky with your timing.

Plus bad stuff comes in bunches, so Murphy's law means you'll need a new roof and 3 weeks later your furnace will break

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by blankall

Kids for decades have been pushed to get meaningless degrees. With the amount of pressure on them to get these degrees, you can't turn around and blame them when they do. You worked too hard in school... Should've dropped out, despite loads of pressure from parents, society, teachers, etc. telling you otherwise.

The major issue is the state is the economy. Hard working fully employed people should be able to get by without help from their parents.

Should be able to get by is a very subjective definition.
Let's say a person is 27, single and makes $60,000. What would not being able to get by mean? Not able to rent? Not able to buy a house? Not having any savings?

[peter12]

We don't produce a diverse or large enough supply of homes anymore. There is ample evidence that Boomer property owners have artificially constrained housing supply through political lobbying at the local and provincial level. You can safely blame Boomers for the state of the housing market.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is ample evidence that Boomer property owners have artificially constrained housing supply through political lobbying at the local and provincial level.

How so?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

How so?

NIMBYism. Petitioning against medium and high density housing. Fighting against secondary suites.

Restricting neighbourhood growth to keep their home values artificially inflated.

[PepsiFree]

One maybe example I could think of: the battle against secondary suites in Calgary.

[nik-]

I would also like to see some of this ample evidence.

Calgary has been building non-stop for decades at this point pretty much.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by nik-

I would also like to see some of this ample evidence.

Calgary has been building non-stop for decades at this point pretty much.

Building out isn't the same as building up or re-zoning.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Building out isn't the same as building up or re-zoning.

It's not, but it's also not constraining the housing supply.

[peter12]

Calgary is one of the outliers but pretty obvious that growth is offloaded from high demand areas to low demand areas through sprawl.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

NIMBYism. Petitioning against medium and high density housing. Fighting against secondary suites.

Restricting neighbourhood growth to keep their home values artificially inflated.

That’s not just boomers.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

Calgary is one of the outliers but pretty obvious that growth is offloaded from high demand areas to low demand areas through sprawl.

Actually Toronto and Vancouver are the outliers.

Everyone takes the max they're able to borrow and buys the biggest possible house and then complains that the housing prices go up. Like what do people think is going to happen when everyone is spending the most they possibly can?

I just checked realtor.ca and there are 600 properties in this city for sale at this moment with 2+ bedrooms for less than 250k. That mortgage at sub 3% is the same as your rent. Stop pretending there aren't affordable options.

But I guess "ok Boomer" is just easier.

[Enoch Root]

Wait, which is it that we want? More homes, or more high-density development?

I agree that Toronto and Vancouver are the outliers. As far as Calgary goes, there has been a huge commitment to high-density development. That is the backbone of the East Village design. And without getting out of my office chair, I can see 7 or 8 cranes where apartment towers are going up.

But, NIMBYS!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I don't think 5% on average is too high if you want to maintain a nice home. You'll need a roof every 25 years ($15k?), you'll need new windows every 40 years ($30-50k?), you'll need interior paint every 15-20 years ($12k?), fence every 25 years ($4k?), deck/trees/exterior landscaping care ($300-$800/year minimum), exterior paint for the structure(s) every 10-15 years ($5k), appliances: hot water tank every 15 years ($1k), dishwasher every 12 years ($500), stove/fridge/washer/dryer replace every 20 years ($5k bare minimum for econo machines).

The above just barely keeps your house at the standard it is at today. Everyone I know likes to improve things over time, too, with the odd reno or update. Change some fixtures, buy a storm door, plant some annuals, etc. Have you been to a house that hasn't been renovated in 50 years? It looks like crap every single time. Nothing lasts forever. If you've only put $55k into your house you have either let things go, haven't tracked your spend well, or have been incredibly lucky with your timing.

Did you add up your list? 5% on a 500k home is 25k per year. You’d pay for everything in your list by year 4. Over 50 years you could spend 250k on your home at 1% per year. Your list matches up pretty close to about 5k per year on a 20 year cycle to maintain your home in the condition it is today.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Wait, which is it that we want? More homes, or more high-density development?

I agree that Toronto and Vancouver are the outliers. As far as Calgary goes, there has been a huge commitment to high-density development. That is the backbone of the East Village design. And without getting out of my office chair, I can see 7 or 8 cranes where apartment towers are going up.

But, NIMBYS!

I just lived through the Harvest Hills golf course redevelopment and it was both peak NIMBY and peak anti-density rhetoric.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I just lived through the Harvest Hills golf course redevelopment and it was both peak NIMBY and peak anti-density rhetoric.

Isn't it about views? High rise condos can be downtown but not in the suburbs? People love their views. Especially in the West up on the hill.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Isn't it about views? High rise condos can be downtown but not in the suburbs? People love their views. Especially in the West up on the hill.

I went to 2 of the open forums, and no, it was mostly about "loss of home value", "traffic", and "less permanent residents" (poors, students, etc.) In that order.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I went to 2 of the open forums, and no, it was mostly about "loss of home value", "traffic", and "less permanent residents" (poors, students, etc.) In that order.

Won't somebody think of the parking?!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I just lived through the Harvest Hills golf course redevelopment and it was both peak NIMBY and peak anti-density rhetoric.

Cool. How much do you think that one very specific event changed the total number of homes being built in Calgary?