MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Why aren't the people who are able and willing to pay $1.4M for an infill duplex paying $800K for the bungalow to outbid the private developer?

Probably because the young people today want everything new and shiny. They tend to look down at anything second hand. However, in my experience, if they want to build wealth, they should be focusing on size of the lot and the location, as those are two of the most important factors which will probably maximize the long-term return on their investment.

IMO the smarter people are outbidding the developers in some of the nicer neighborhoods, keeping them intact and free from all the problems that come with the multi-developments.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Probably because the young people today want everything new and shiny. They tend to look down at anything second hand. However, in my experience, if they want to build wealth, they should be focusing on size of the lot and the location, as those are two of the most important factors which will probably maximize the long-term return on their investment.

IMO the smarter people are outbidding the developers in some of the nicer neighborhoods, keeping them intact and free from all the problems that come with the multi-developments.

This is pretty out of touch. The overwhelming majority of young adults can’t even afford a run down bungalow let alone a brand new infill

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Probably because the young people today want everything new and shiny. They tend to look down at anything second hand. However, in my experience, if they want to build wealth, they should be focusing on size of the lot and the location, as those are two of the most important factors which will probably maximize the long-term return on their investment.

IMO the smarter people are outbidding the developers in some of the nicer neighborhoods, keeping them intact and free from all the problems that come with the multi-developments.

Dude people on this website act as if making $100k means you’re a millionaire. You got people claiming what the teachers are asking for (a living wage) is egregious, and that what the gov has offered is fair.

People want to be able to afford anything. Not something new and shiny. It’s possible that all these people saying wages haven’t kept pace with cost of living are right.

After tax wages, utilities, food, phone bill (if you want a job you must have a phone, it’s not an option) is not “kids want everything shiny. That is honestly detached nonsense. Wages haven’t kept up. It’s not greed. It’s not keeping up.

Also your advice makes no sense. Stop wanting everything new and shiny but go get a giant lot. Those are backwards from a cost perspective from what I see in terms of property values. Older communities with decent lots are near $1mm, new and shiny is out in the burbs. Your advice should be go get new and shiny if that’s all you can afford.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Probably because the young people today want everything new and shiny. They tend to look down at anything second hand. However, in my experience, if they want to build wealth, they should be focusing on size of the lot and the location, as those are two of the most important factors which will probably maximize the long-term return on their investment.

IMO the smarter people are outbidding the developers in some of the nicer neighborhoods, keeping them intact and free from all the problems that come with the multi-developments.

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This is pretty out of touch. The overwhelming majority of young adults can’t even afford a run down bungalow let alone a brand new infill

https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/t...ordability.pdf

That statement may be true, but this research from the National Bank states homes in Calgary are more affordable today than they were in 1980, 1990, 2000, and comparable to 2010.

The representative condo price in Calgary is 389k and would require a household income of 90k/year to afford, but a quick search of MLS found many decent looking 2 bedroom condos listed for 250k, so if affordability is linear, you would need a 58k household income, the mortgage payment would be around $1200/month (plus strata fees).

I wasn’t looking for the gems in Albert Park, but if you want a detached or semi detached in Sunnyside, it ain’t happening with that income. For most people, location sacrifices, neighbourhood desirability sacrifices, and living arrangement sacrifices have to be made to get their foot in the home equity door. I have met people who are not willing to make these sacrifices.

Life may be more expensive today than it was decades ago, but home ownership is not.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Reggie28

https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/t...ordability.pdf

That statement may be true, but this research from the National Bank states homes in Calgary are more affordable today than they were in 1980, 1990, 2000, and comparable to 2010.

The representative condo price in Calgary is 389k and would require a household income of 90k/year to afford, but a quick search of MLS found many decent looking 2 bedroom condos listed for 250k, so if affordability is linear, you would need a 58k household income, the mortgage payment would be around $1200/month (plus strata fees).

I wasn’t looking for the gems in Albert Park, but if you want a detached or semi detached in Sunnyside, it ain’t happening with that income. For most people, location sacrifices, neighbourhood desirability sacrifices, and living arrangement sacrifices have to be made to get their foot in the home equity door. I have met people who are not willing to make these sacrifices.

Life may be more expensive today than it was decades ago, but home ownership is not.

They are literally calling it a "housing crisis". Home ownership pricing is accelerating beyond salaries at a speed unheard of in previous decades.

Arguing against that right after he was a primary issue in the last federal election is a really interesting move.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Development time, labour and material cost is a thing. These 70,80 year old bungalows need a lot of work to be livable hence why infills literally tear them down and start anew. Plumbing, insulation, heating, structural condition... these bungalows "should" cost about as much as those Airdrie mobile homes but their price is hiked up profoundly by their inner city location. Really, the $800k is just the cost of the property. The demand to make infills is what drives up the initial cost, not the condition of the property. So buying that $800k bungalow doesn't mean you suddenly have a place to live.

