I bought a condo that was part of an HOA. 5 year old construction. Purchased right before covid hit. Within the first year I had a chandelier fall out of the ceiling with no provocation, which I had to pay to fix. Then my 2nd bedroom started leaking from the roof and window during rain. A fucking 5 year old roof should not be leaking. The best part, I couldn’t pay to get the roof fixed because it was on the outside of the house and those repairs had to go through the HOA. During covid, I’d be in my garage making art, and people would drive through the cul-de-sac asking if any of the condos were for sale. It was my sign to get out. I hated it so much, still couldn’t get my roof fixed, and I still managed to sell it and make 20K profit. Much of the newer construction is absolute trash. Also, fuck HOAs.
Oleg Galyuk, real estate agent with Royal Pacific Realty, said in his experience older condos tend to sell better than pre-sale condos.
“The new inventory tends to sit on the market,” he said.
He said the layouts of some of the new homes are one reason for lack of buyer interest, as well as a lack of parking spaces that are harder to sell and rent.
Galyuk said developers are throwing out a variety of incentives to get people to buy built units.
“They’re throwing in parking stalls. They’re throwing in storage lockers. They’re giving cash-back on completion.”
He said he thinks some developers have put too many eggs into the “investor basket.”
“Right now, a lot of condos [are] coming online that people don’t really want to live in.”
Says it all really
“The new inventory tends to sit on the market,” he said.
Because they are too small, and poorly built, a huge liability waiting to happen with no reserve funds to deal with it. Never, ever, buy a new or preconstruction condo, they are basically kickstarter housing.
Everyone’s saying housing is too expensive, groceries are too expensive. Everything is too expensive. Which is more likely, that all of those many things are ALL too expensive, or just one simple fact, you make too little?
Just bind wages to a real cost of living.
The reason older condos/townhouses sell is because they were built when there were inspectors actually doing their jobs. Step-daughter moved into a new teeny-tiny condo, and shower door fell off after 4 months. Gaps developing in the “luxury” vinyl plank flooring. Cupboard doors coming off because screws aren’t long enough. They’re garbage homes.
Doug got rid of all trades inspectors from 2018, so any asshole with a home Depot credit card is now doing plumbing and electrical.
These are Ontario Tofu Dreg projects, years from now they will cost us a fortune to demolish.
Another reason why this may be the case is that there are a lot of new condos in sprawl-y suburbs. Not everyone wants to live on the outskirts of a city and need to rely on driving for everything.
There’s no way around that particular issue, though. As it is high rises are already the best way to develop urban areas in a way that’s eco and micro mobility friendly.
The way around it is transit-oriented development.
I have nothing against high rises. My city is trying to increase density by changing zoning laws around bus routes, clearing some properties for hi rise development.
When I was looking for places to live, I would rule out places that were too far from where I work/where my friends live because I travel by bicycle.
Warning for Vancouver real estate as 2,500 condos sit unsold
So prices will go down, right?
…Prices will go down, right?
there are over 100,000 empty in Ontario.
These idiots who keep telling us housing is priced by supply and demand need to fuck off.
The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Like. Since all these Ricky dinky pieces of shit started being out I’ve firmly believed they were a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. I feel like the whole fucking real estate market is.
Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost.
Bkawwwwww
Economics is only a pseudo-science for the rich. For the poor, it’s always an ineffable mystery.
Where is your source for this statement?
Maybe for a bit as those companies go out of business. Then they go way up because there’s no new houses. Or we could solve whatever the underlying problems are.
The absolute gall of you, talking about solving problems. Are you even thinking about those poor rich folks out there?
Actually no. This one might not have anything to do with them; few people benefit from homelessness, and the article itself mentions some nebulous thing about the laws governing developments in Vancouver.
Industry professionals say unbought condos could lead to big layoffs
Everything is unaffordable, workers are all being laid off, AI is replacing people, minimum wage isn’t enough to support a living wage…
What’s the capitalist end-game here? A world full of poor, unemployed, desperate people likely won’t make shareholders any richer, will it?
Bold of you to assume any of them are looking past the next quarter or two. Long term survival is secondary to immediate profits, line must go up.
What’s the yeast’s end-game here?
THEY’RE GONNA TURN US INTO MEAD AND DRINK US???
