Hot Pink List

Is the housing bubble about to burst

xix

Time Zone Traveller
Jul 27, 2002
4,801
1,742
113
La la land
I like this one.

 

roddermac

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2023
2,054
1,610
113
Well the OP was in January and now November.

Here is a different take in the video. I expect the price to reach 2010 level.
Will see.


Or

You mean concrete shoe boxes on the corner of every GTA neighborhood starting at $1 million plus aren't high in demand. The shock and awe.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: southpaw

xix

Time Zone Traveller
Jul 27, 2002
4,801
1,742
113
La la land
You mean concrete shoe boxes on the corner of every GTA neighborhood starting at $1 million plus aren't high in demand. The shock and awe.
There is always a sucker, dumb ass showoff, or kiss ass crazy nutjob out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silentkisser

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
Here's the dilemma when it comes to housing. Politicians and those without home ownership cry about the need for affordability. However, the possible unintended consequence for that is the price of homes for everyone else could drop, hurting current home buyers. I know several people nearing retirement age who plan to downsize and use the profit of their home to live off of. If the value of the house dropped 20%, they would be FUCKED.

So, what this does for the housing bubble/crisis is tricky. Yes, shoebox condos were bad investments. Who could raise a family in those? And there are thousands of units like that all across the GTA. So, the condo market will probably tank of a few years. But homes....I don't know how much they will dip. They are still coveted by most buyers, and they are still selling, for the most part, fairly quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roddermac

TomFord1980

Well-known member
Jan 9, 2017
1,426
1,113
113
Yeah. It has come down somewhat but still quite high. Add NIMBYS and greenbelts and hard to see big crashes in Toronto and Vancouver.

Greenbelts and nimbys are actually a good thing. Prevents the concrete jungle hell holes from taking over beautiful natural green space
 
  • Like
Reactions: roddermac

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
1,493
1,441
113
Yes, shoebox condos were bad investments. Who could raise a family in those? And there are thousands of units like that all across the GTA. So, the condo market will probably tank of a few years.
When you make an investment, you assume the risk of that investment. Investors will lose, but first time home buyers will gain.
 

roddermac

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2023
2,054
1,610
113
When you make an investment, you assume the risk of that investment. Investors will lose, but first time home buyers will gain.
Let's hope. Investors and developers was the reason we're quickly losing our skyline greenland and farmland.
 

Climberx

Active member
Mar 19, 2025
107
98
28
Here's the dilemma when it comes to housing. Politicians and those without home ownership cry about the need for affordability. However, the possible unintended consequence for that is the price of homes for everyone else could drop, hurting current home buyers. I know several people nearing retirement age who plan to downsize and use the profit of their home to live off of. If the value of the house dropped 20%, they would be FUCKED.

So, what this does for the housing bubble/crisis is tricky. Yes, shoebox condos were bad investments. Who could raise a family in those? And there are thousands of units like that all across the GTA. So, the condo market will probably tank of a few years. But homes....I don't know how much they will dip. They are still coveted by most buyers, and they are still selling, for the most part, fairly quickly.
House prices should not be kept artificially up for the sake of protecting the retirement eggs for those who chose a strategy reliant on real estate prices. The investment is speculative and should be treated as such. I don't see people keeping stock prices up for those that chose stocks over real estate for retirement egg. And for many people who have held real estate for a long time, a 20% drop is still much higher than their initial purchase price in most cases.
 

southpaw

Well-known member
May 21, 2002
1,493
1,441
113

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
When you make an investment, you assume the risk of that investment. Investors will lose, but first time home buyers will gain.
My grandmother about 30 years ago bought in a building that had two bedroom condos and something like 1800 feet (not a penthouse). They don't make things like that anymore, which I think is stupid. Imagine having something like that near a subway line and schools. It would be amazing...
 

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
House prices should not be kept artificially up for the sake of protecting the retirement eggs for those who chose a strategy reliant on real estate prices. The investment is speculative and should be treated as such. I don't see people keeping stock prices up for those that chose stocks over real estate for retirement egg. And for many people who have held real estate for a long time, a 20% drop is still much higher than their initial purchase price in most cases.
I agree with you...But, imagine you're the mayor/premier/PM who made a move that caused your home value to drop like that. First, there could be many people who find their mortgage is not underwater...But, would you ever get re-elected? Or your government? I know my home value surged by something like 145% in just over a decade...That is insane!!
 