I hate to take private developers' side here but infills are a big investment and they do deserve to profit off of their development. I doubt they're coming away with lottery winnings here. In a lot of cases these "private developers" are a twenty to twenty three year old kid out of Haskayne who borrowed money from their middle class parents in a startup scenario, just trying to profit enough so the parents don't go bankrupt and lose their collateral (their home). And I would want to fact check the 1.4M Number being thrown around.

Go look in Killarney.

10 years ago the bungalows were selling for ~$550K for land value and the infills were then going for $850-900K. Even when you factor in the cost of building back then, buying for 550, building and then selling for a combined $1.8M is a healthy profit.

Now the bungalows are selling for 700-850. Building costs are higher but selling the infills for $1.4M ($2.8M for the pair) still nets a tidy profit for the developer.

So ya, while the supply may be going up, the costs are going up because the developers want more profit. None of them are coming in and building modest, affordable houses, they all want to build high-end so that they can then ask for bigger sale prices and net larger profits.

So while these costs are all going up 30-50%, salaries are staying pretty flat or in many cases being suppressed.

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by Wolven

They are literally calling it a "housing crisis". Home ownership pricing is accelerating beyond salaries at a speed unheard of in previous decades.

Arguing against that right after he was a primary issue in the last federal election is a really interesting move.

I would argue that there is not a homogeneous Canadian housing market. Although affordability has increased in five consecutive quarters, Toronto and Vancouver are not affordable, at 74% and 89% of income towards an average home.

The data from NBC Economics and Strategy clearly shows Calgary housing is more affordable than it was decades ago. Looking at the charts for Calgary, there was a run up in 2006-2008, then the economic crash of 2008 and the near zero interest rates helped affordability up until 2022-23 when rates increased and housing became more unaffordable. Currently we are sitting about where we were in 2010 and much lower than the peak of 2007-2008.

If Calgary is currently in a housing affordability crisis, we have been in a crisis for most of the last 45 years.

[RandyHolt]

There are so many variables to housing pricing though that those charts don't really take into account clearly:

- Single income households versus what are now usually dual income households
- Size of properties (less condos in the 80s but the starter homes built are now larger)
- Other costs as a percentage of income in the 80s versus now

But the major point that I think most people would argue is that housing is not affordable for those in the early stages of their career or in the early stages of life in Canada. I don't think there are many people arguing that there is a housing crisis for established, two income households that are in their 40's onward. There are always those who housing will never be a reality, but the main point is that the newly educated don't think housing is going to be achievable for them.

The people newly out of university could afford a starter family home back in the 80s (although it was a significant portion of their income). Now it likely isn't a reality for the vast majority without having a partner/spouse/co-owner.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RandyHolt

The people newly out of university could afford a starter family home back in the 80s (although it was a significant portion of their income). Now it likely isn't a reality for the vast majority without having a partner/spouse/co-owner.

Even in the 80s, it was necessary to have a partner/spouse/co-owner. People partnered up much younger back then, and the great majority of people looking to buy a home were in couples.

Single-person households represent a higher proportion of Canada’s population today than 40 years ago. More people live long enough to become widows/widowers for a significant period. But there’s also a larger population of working adults who aren’t yet partnered who are renting and looking to get on the housing ladder. First-time homeowners today are actually more likely to be single than was the case in decades past.

It has always been really uncommon for single people to buy homes. One of the biggest reasons Canadians get into home ownership later in life today is because they couple up later in life.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/1908-living-solo

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by RandyHolt

The people newly out of university could afford a starter family home back in the 80s (although it was a significant portion of their income). Now it likely isn't a reality for the vast majority without having a partner/spouse/co-owner.

Even for Calgary, the definition of a starter home has changed. In the 70s and 80s, SFHs were the majority of new housing starts. Now, they're only about 25% so the starter family home is more likely to be a 2 bedroom condo/apartment.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Even in the 80s, it was necessary to have a partner/spouse/co-owner. People partnered up much younger back then, and the great majority of people looking to buy a home were in couples.

Single-person households represent a higher proportion of Canada’s population today than 40 years ago. More people live long enough to become widows/widowers for a significant period. But there’s also a larger population of working adults who aren’t yet partnered who are renting and looking to get on the housing ladder.

It has always been really uncommon for single people to buy homes. One of the biggest reasons Canadians get into home ownership later in life today is because they couple up later in life.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/1908-living-solo

Not to mention, those homes of 40 years ago (or longer) were not anything like the homes today. They were far, far smaller with fewer amenities. One bathroom and a couple bedrooms.

[RandyHolt]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Even in the 80s, it was necessary to have a partner/spouse/co-owner. People partnered up much younger back then, and the great majority of people looking to buy a home were in couples.

Single-person households represent a higher proportion of Canada’s population today than 40 years ago. More people live long enough to become widows/widowers for a significant period. But there’s also a larger population of working adults who aren’t yet partnered who are renting and looking to get on the housing ladder. First-time homeowners today are actually more likely to be single than was the case in decades past.

