Real estate in Calgary - another bubble?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by you&me

What a strange conversation...

Taxing old ladies out of their homes because they don't have kids at home any more?

$200k down payments like it's the norm

RRSPs vs. the only leveraged investment most people have, or are willing to access.


I get that blankall is looking at this through the lens of Vancouver real estate and in that sense, it's understandable he'd have the opinion that drastic measures need to be taken... But LOL at anyone wanting to or thinking the same heavy-handed measures should or need to be applied to Calgary... Sure, things can be tweaked and made better, but let's not lose sight of the fact that blackall is looking at this from the perspective of living in one of the most over-valued, least affordable markets in the world.

And Calgary seems quickly headed in that direction. Given current immigration rates, it's inevitable that every desirable city in Canada will begin to look like Vancouver soon. I'm not sure how anyone in Calgary, who saw a 25% spike in their home value in the face of rapidly rising interest rates and potentially a recession can't see that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes money....you can invest $1 in an RRSP and you're off to the races. With housing the initial threshold investment is getting higher and higher everyday.

You should pay taxes that reflect the actual cost of supporting your detached home, yes. If you're going to make the libertarian argument, I also assume you don't mind privately paying to pave the road to your house, the sewer system, garbage disposal, mail, etc...plus you'll be handling your own security from now on. No public police or justice system.

Is there evidence this isn't happening in the houses you want to boot people out of?

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by blankall

And Calgary seems quickly headed in that direction. Given current immigration rates, it's inevitable that every desirable city in Canada will begin to look like Vancouver soon. I'm not sure how anyone in Calgary, who saw a 25% spike in their home value in the face of rapidly rising interest rates and potentially a recession can't see that.

My house is pretty much the exact value since I got it ~15 years ago. Guess my neighborhood sucks.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by fotze2

My house is pretty much the exact value since I got it ~15 years ago. Guess my neighborhood sucks.

Me too... In fact, I've been casually shopping for the last ~18 months and even made a few offers, but those offers are are still at or under prices from 12-15 years ago... I appreciate the words of caution, but Calgary has a looooong way to go before we've Vancouver 2.0.

Edit - this is the problem with looking at statistics like price growth out of context - "you're house is up 20% in the last year... but it was down 30% since 2014 and you're still under water"

[nik-]

There are almost 400 listings on realtor for detached homes with a max price of 600k at this very moment.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Being forced to live in a condo is worse than death for some.

Being forced to deal with a condo board and waste money on condo fee's is worse then death.



Glad I'm out of that ####, never to return (even after I retire).

[Dion]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Being forced to deal with a condo board and waste money on condo fee's is worse then death.



Glad I'm out of that ####, never to return (even after I retire).

Big reason why I never owned a condo and never will.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nik-

There are almost 400 listings on realtor for detached homes with a max price of 600k at this very moment.

Yeah we've had this conversation on CP before. You can buy houses for way less than $600k in Calgary. It's just that the directional suffix ends with an "E" and people don't like those areas of the city. The discussion isn't just about affordable housing...it's affordable housing in neighbourhoods that people prefer. And of course, those preferred areas have higher prices due to that demand.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah we've had this conversation on CP before. You can buy houses for way less than $600k in Calgary. It's just that the directional suffix ends with an "E" and people don't like those areas of the city. The discussion isn't just about affordable housing...it's affordable housing in neighbourhoods that people prefer. And of course, those preferred areas have higher prices due to that demand.

There's about 100 in the NW. 30 under 500k.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by fotze2

My house is pretty much the exact value since I got it ~15 years ago. Guess my neighborhood sucks.

My place in High River has gone from $325,000 before Covid to $485,000 and up. Soon to be over 500 by the end of the summer.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There's about 100 in the NW. 30 under 500k.

Which doesn't seem horrible, given that inventory is low overall?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

And Calgary seems quickly headed in that direction. Given current immigration rates, it's inevitable that every desirable city in Canada will begin to look like Vancouver soon. I'm not sure how anyone in Calgary, who saw a 25% spike in their home value in the face of rapidly rising interest rates and potentially a recession can't see that.

In Calgary median family income supports the median detached dwelling. There is no evidence Calgary is overpriced.

[Table 5]

If you've outgrown a condo, but can't afford a detached home (or are unwilling to settle on location or quality etc), I think the duplex/townhome makes a pretty solid "starter house" for a family these days. Plenty of those in the $400-600K range, and they'll probably get you in a more desirable area of town.

Yeah, it would be great if we lived in a time where you could graduate high school and go buy yourself a nice house with a white picket fence...but those days are over. Relatively to most of Canada though, I think Calgary is still pretty affordable. You need to compromise, but at least you have options.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there evidence this isn't happening in the houses you want to boot people out of?