Climberx

Active member
Mar 19, 2025
107
98
28
I agree with you...But, imagine you're the mayor/premier/PM who made a move that caused your home value to drop like that. First, there could be many people who find their mortgage is not underwater...But, would you ever get re-elected? Or your government? I know my home value surged by something like 145% in just over a decade...That is insane!!
With the aging population, thats a huge voter base. It's not politically favorable to let the market crash. I just wonder how the hell the younger generation will get a foot in the door, especially those who won't be getting any significant inheritance. Generational homes may be the future (until all the boomers die off).
 

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
With the aging population, thats a huge voter base. It's not politically favorable to let the market crash. I just wonder how the hell the younger generation will get a foot in the door, especially those who won't be getting any significant inheritance. Generational homes may be the future (until all the boomers die off).
I recall reading several years ago that when the boomers start to die off there could be a glut in the market, which would depress prices. I'm not sure if the demographics for this possible outcome are still in play. I mean, boomers are living longer, and many are doing things could delay the sale of a home.
 

Climberx

Active member
Mar 19, 2025
107
98
28
I recall reading several years ago that when the boomers start to die off there could be a glut in the market, which would depress prices. I'm not sure if the demographics for this possible outcome are still in play. I mean, boomers are living longer, and many are doing things could delay the sale of a home.
Yes or simply passing the home down to a younger family member. With the way prices have been, I think generational homes may be the only option. I just wonder how that will impact people's decision of whether to have kids. There are a lot of consequences that come downstream which could prove veryyy problematic
 
  • Like
Reactions: silentkisser

roddermac

Well-known member
Sep 17, 2023
2,054
1,610
113
My grandmother about 30 years ago bought in a building that had two bedroom condos and something like 1800 feet (not a penthouse). They don't make things like that anymore, which I think is stupid. Imagine having something like that near a subway line and schools. It would be amazing...
Two bedroom condos are less than 700 square ft now. It really boggles the mind. They don't want people to have families anymore. I know plenty of people that crew up in a three bedroom condo.
 

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
Yes or simply passing the home down to a younger family member. With the way prices have been, I think generational homes may be the only option. I just wonder how that will impact people's decision of whether to have kids. There are a lot of consequences that come downstream which could prove veryyy problematic
Totally agree. Our natural birth rate in Canada is well below the level for just replacement, which means we NEED immigration or we'll face a demographic disaster. But, that also puts significant pressure on the housing market. But, what really needs to happen is cities need to stomp out the NIMBY crew, and build denser in places that make sense. I'm not saying they should level a subdivision and put up apartments, but areas near major transit or along busy roads could have denser homes, like those four-floor apartment buildings. But, you need to make them large enough so people can raise families in them.
 

CLOUD 500

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2005
750
320
63
Totally agree. Our natural birth rate in Canada is well below the level for just replacement, which means we NEED immigration or we'll face a demographic disaster. But, that also puts significant pressure on the housing market. But, what really needs to happen is cities need to stomp out the NIMBY crew, and build denser in places that make sense. I'm not saying they should level a subdivision and put up apartments, but areas near major transit or along busy roads could have denser homes, like those four-floor apartment buildings. But, you need to make them large enough so people can raise families in them.
That is ridiculous. The government wants tax cows. The planet is over populated. We got 8.5 billion humans on this planet. The population is increasing exponentially. They want never ending population growth as if the Earths's resources are infinite, but the reality is it is finite. The more the population increases, the more pollution, the more poverty, and the top 1% will get richer. Canada had 7.8 million in 1914, then 14.5 million in 1952, 24.5 million in 1980, 30 million in 2000, 41.7 million in 2025. That is scary. As they destroy more and more natural habitat to house more and more humans for the purpose of having tax cows. We do not need more immigration, what we need is for the government to get its spending under control and that is the root of the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mdo2886