It has always been really uncommon for single people to buy homes. One of the biggest reasons Canadians get into home ownership later in life today is because they couple up later in life.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/1908-living-solo

They may have partnered up earlier, but 2/3 of the time it was only one person contributing to paying for the house. Now you need a co-owner or partner who is also working in order to afford the home.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...016005-eng.htm

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also your advice makes no sense. Stop wanting everything new and shiny but go get a giant lot. Those are backwards from a cost perspective from what I see in terms of property values. Older communities with decent lots are near $1mm, new and shiny is out in the burbs. Your advice should be go get new and shiny if that’s all you can afford.

Strangely, the only place where his advice makes sense is downtown condos. All the new builds are pricey for new finishes (albeit sometimes cheap finishes) and vanishingly little square footage (but look at our lovely AmEnItIeS), or you can buy into an older building with more square footage in-suite for less money, but you might have to contend with a place that's a little dated unless it has been renovated recently.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Go look in Killarney.

10 years ago the bungalows were selling for ~$550K for land value and the infills were then going for $850-900K. Even when you factor in the cost of building back then, buying for 550, building and then selling for a combined $1.8M is a healthy profit.

Now the bungalows are selling for 700-850. Building costs are higher but selling the infills for $1.4M ($2.8M for the pair) still nets a tidy profit for the developer.

So ya, while the supply may be going up, the costs are going up because the developers want more profit. None of them are coming in and building modest, affordable houses, they all want to build high-end so that they can then ask for bigger sale prices and net larger profits.

So while these costs are all going up 30-50%, salaries are staying pretty flat or in many cases being suppressed.

That's not a duplex. That's a 2500 sq ft detached home.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also your advice makes no sense. Stop wanting everything new and shiny but go get a giant lot. Those are backwards from a cost perspective from what I see in terms of property values. Older communities with decent lots are near $1mm, new and shiny is out in the burbs. Your advice should be go get new and shiny if that’s all you can afford.

The median price of a home in Calgary in 2025 is $560k, and the median price of a detached home is $680k.

The median sale price for a house in Fairview, far closer to the centre of the city than the outer limits, is $600k. Here’s a house listed at $559k.

https://www.rew.ca/properties/100-fa...-se-calgary-ab

1044 sq ft, 3 bedrooms. Looks like a decent interior.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

That's not a duplex. That's a 2500 sq ft detached home.

It is an infill. Yes, this one is detached, others are not. I've been watching that area for a while and there have been attached infills going from $1.2-1.4M over the last year after previously being ~$700K bungalows.

$1.295M for an attached home. It is not enough for these home builders to make a 1900 sqft infill, they have to make it high-end and very expensive to max out those profits.

We need a public home builder who will make a "Whirlpool" version of these houses instead of everything having to be "Wolf" quality.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Strangely, the only place where his advice makes sense is downtown condos. All the new builds are pricey for new finishes (albeit sometimes cheap finishes) and vanishingly little square footage (but look at our lovely AmEnItIeS), or you can buy into an older building with more square footage in-suite for less money, but you might have to contend with a place that's a little dated unless it has been renovated recently.

Yeah this is definitely the condo market. New/shiny but small vs older, but bigger. Some of these older condo buildings are massive.

There is also an argument that the layouts are better (arguable) and more in tuned with current appliances/furniture.

I just did a look around properties in infill areas. I think the prices are more of a reflection of square footage in some places. $1,000.00 sqft bungalows that need a 100k renovation at a minimum vs a new infill that is 1,700 square footage.

Lakeview for example:

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...lgary-lakeview

1961 build, bungalow 1,300 sq ft, renovated at some point, but not current. $775,000.00

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...lgary-lakeview

1961 build, bungalow, 1089 sq ft. renovated at some point. $770,000.00

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...lgary-lakeview

1965 build, less than 1,000 sq ft. no current renovation, as i can tell. $730,000.00

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...lgary-lakeview

1961 build, 1054 sq ft. no reno. $715,000.00

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...garrison-green

2007 build, 2 storey duplex, 2,300 sq ft., a bit dated. $800,000.00



Then you have 4 new builds (2025):

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-glenmore-park

1,740 sq ft duplex. $999,000.00 (2 of them)

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-glenmore-park

1908 sqft duplex,$1,145,000.00

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...-glenmore-park

1,972 sq ft duplex, $1,149,900.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Yeah this is definitely the condo market. New/shiny but small vs older, but bigger. Some of these older condo buildings are massive.

There is also an argument that the layouts are better (arguable) and more in tuned with current appliances/furniture.

If you're willing to knock down a few bits of framing here and there and get the condo board to sign off on your renovations, you can really end up with quite a nice result in an older condo with more space.

[Faust]

Calgary’s Bizarre Low-Turnout, High-Turnover Election:

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/voter-...-2025-election