The fact that there is already an excessive amount of demand awaiting its absorption, despite how everyone is frightened and calling the crash, is another reason why it is less likely to occur that way. 2008 saw no one, at least not the broad public, making this forecast, as I'll explain below. The ownership rate was noted to have peaked in 2004 in the other comment. Having previously peaked in the second quarter of 2020, we are currently at the median level. Between 2008 and 2012, it dropped by 3%, and by the second quarter of 2020, it had dropped from 68 to 65.
You're not doing anything wrong; the problem is that you don't have the knowledge needed to succeed in a challenging market. Only highly qualified professionals who had to experience the 2008 financial crisis could hope to earn a high salary in these challenging conditions.
@@sloanmarriott5 Recently, I've been considering the possibility of speaking with consultants. I need guidance because I'm an adult, but I'm not sure if their services would be all that helpful.
Well, there are a few out there who know what they are doing. I tried a few in the past years, but I’ve been with Izella Annette Anderson for the last five years or so, and her returns have been pretty much amazing.
I appreciate you sharing this. When I looked up the woman you named and read through her credentials, it was obvious that she was a complete professional. I just need her to respond to the message I wrote her.
As a realtor in my opinion, a housing market crash is imminent due to the high number of individuals who purchased homes above the asking price despite the low interest rates. These buyers find themselves in precarious situations as housing prices decline, leaving them without any equity. If they become unable to afford their homes, foreclosure becomes a likely outcome. Even attempting to sell would not yield any profits. This scenario is expected to impact a significant number of people, particularly in light of the anticipated surge in layoffs and the rapid increase in the cost of living.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
You are right! I’ve diversified my 450K portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment coach, I have been able to generate a little bit above $830k in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds.
“ Melissa Terri Swayne is the coach that guides me, She has years of financial market experience, you can use something else but for me her strategy works hence my result. She provides entry and exit point for the securities I focus on.
Replacing an older apartment with single family homes is wild. It's crazy the city will approve something like that while continuously kicking the can down the street on non-market.
The city not only approves it, it is illegal to replace the older apartment building with a new apartment building. The old apartment building was built before restrictive zoning laws when it was legal to build apartments in any residential area.
Replacing older apartment buildings with single family housing is extremely rare, even in Vancouver. Are there any other cases other than this one in Kits? This kind of cherry-picked example detracts from otherwise excellent video.
same thing as saying a gucci wallet isn't luxury, but the larger bags are. Makes zero sense. A 1 bd condo can absolutely be luxury, all depends on its relative cost to other 1 bd
you can absolutely make 1-3s out of quality materials and design, the thing is there's three apartments going up near me that promise "luxury" on the sign but are stickframe built facing a major road. they're not even concrete. they don't have AC. it's wild
Cities need to upzone most of the areas of the city and let offices be next to residential. Building an oversupply will cause prices to crash like shown in the Austin example. We need that oversupply on steroids as building outwards isn't viable or efficient long term. Also imagine the wealth and buying power that would be freed up from not having to spend on rent and being able to use that toward retirement or goods that boost you and your family's quality of life.
Housing is guaranteed in countries not owned by English people. Yet guaranteed mass public housing is an unimaginable idea in Canada. One of the most spacious and resource rich nations on the planet.
I agree. Not only is "luxury" overused to describe virtually every new apartment building, it also cheapens the word itself. If all apartments are sold as being luxury, then clearly only a few of them are.
It's just a term to mean it's not cheap and it's a counter to NIMBY concerns about crime i.e. poor people (because poor people are all automatically criminals). Because no one who makes a lot of money never commits crime! All this is all in bad faith anyway, NIMBYs only care about increasing the value of their properties through artificial scarcity.