silentkisser

Master of Disaster
Jun 10, 2008
4,834
6,299
113
That is ridiculous. The government wants tax cows. The planet is over populated. We got 8.5 billion humans on this planet. The population is increasing exponentially. They want never ending population growth as if the Earths's resources are infinite, but the reality is it is finite. The more the population increases, the more pollution, the more poverty, and the top 1% will get richer. Canada had 7.8 million in 1914, then 14.5 million in 1952, 24.5 million in 1980, 30 million in 2000, 41.7 million in 2025. That is scary. As they destroy more and more natural habitat to house more and more humans for the purpose of having tax cows. We do not need more immigration, what we need is for the government to get its spending under control and that is the root of the problem.
I don't think you understand demographics. We have an aging population, all those boomers are now either retired or very close to it. Some stats show that by 2030, a quarter of the Canadian population will be over the age of 65. Which means they are not working, but living off off CPP, OAS, and whatever their retirement savings are. It also means that we'll be spending more on them, which requires a workforce to support them and to fill the jobs they've retired from. Without immigration, our population will decline. That is a fact. As mentioned, out natural birthrate is below replacement levels, as it is in most industrialized countries (US, Japan, UK, Germany, etc. ). That basically means the country will not be able to support itself, leading to a drop in our standard of living.

Now, Trudeau's government recognized this, and opened up immigration. On some level, it was the correct thing to do. HOWEVER - I think we can all agree that it was executed very poorly. It isn't an easy thing to do in a way that doesn't squeeze our social services or housing. On some level, if they planned for this better, it could have worked, but it would've taken multiple years to lay the ground work (like building more housing), but the challenge is knowing where the immigrants would like to live. I mean, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver have always been magnets for new immigrants, but we're seeing more going to places like Edmonton. So, where do you build the housing if we allow the immigrants to settle where ever they like? (I should point out the housing is NOT just for immigrants. More housing options would help most Canadians with lower rents and options to buy, but could hurt prices for homeowners).

The bottom line is Canada needs more immigrants. I get the feeling that many on this board are OK with that, as long as they're European. Which is sad. But, I think we will be able to look at Japan in the coming decade to see how they respond. According to this article:


Japan will need 11 million more workers over the next 15 years, as the workforce is expected to contract by 12%.

So, unless Canada can have a MASSIVE baby boom that puts the 1940s/50s to shame, we'll need to get more folks from across the globe to maintain our country and standard of living. But, there are also opportunities here. If global warming continues, the far north could become significantly more hospitable, meaning we could have major cities up there in 50 years. Who knows...
 

dvous11

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2008
934
1,331
93
The argument for more immigrants needed to sustain the ponzi scheme of OAS and CPP seems valid.
If you rely on mass, unvetted immigration you don't have an actual economy....you have a ponzi scheme.
The gov has been going about this the wrong way.
The way to attract high quality immigrants, who will contribute to the economy (instead of abuse it in a multitude of ways which is currently happening costing taxpayers more than any net benefit) is for Canada to invest in the extraction, development and sale to international buyers....our vast natural resources.
This way...the gov could adjust the tax system to allow citizens to be more prosperous, retain more of their earnings, and thus have more money with which to have families which would greatly help sustain our needs for population stability and growth instead of relying on importing from countries who's practices default to pumping out lots of babies and being accustomed to 10+ people living in one domicile all on top of each other.
The (Leftist Globalist) government knows....that allowing open borders to bring in people from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan...as well as from multiple Muslim nations...that they will pump out way more children aka future taxpayers than from any other sources.
Islam has openley vowed to slowly take over the West using the wombs of their women and the suicidal empathy liberalism ideologies allowing mass immigration.
Unless you are blind, you should be able to see this clearly happening all over Canada.
The same thing is happening in most of the West.
I have friends in Australia living in major cities and they say the exact same things are happening there...basically in lockstep.
The UK is already well ahead of the other Commonwealth nations in this regard.
Ever stop and ask why this might be?
Housing prices will not crash.
There is way too much demand that isn't going to stop anytime soon.
Prices will fluctuate according to lending rates...soon they will have to do another round of QE and reduce lending rates again to stimulate economic growth.
The gov and central banks have only a few tools to use....and they do so over and over again.
The phrase "tax cows" is totally accurate.
 
Toronto Escorts