I think there was a movie about this
Nobody is at the wheel. Nobody ever was.
that’s not right someone is at the wheel, he’s got his parachute already
It’s right. Sure, some people have parachutes. Some people have things that look like parachutes but aren’t, or parachutes that don’t steer properly. Doesn’t mean the plane is crashing on purpose, and not because we’re just dumb, even if that’s a more comforting possibility.
maybe you are right, seems i got lost, this is canada’s space.
in america we do have someone at the wheel actively crashing the plane.
sorry for butting in though
That guy is a moron. I’m not sure he’d know a wheel from his foot. He’s just the symptom of a system that’s in a death spiral.
Which I’m sorry about. Hopefully we’re there as a place to go when things get really bad.
Thank you! I’ve heard so many Canadians on subreddits want collective punishment and don’t want American victims of Trump to come to Canada even though they can be a massive help to both our economy and our weight in the world through higher numbers of educated people (brain gain instead of drain)! Lets not forget 49.9% voted for trump, the rest are fine imo.
Eh, assholes are born everywhere.
Beyond the collective punishment thing, there’s also the concern about the effect on housing, which is more reasonable. Either BCH needs to be absolutely roaring by the time a big migration happens, or they’re going to have to stay in refugee camps until things slow down. When one of them asks specifically about leaving, I always say bring an RV.
“I guess we’ll see what happens.”
~ Billionaire CEO who can support his family for the next 1,000 generations.
Historically big business wealth only lasts a few, actually. Nepobabies spend big, and each can have several children of their own to which the wealth has to be divided.
How dare you use facts and logic! This is whining sublemmy and I find it appalling that you don’t just whine like everyone else!
Yeah, they all seem to gravitate towards that. Hopefully I’m helping.
Since I’ve been white knighting for developers and investors up and down this thread, I should probably mention that I still am team eat the rich, or at least team we shouldn’t have any rich. The funny thing is that they wish they were evil geniuses, like their opposite number seems to want to think.
Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.
You can decide to make a left turn without knowing whether you’re going to end up in Kamloops or Kapuskasing by doing so. That’s the level of steering that’s going on: no one is looking past, at most, the next couple of intersections, and the GPS is on the fritz.
Deliberately, definitely not. Like OP said, why would anyone want this?
There’s leaders, but there’s a lot of leaders, they have interests at odds with each other, and none of them have a position that can’t be lost one way or the other (even dictators fear a coup). In the end, they end up part of the system, not controlling it.
What’s the capitalist end-game here?
That capitalists maximumize their wealth.
And ultimately that there can be only one, and they all believe that it’ll be them
The capitalists’ game is to pivot their wealth and influence to becoming the dictators of countries. It’s world domination.
I’m not kidding.
Dumbing down the population. Remove critical thinking. Reinstate the harshest of religious beliefs. Feudalism.
It’s a real shock, I know. Who could ever have imagined that building loads of million-dollar condos and endless suburban sprawl would fail to be the answer to our housing problems?
You can replace Vancouver for Montreal and you’d have the same thing.
In Montreal we laughed for years at the 1M$ shack or mansions in Vancouver, but now in Montreal an average house is also 1M, it was like 500k 5 years ago. There is something like 3000 empties condos too in Montreal, maybe 10000-12000 airbnb too, and 25-34yi people especially those with spouse/children are leaving Montreal en masse.
It is completely fucked up right now. Rent also doubled. People on minimum wage are making ~2k$/month, an average rent is 2k$/month.
Let’s not talk about an average new car at 65k$ and an average used car at 36k$
Has the province started shutting down those Airbnbs? I thought there was a bunch of media noise about that recently.
AirBnBs are a drop in the supply bucket. It’s nice to hate on them, but when you look at the actual numbers they’re a negligible impact.
Who could have guessed? The super tiny, yet still branded “luxury” condos, listed at nearly the same as a townhouse, are having troubles selling???
In Burnaby, they’re building super high density 400sqft micro apartments as if land is super scarce, while next door are 6000sqft lots of single family houses. Of course older condos are selling better because they’re nearly double the size and often low-rises that sit with a community, not among wannabe-downtown skyscrapers.
“The cost that is associated with policies at all three levels of government has made it that we can no longer build what people can afford,” she said.
I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?
It’s not like they physically can’t build condos people can afford. With no regulations they could build South Korea-style coffin apartments. Nor are they making money from this situation.
“The cost that is associated with policies at all three levels of government has made it that we can no longer build what people can afford,” she said.
Ontario is rife with billionare developers in Vaughan.
But the real point is we cannot build housing relying on private industry any more.
It wouldn’t be any cheaper for the government, at least if the government is following the same rules.