@@sor3999 Yeah god forbid they want to keep the vibe and feeling of a neighborhood the same rather than letting a bunch of soulless tech workers move into soulless five-over-ones
@@mcdermottpa This wouldn't happen if companies didn't insist on overhiring and cramming more people in. We need to stop job growth in cities and move them to other places
@@mikeydude750 How would you do that when cities are the place where the majority of people lives? Much of the housing issues we have are literally due to decades old policies that favors nimbyism and not actually building anything (this is a oversimplification since I haven't even mentioned car dependency, restrictive zoning killing mixed uses development, parking minimum, old safety codes that aren't reflective of modern materials, etc) Basically what I'm getting at is "maintaining the vibe" is killing the development of a city because you're just forcing stagnation in a place that is supposed to be dynamic all the time. If you really want vibes then move somewhere else out of the city because all you're doing is making the problem worse for everyone else just to save your literal feelings. Things change a lot in a city. That's how it's supposed to work. edit: Austin is literally an example of adding housing eventually leading to decreased rent prices because it's not quite as competitive to get a place to live.
I think it's time to make it more appealing for potential buyers. Real estate can be quite the rollercoaster! the stress and uncertainty are getting to me. I think I'll cut rents to attract potential buyers and exit the market, but i'm at crossroads if to allocate the entire $680k liquidity value to my stock portfolio?
"Overall, buyers hold a lot of the cards right now, and sellers are having to give out more concessions to close a deal." All the best, buying on sale is actually one of the best ways to invest in stocks, and advisors are ideally suited for such task
Until the Fed clamps down even further I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now with financial markets will be best you seek a fin-professional with fiduciary responsibilities who knows about mortgage-backed securities for proper guidance.
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Sophia Maurine Lanting ” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
I know this is for Canada, but I live in an apartment labeled as a "luxury" apartment in the US, the cupboards in my bathroom don't close properly, and the kitchen is filled with appliances of mediocre quality labeled as "high quality stainless steel appliances". 😮💨
I lived in one in US as well. The management was actually pretty good and I guess having a rooftop pool was nice (more preferred the space for reading after work) but the room was small and inexplicably windowless and walking into the lobby area felt like walking into a very very nice college dorm visually.
I made a similar comment... everything is cheap quality, but because it's stainless steel, that's luxury! That's the excuse for charging $500 more in rent!
Same. The city should regulate the use of the word in documents. Luxury should be defined as a certain size and type of amenities as a legal matter for the city. This way it can’t be misused by those looking to label something luxury that isn’t actually luxury for nefarious purposes.
@@TheCatherineCC It's actually crazy how poor Canada is compared to the US. I don't mean to rub it in but to give context Vancouver has a lower GDP/capita than every single US metro area of over a million people. Seattle, a city frequently compared to Vancouver has a GDP/capita that is 2.5 times higher. At an estimated $47,000USD that puts it lower than Fresno, California.
This is a great topic to explore. Every “affordable” rental, was once a brand spanking new development that was “luxurious” compared to the old existing buildings. The building I am in, from the 60s, was built as a “luxury, mahogany hardwood floor, with modern amenities (for the time)”. But 60 years later it is now cheap compared to new builds. Not building luxury buildings today means there will be less 60 year old cheap buildings in the year 2080. We are sowing the problems of our future generations because we are not thinking critically.
In New York you can get much larger flats in many older former luxury buildings for 2400 Dollar while you would pay 3400 Dollar in new build across the road. Where you get 30% less space
@@lynb1022 Interesting point. Do you think building crap buildings is worse than no buildings at all? I'm curious which one will do more damage long term.
@@josephcarreon2341 I suppose it depends on where you live. A crap-build in southern Ontario might be tolerable, while a crap-build in Edmonton might not. Also depends on how you define crap; anyone building equivalent of "tofu dregs" here can kill people when they unexpectedly collapse (afaik it doesn't happen often, but it happens). Building crap just costs more down the line, so I think we should stick to higher standards.
413% increase in government fees 🙄and the slow approval rate of new housing in city of Vancouver are definitely something that needs to be changed if the politicians actually care about providing affordable housing.