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...ath-in-calgary

[comrade]

Originally Posted by you&me

You're making two different arguments.

First of all, the maintenance and replacement work in a 50 year old neighbourhood pales in comparison to the costs associated with providing services to a new area on the fringes of the city. Roads, new schools, EMS, interchanges, etc are potentially billions of dollars... replacing some aging sewer pipes and cracked sidewalks is hardly a fair comparison. Nevermind that, in Calgary, almost universally, property values increase the closer in you go, so the older, closer in communities are likely valued higher, and actually paying at least the same (if not significantly more) in value-based property tax.

Raising property taxes on single family homes will not have an affect on affordability, as the highest priced homes will be able to absorb in the increase; it'll be the increase in taxes to the starter home that might mean the difference of pushing the housing cost beyond the reach of some buyers... Tough break I guess, right?

If I understand you correctly, the second argument is that single family homes are OK, as long as they're inhabited by families... Like, are you proposing a vacant bedroom tax? Or underutilized square footage tax? How many SF per person is suitable, comrade? ()

For what it's worth, I think the city should be looking at ways to curb sprawl and make it less appealing. As long as it's the most affordable option for most people, it will continue to spill out and push Calgary's boundaries.

A 50 year old neighbourhood has pretty much the same profile as new neighbourhoods. If anything new neighbourhoods are more space efficient than anything built in the 1970s. And you are drastically underselling the amount of money maintaining old pipes and resurfacing old streets. To get to neighbourhoods that may break even you have to look at 100 years back.

My points are that 1) your examples are pulled from your ass and 2) that the difference between new neighbourhoods and anything post WW2 is not nearly as large as you make it out to be. Sprawl needs to be contained and existing neighbourhoods that your granny lives in needs more densification to come close to paying for their services and infrastructure.

[nik-]

I'm upset I bought a house with no yard so lets tear down the inner city.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by comrade

A 50 year old neighbourhood has pretty much the same profile as new neighbourhoods. If anything new neighbourhoods are more space efficient than anything built in the 1970s. And you are drastically underselling the amount of money maintaining old pipes and resurfacing old streets. To get to neighbourhoods that may break even you have to look at 100 years back.

My points are that 1) your examples are pulled from your ass and 2) that the difference between new neighbourhoods and anything post WW2 is not nearly as large as you make it out to be. Sprawl needs to be contained and existing neighbourhoods that your granny lives in needs more densification to come close to paying for their services and infrastructure.

I still don't know what your points are? Are you saying higher-valued, inner city single family homes don't pay more taxes than (near-universally) lower-valued, new suburban SFHs?

Or are you saying that a new community needing EMS services, new roads, parks, interchanges, etc costs less than repairing sidewalks and replacing some sewer pipes in an established area?

Or is it that you're suggesting the taxes raised in the suburbs cover a greater percentage of their financial burden to the city than their inner city equivalent?

Is the goal to curb sprawl?

Or do you want to raise property taxes to the point that it makes single family homes unaffordable? To what end? To force people from their homes? Are they supposed to sell for redevelopment?

Or is it to cause downward pressure on property values, making the properties more affordable... but then that results in decreasing the tax revenue (a point made about Calgary's downtown commercial properties in that atrociously written article you cited).

Is there supposed to be some mechanism that prevents someone undeterred by the increased taxes from buying the home from the displaced granny? Especially at the presumably depressed price (you know, brought on by the now-unaffordable property taxed)...

If this tax increase is supposed to somehow spark this inner city redevelopment, is it not going to also cause housing to be even more unaffordable for more marginal buyers?

It seems like you're just against single family homes... Is that right, comrade?

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by GGG

In Calgary median family income supports the median detached dwelling. There is no evidence Calgary is overpriced.

Calgary in 2019:
Median gross household income around $108k (GoA) and median detached home prices around $461k (CREB stats)

Calgary in 2023:
Median gross household income around $120k (GoA 2020 HHI) and median detached home prices around $656k (CREB stats)


The median household income supports home prices...for now. If inventories continue to stay low and home prices continue to rise as they have over the past 24-30 months, it won't be long before housing affordability becomes a serious issue in this city.

[CliffFletcher]

It seems naive to believe that dramatic population increases and housing costs in Canada’s largest cities won’t filter out to other major cities. Many buyers in Calgary today are displaced from Ontario and B.C. That’s going to drive home prices.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by boogerz

Calgary in 2019:
Median gross household income around $108k (GoA) and median detached home prices around $461k (CREB stats)

Calgary in 2023:
Median gross household income around $120k (GoA 2020 HHI) and median detached home prices around $656k (CREB stats)


The median household income supports home prices...for now. If inventories continue to stay low and home prices continue to rise as they have over the past 24-30 months, it won't be long before housing affordability becomes a serious issue in this city.

I think it already is.