Could they build houses? Sure. Will they? BCH is already starting up. Will it solve this particular problem? Not directly.
What the developer is saying is that their private industry can’t function anymore and it needs to be nationalized and social housing made a right.
Private industry where it can, social industry where it must.
It wouldn’t be any cheaper for the government, and the government itself has a limited amount of funding. (And that would be true regardless of the tax rate)
I’m curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?
Development fees are one example. When a new apartment building is constructed, it needs water and sewer connections. The municipality typically charges the builder a development fee (on the order of 100k) to build that stuff. That immediately means the developer needs to charge buyers the development fee to recoup their costs.
Every level of government is going to add restrictions and requirements. Some may be non-negotiable: building codes to ensure the building is up to safety standards. We may want to revisit others.
Note - I work in Ontario, and this is my experience as an engineering consultant working with dozens of municipalities.
We’re finally at the end of infrastructure lifespan point for a good chunk of the province. That means Water/Wastewater plants, as well as the hundreds of kilometers of pipes required to transmit those liquids are at the end of their life for the first time since being installed (50-70 years).
The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees. However those fees have not actually set aside the money required in many places, which means that municipalities have been propping up their old infrastructure costs by charging large development fees. Doug Ford, as much as I hate him, slashed development fees allowed, which forced property tax rates to rise. This more accurately reflects the ACTUAL cost of owning a home with services by the municipality. Given that I believe growth stagnation is required, this is the direction we need to head. We can’t keep running this ponzi scheme of funding old infrastructure with new infrastructure fees. Its unfair to new buyers and subsidizing older homeowners.
We also likely need to take a look at the actual fees and costs associated with maintaining our infrastructure. Stormwater ponds, seen typically in subdivisions, are HORRIBLY under-serviced, with a recent investigation in our area revealing 75% of them had never been cleaned out since being put into service ~30-50 years ago. They typically have a service life of 10-20 years, and have been leaking pollutants into our creeks and waterways since. The primary reason - you guessed it, budget. At 1+Mil/cleanout, they’re expensive.
We’ve skated by up till now by externalizing these costs and letting the damages build up for tomorrow’s solutions. We can’t keep putting off those costs.
So 50-70 years ago, did they take better care of infrastructure? I’ve seen these kinds of problems make appearances in Alberta, as well, and I always wonder how whatever unsexy bit of infrastructure was funded in the first place, given that it’s so politically costly to do.
Given that I believe growth stagnation is required
In Canadian municipalities specifically, or in general, like for climate reasons?
Lol they definitely did not take better care of infrastructure. They were freaking cowboys and a ton of municipalities got burnt on it. I work on lots of capital jobs that involve fixing problems that have been around since then.
So now they have much more stringent standards, which in turn means projects are more expensive. Add onto that the growing complexity - installing a water main down a street in 1980 when you have overhead hydro lines and no other utilities to work around is much easier than installation in a crowded right-of-way with buried gas, hydro, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and existing water main that needs to continue to service residents.
As for how they were originally funded, idk. Don’t think they ever really asked residents what they wanted back then. Now there’s much more accountability, which is good but has drawbacks and costs.
In Canadian municipalities specifically, or in general, like for climate reasons?
I mean climate, but not specifically global warming, just the fact were a planet with finite resources.
As for how they were originally funded, idk. Don’t think they ever really asked residents what they wanted back then. Now there’s much more accountability, which is good but has drawbacks and costs.
That could be. I mean, it was a democracy, but post-WWII it was much more about prominent members of the community who commanded the trust of whatever faith or industry group. Before then there was some upheaval, and I’m less clear on the zeitgeist.
Then again, people definitely wanted handouts in a way that’s passe now. In Alberta there was “purple gas”, which was artificially cheap but only farmers were allowed to burn it, and that’s how they got the agricultural vote. Invisible public works projects wouldn’t have helped with that.
Low taxes are like a religion here. I kind of feel like if we were starting over, we’d stick with outhouses forever because nobody wants to raise the tax rate for silly things like “sanitation”.
So now they have much more stringent standards, which in turn means projects are more expensive. Add onto that the growing complexity - installing a water main down a street in 1980 when you have overhead hydro lines and no other utilities to work around is much easier than installation in a crowded right-of-way with buried gas, hydro, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and existing water main that needs to continue to service residents.
That makes me wonder how things will look in another century or whatever. If we’re paying for debt accrued by the original designers, are we subsidising the future by building neat and well-though-out infrastructure now?