Metro Vancouver just voted to increase the developer fees (DCA) even further. what they should be doing is increasing property taxes instead but they are too chicken. so they are choosing to favour house-rich Boomers over most people younger than 65.
@@commentBox82 If they are anything like the morons who have-for several decades-constituted council majorities here in Wellington, New Zealand; they will probably waste the additional income.
Ditching the public comment merry-go-round would be a big help. It's a f*cking city, not a museum. I'm not saying cities should have zero architectural standards for street facing windows, some aesthetic concerns, etc but allowing developments to be put on hold for years due to kens and karens freaking out is just not acceptable.
Its also hilarious how all new construction labels itself as "luxury" when its actually terrible quality and hastily built. - A lot of the new construction homes in Seattle come with more problems than a 1907 craftsman. Builders even jokingly call em 15 year homes...
Grew up in the SF Bay Area, and every politician here needs to watch this video 10 times. The NIMBYism here is maddening, and the irony is that it's coming from supposedly progressive Democrats.
I'm also a native of San Francisco, and still follow my hometown news from afar. It's maddening how many people will foam at the mouth with rage about an apartment tower blocking their precious views, yet ignore the fact that blocking all housing development only preserves the need for the homeless encampments on their doorstep
Residents and politicians alike tend to have a tough time grasping the fact that the vacancy rate is below 1% region wide. Meaning that even though YOU can't afford a unit, the landlord will have no problem finding someone else who can. Not building housing isn't gonna make these people go away. They're either here or they're coming, so is housing them going to be tomorrow's problem? Because it's been tomorrow's problem for the last 40 years
But remember, thanks to Trudeau, renters will now be able to see what the rent was for the previous tenants...oh wait, you dont agree with the massive rent hike? get out of the way, next one in the line please..
@@mikeydude750 companies aren't overhiring, they're underpaying to disincentivize domestic workers so they have an excuse to bring in even lower-paid TFWs.
that's nice you makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach her services, I work 2 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help me.
The first step to successful investing is figuring out your goals and risk tolerance either on your own or with the help of a financial professional but is very advisable you make use of a professional i am grateful to Michelle sule
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Francine passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not only effective but also enjoyable..
Most people are retiring this year and has nothing to show for. But I assure you it’s never late to get your financial life together again.. All thanks to sule michelle for I and my family
I’m a new dad, I moved to the Bay Area a few years ago and I’m thinking of purchasing a single family home, but with real estate prices currently through the roof, is it still a good idea to buy a home or should I invest in stocks for now and just wait for a housing market correction? I heard Nvidia and AMD are strong buys.
Certain Ai companies are rumoured to be overvalued and might cause a market correction, I’d suggest you go with a managed portfolio, but even those don’t perform so well, so it’s best you reach out to a proper fiduciary to guide you, that’s what works for my spouse and I.
When ‘Carol Vivian Constable’ is trading, there's no nonsense and no excuses. She wins the trade and you win. Take the loss, I promise she'll take one with you.
The problem isn't complex, complicated, or new news. It's always, "NIMBY'ism", and your video demonstrates exactly that via the "413% increase in government fees, regulations, taxes, etc..." That's not a societal mistake; the system is functioning exactly as designed by giving homeowners what they want ie their investment increases. Until homeowners stop weaponizing government regulations against renters, this situation will continue lurching onward as is.
100%. This is the problem with the assumption that property values should always go up. People who own the property don't want more housing units to be built because it would devalue their "investment."
Those "no megatowers" signs are pretty hilarious because it really seems like they slapped the little "yes to affordable housing" text on at the last minute to try to seem less like NIMBYs
@@findmeinthefuture. In my town there are three new developments going up; the original design for all three (they were made by the same company that advocated New Urbanism) had apartment buildings going into the neighborhood and single family homes in the middle and back. In all three neighborhoods, the apartments were voted down with the signs just as you described (yes to affordable housing). In my town, there were TWO neighborhoods that were able to put in apartment buildings, and curiously they also allow small commercial buildings. These two neighborhoods have, far and away, the most expensive housing. People just don't get the memo that a few apartment buildings plus some slapped-down sidewalks = hugely desirable neighborhood.