I mean climate, but not specifically global warming, just the fact were a planet with finite resources.
I’m arguing with a degrowther elsewhere here, but you’ve clearly thought through all the details. On a planet with a growing population, is less architecture really how that should look? When I think degrowth, I think forcing people to be poorer, basically, but they’ll still need a place to live. In the long term, I expect housing prices will start to collapse as population goes into decline, and a lot of our more outlying settlements will become ghost towns, but work will continue in core areas.
The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees.
Agreed. I’m not sure those are usually covered by development fees. But it sounds like you know more about it than I do.
Unfortunately some municipalities have used development fees incorporated into their normal budget, whether directly or indirectly, rather than solely using them to account for the increased costs in maintenance, which is what they should be for. Often times I’ve worked on capital projects (repair ones) where the funding has come directly from development.
For example, one municipality I work closely with has the salaries for all their development staff and the salaries for their capital design staff paid by development fees, plus some allocations for expansion of other services to account for more citizens.
Edit for clarity: Municipalities can also skirt this use by doing things like the following: a long stretch of road from a highway is in poor condition and needs to be repaired in the next 2 years. But a development is going in on the road, and they can force the developer to pay for the reconstruction of the road, despite the fact that it is in poor xondition and needs to be redone anyway. Ditto for sewer, or water main replacement.
Yeah, but development fees of that kind seem like they should only vary so much. Probably not to the degree of scuttling condos in Vancouver while they get made like sausages in Calgary.
Fire-prone slum construction isn’t the answer, that’s true. Regulations tend to wander into catering to nimby sensibilities in the West, though. Or into trying to externalise costs the government really should bear, like I’m kind of suspecting with the non-market housing mentioned.
So stop building. Stop growing.
Degrowth is the way.
Of course, who needs a house? /s
What a disingenuous rhetoric. Degrowth is centered on meeting people’s needs. No one needs a house. Everyone needs a home. Not everyone needs a home in Vancouver.
One central tenet of degrowth is accepting that nearly everything, at some point, will have to stop growing. This includes Vancouver, and a reasonable person could conclude that this headline is an econonic signal that now is probably the time.
Until absolute population declines, It’s a big country, medium density development in other areas can accomodate everyone more cost effectively than more unaffordable skytowers in earthquake vulnerable Vancouver.
So you’re thinking everyone in low-density suburbs would be better for the climate? (Degrowth is usually a climate thing)
Are you misconstruing my comments on purpose? I said mid density. Also degrowth is not just a climate thing, it’s a sustainable everything thing.
Okay, sure. If you mean townhouses or something, lower density by urban standards, mid density when you consider the countryside exists too. I really, really don’t see how the sustainability of anything benefits from that. You need more roads, more cars, more land and more building materials to house the same number.
If you just mean building the same kind of apartments somewhere else, like in Kamloops or something, you haven’t actually changed anything except more roads and traffic again, because everyone is further from everyone else.
Mid density is mid density. No need to confuse thinking by averaging rural into the equation. We could average out across the universe and be at effective zero home per km2. It’s a ridiculous argument, so why bother.
By mid density, I like most urban planners include everything from townhouse and multiplexes all the way up to low rise appt buildings under 5 stories. It’s dense enough to enable urban transit and walkable neighbourhoods but efficient enough to not need elevators and supplementary water pumps to get water up to the top floor.
High rises have nice views when another one isn’t in front of you, but man is it crippled when the power goes out.
They’re also usually cheaper per unit than lowrises, where they’re built. The location is just great, and the savings on transport adds up to more than building upwards costs, which is why it’s economical for residents to buy them, even when there’s no view. (Once you looks at supertall and maybe superthin buildings that changes, though)
If disaster resilience is your concern, that’s fair, although it’s not really a degrowth thing.
Build something cheaper.
If you read the article, these are tiny Vancouver apartments already. It sounds like going even smaller and shittier would be illegal currently, which is what’s causing the problem.
Ahhh, so they’re just charging outrageous prices for already cheap housing.
And still not making a profit, apparently.
Enough profit* ftfy
To pay back creditors, sure.
Nobody has a magic money printer. Developers aren’t part of a conspiracy just holding back the good stuff from us, if that’s what you’re implying. Because I know that’s the jerk.
If they need ALL the excess value and leave nothing they will have nothing.
Exactly. These condos are over $1000/sq ft. Completely out of reach unless you or your parents are already rich. I don’t get how this surprises anyone there.
Negotiate harder with your suppliers?