@@langhamp8912 I always think those little "I'm totally not a NIMBY" caveats on NIMBY marketing is hilarious. Its one step away from saying "Build new old housing!"
One nuance i would like to add is every new development is labelled as luxury because every developer wants to sell their unit for more money. Even if they use the cheepest possible materials, cut every corner, they will still label it as luxury housing because it's free money for them. As long as they use whats fashionable, its still going to "feel" luxurious. In other words, we build luxury apartments, because developers are incentived to call every apartment they build luxury, not because they aren't building the cheepest possible apartments.
This is why I think luxury should be reserved for actually luxurious apartments. Cities should define what luxury is. So that way everyone knows what it isn’t legally. “Luxury” and “affordable” are the most misused and misrepresented terms in the real estate market right now.
This. This is why new apartment buildings aren't going to solve the housing crisis. The developers have every interest to keep unit rent cost high as possible. Calling people NIMBYs is just developer propaganda at this point. Pretty sad people that are typically against corporations seemingly have no problem with corporate developers doing their thing unchecked.
@@SwiftySanders Soviet block housing. Compare that to any neglected American suburbia and see which stands better(and still has a full roof) Canada has the internal resources to build guaranteed quality apartment housing for every single Canadian. Your literal landlords will never allow it. Since your lack of guaranteed access to public housing makes it much easier to extract maximum profits from you.
The problem is stagnating wages. Tracked to (inflation x productivity), minimum wage should be $30-45/hr. 62,000-93,000 per year. Stop letting Corporation post record breaking profit year on year on year. PAY the PEOPLE.
"luxury" is a marketing term that is used by developers for promotional purposes and by NIMBYs for oppositional purposes. The proper term for this type of housing should be "market rate" housing. The one thing I was expecting this video to discuss but didn't is that the reason developers only build market rate housing is that if they have the ability, persistence, and funding to make it through the lengthy entitlement process -- a process that most developers can't navigate which lessens competition -- you naturally want to cater to the highest end group because the margins are wider. It doesn't cost all that much more to build a high-end apartment than it does to build the same number of units but with less fancy finishes. If you want developers to build affordable units, the luxury market needs to be saturated, so you should build as much of that as possible until the people in the city willing to pay more for a fancier unit have been exhausted, and a developer can save money by building units for the lower tier down that won't pay more for a nicer unit.
@@RobinRaye-np3vw I saw a post on Reddit a couple weeks ago about luxury units putting "downward pressure" on the rent. They tried to argue that people who can afford to rent at higher cost will generate less demand on the more affordable units when they rent luxury instead. Because that's a thing people do, apparently.
I've been inside these mega towers while they are in construction, and I have seen what they decide to label, "Luxury." Here is the problem, at least part of the problem. Developers will call anything, "Luxury," even when it isn't. I've been luxury housing have no central air, particle wood structures with expensive looking veneers over them, thin ass walls, small rooms, and multiple other things that might look good, but actually favour looks over function (like shitty ass sinks and faucets that fucking splash everywhere all the fucking time) then the developer turns around, calls it luxury, and lets you know you can rent it for minimum $3500 a month for a single bedroom. These are not luxury units, they lack all the things that people would consider luxury, the only thing that can be said is that they often display nicely, but that is it, they are the same units as anywhere else, with a fake label of luxury to charge higher prices.
Luxury housing isn't attached to price either. There are apartments in LA called "luxury" that are cheaper than other units. It's a useless and meaningless label.
While a multi-faceted problem, I truly think mid to low rises with commercial on the first floor need to be a popular option in certain neighbourhoods. It alleviates roads due to walkability of shops and groceries, while also providing supply of housing. The land/building owner still generates profits from commercial and residential.
This is critical. When people complain about gentrification THIS is what they're talking about. It's not about more housing or rich people moving in, it's about how they'll replace laundromats and supermarkets with coffee shops or whatever the next trend is and make it nearly impossible just to live unless you can drive which, as anyone in poverty knows, is a complete luxury when you're in a city and a nearly-impossible necessity outside of one. Food deserts are, depressingly, only MORE common now especially in the US.
Zoning is a big issue in America that stops a lot of this. I went down to the Dominican Republic last year and, while considered third world, I thought the cities were amazing! There was single family housing still, but in the downtown areas there was lots of 2-3 story mixed use buildings. Lots of multi unit apartments on top of one or more small businesses, bars, grocers. Garages right around the corner to get your motorcycle or car repaired. Fresh fruit delivered to these places so everything you'd need is extremely walkable and accessible. Night life was amazing too because people would be out listening to music and hanging out all night, but that's what happens when a city is more integrated and not so boxed off.
Ontario municipalities are heavily reliant on developer fees to subsidize pre-existing suburban infrastructure that overburden city budgets (which are often years behind on property tax hikes).
I like how this video also briefly focused on the increasing cost of constructing new buildings and the lengthy government approval process. As a result, some developers are forced to charge high rent to tenants just to break even. I appreciate it when you present both perspectives instead of only taking one side. Another great video, Uytae!
@@li_tsz_fung ok but Midtown Manhattan real estate is some of the most expensive in the world, that land was never going to be used for affordable housing... the math doesn't pencil out. NYC's problem is that their vacancy rate is 1.4% and Jersey City (Pop: 286k) AND Austin (Pop: 800k) build more housing annually (~20k) than NYC, a city of 8 million does (~13k thus far in 2024)
I oppose immigrants and that would increase my property value means higher taxes. So not only would I be in a more dense more polluted area to pander to childless millennials and immigrants the luxury condos would increase the property value of everybody around the area, forcing them out turning the single-family housing into Mick mansions. Because low prices.
I don't think we can make the same "pressure off the housing market" arguments in Vancouver as we can in cities like Austin (less tourist-heavy, infinitely more space to expand outward, not surrounded by water on 3 sides). The problem with luxury condos for me is that few if any units go into the housing supply at all because they get bought up for vacation units, either personal or rented out. I used to manage a building near the stadium and nearly HALF the units were illegal AirBnbs. The city has laws about this but with zero enforcement there may as well be no laws at all. I would love to see a video about that, actually. There are something like 30k AirBnb whole-unit listings at any given time, and the city itself has already identified at least 10k that are definitely illegal. Why is the city so hesitant to crack down on this? I know it wouldn't solve everything, but 10k units on the market tomorrow certainly wouldn't hurt! Plus if it were harder to use AirBnb or Verbo, if would surely disincentivize "investment" buyers and give a more fair shake to those actually purchasing or renting a unit to live in it.
The safeway site is peak NIMBY-ism. Like you pointed out, it'll only displace a grocery store temporarily. Look at Station Square in Burnaby for example. It was all parkades and stores/restaurants. They levelled and rebuilt the entire 4 blocks of it and now you have easily 3-5x more restaurants and shops in it, along with 1000's of residential units between the 5 towers. 1000's of units that just didn't exist before.
It's not about the grocery store, the are other stores on the drive. I think they don't want unsupported increase on local infrastructure and services like schools, doctors, parks, community centres, etc.
They really don't need to build high-rises though. 12 stories would be more reasonable... though they should zone ENTIRE CITIES to be 8-12 stories everywhere, that way there would be less pressure to build high-rises.
Higher density will generally increase the tax revenue that the city can collect per square metre. If anything the municipality would have more money to spend on infrastructure and services.
@@aygul386 But if you allow mixed zoning, they could put some of that stuff on the bottom floors or the new apartment buildings. And putting people in apartments means way less ground space is used than SFHs, so you could plop some parks around it by ripping out some old SFHs with big yards. They just have to build smart.
Yes to mega towers at Safeway! It’s right next to the second busiest rapid transit station in the country. A massive grocery store with a huge parking lot is a terrible use of space in a city with such a massive housing crisis
But they can still have a Safeway there on the ground floor with parking for shoppers and have towers too. This is quite possible, as people need stores.
@@lopoa126 there will be. There's also a proposal for a residential building on top of a grocery store in West Point Grey, where there used to be a Safeway, and a Safeway in Kitsilano was recently sold for redevelopment to put housing on top (but will probably be years away).
I'm eagerly anticipating a potential housing crisis to make affordable purchases after selling some properties in 2025. I'm also thinking about investing in stocks as a backup plan. Any advice on the best timing for these investments? I've seen substantial trading profits, but there are worries about the market's instability and the possibility of a dead cat bounce. Can you explain why this market phenomenon happens?
You're not making mistakes; you just don't have the know-how to profit in a tough market. In such challenging times, only highly experienced individuals who went through the 2008 financial crisis can anticipate making significant profits.
Lately, I've been thinking about reaching out to consultants for advice. I'm at a stage where I could benefit from some guidance, but I'm uncertain if their services would truly be beneficial.
Lately, I've been thinking about reaching out to consultants for advice. I'm at a stage where I could benefit from some guidance, but I'm uncertain if their services would truly be beneficial.
Desiree Ruth Hoffman, my CFA, is well-respected in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her qualifications. With her extensive experience, she serves as an invaluable asset for those seeking guidance in the financial market.
One problem with a lot of new luxury housing is that they are not built to be lived in. Too many of them are barely one bedroom units. Many are really just studios with fake walls to give the illusion of being a one-bedroom. They are the NFTs of housing.
This channel About Here addressed the issue that you're talking about in a previous video, tiny apartments. It's because of modern regulations as well as their profit margins being thin and having to stretch out what they can from each project since each project is so arduous. If developers had fewer restrictive and often outdated building regulations to deal with and they had more breathing room in the economics per project, developers could build more 3+ bedroom apartments. ruclips.net/video/011TOfugais/видео.html
Not having grown up in Canada I really cringe every time I hear the term luxury housing and the cost of construction over here.. the luxury ends at the price, construction quality here is sub par and overpriced.. this year I helped a friend install a multizone AC to their house, it cost him 5 grand plus 1k for a professional inspection, instead of the crazy 25 to 35k that were quoted by companies.. it literally took the 2 of us 2 days, that's it.. anyhow, there are soo many different issues other than construction cost coming into play here in Vancouver, if the government isn't actively building housing themselves the market will not be able to regulate as there is just not enough incentive/profit to make private construction attractive enough. It's just ridiculous to think a market for profit will in any way behave socially responsible or charitable, that is a governments job.
Yes, there very much needs to be non profit-driven housing, from the government, from co-ops, from wherever. People often don't realize that housing is not a market like that for goods, and so the solutions also need to be different. That is, "the market" won't solve the housing shortage (at least not without bankrupting a large chunk of the population).
@@AubreyBarnard I'm all for non-market housing, and so is Uytae. If you want to see him talk about it, check out his video "the non-capitalist solution to the housing crisis" But protesting market developments isn't the same thing as supporting non-market ones. We could easily have both, but NIMBYs want us to have neither
@@RobinRaye-np3vw Yes, I saw that video. I think it would be great to have a mix of market and non-market housing. Not only could non-market be more anticipative of housing shortages and be quicker to permit and build, but, perhaps more importantly, it can serve to keep the market honest.
I agree. The finishes were luxury about 15 years ago but now that every single new build has the same finishes. It’s funny that it can be still called luxury because the build quality, shared walls, amenities, and common areas isn’t.
It's both an issue of use as a marketing term to try and draw in buyers, and then shorthand for "not-affordable" housing. The finishings in the 'luxury' condos and apartments are often pretty cheap and only give the illusion of luxury. And if you're an investor, either as a corporation or an existing homeowner looking to make an investment, the appearance is all you care about to try and either a) up the rent, or b) fool the next buyer. The addition of all sorts of amenities also cranks up the strata fees which make the homes even less affordable, whether it's for an owner-occupant or passing those fees along to renters. But it's the latter issue, that the word "luxury" is now being used by anti-density and NIMBY groups to oppose new housing developments, which is the most insidious - as was discussed in the video. I fully agree that Canadian cities need to be building more 2 and 3 bedroom family-oriented homes but until the market or government subsidies can make that viable, any net increase in housing stock is at least better than no housing at all.
@@ChristopherGreerCDN Luxury is used to combat NIMBY complaints about "crime" i.e. poor people. Luxury is to say no one poor is going to live there. If NIMBYs are using it AGAINST developments, it really shows any of their arguments are in bad faith because ultimately they only care about raising the value of their run down SF apartment complex.
Luxury condos oh pleeaaase... I was living in one in Toronto and the sink fell off because it was attached with silicone only (thank God I moved a month later). Don't get me started with the tenants who kept jamming the garbage chute twice a week because they kept throwing in whole pizza boxes
There is a flaw in the "break even" calculation - when you buy a house you don't lose net worth at all. The money you pay for it, you get in house value. If you buy a house for 100k, you lost 100k in money but gained 100k in property, the rent you need to charge to "break even" is 0 dollars per month. You can sell the house at any point to recover the money you paid for it, and more often than not you will get more for the house than what you paid for it. Landlords are not poor schmucks, they're greedy and trying to make money off of renters because they got to the house first.
One critique is that I would caution against saying a neighborhood’s vibes are improving with wealthier residents. Given the complexities of gentrification, I would prefer to say they’re “changing”. These patterns of movement can displace people, sever community ties, and change the racial and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods. I think there’s danger in painting those changes as improvements, as it can suggest a hierarchy between the people and ways of life that exist in a neighborhood before and after that shift
The last apartment I was living in Raleigh, NC I was paying $1,250 for a 1 bedroom. At renewal they hit me with a $500 increase to $1,750. I asked if they had any resigning incentives and arbitrarily the price comes down to $1550. I told them they could reach out before the end of my lease if they were willing to negotiate. 2 weeks before my move out they hit me with $1,300. I still moved out and am now paying $1,300 in a brand new apartment across the street. These management companies are just trying to fuck with you.
That’s really a good point at the bigger problem: the “missing middle” combined with inflexible zoning regulations. Building towers over everything else is the other extreme of the spectrum; they may provide housing, but not necessarily the sustainability of the missing middle in the long run - too much density is as bad is too little of it. Interestingly, it’s also a historical tendency in North America, because people back then didn’t want to recreate the “slums” of 18-19th century Europe. This is also reflected in zoning codes that often allow either single-family homes/ high-rises/ commercial buildings. It’s not a call that we should copycat European cities, but to adapt what’s really effective - mixed use mid-density, which also tends be much less car-dependency inducing type of developments.
How is too much density as bad as too little? The denser you go, the more housing your have in an area, the more bargaining power tenants have. Shifting %s of single-family lots to triplexes is more sustainable than not, but _all_ extremely dense is the most sustainable/cheap you can get- land costs become the most marginal (a 1.2 mil lot becomes some tiny fraction rather than 400k per unit before construction costs) and you gain economy of scale with building. Concentrating people also makes car alternatives more viable (look at Tokyo or NYC). I'm not saying I want to live in a place where that's the only option, but saying it's the same as too little density is just untrue.
You’re right there’s a missing middle, but there’s also a severe lack of high density too. So at this point, with a 1% vacancy, it’s hard to build wrong when increasing density
Highrises don't necessarily create much more density than 5/1, even though they are much more expensive to build. The tower footprint tends to be 25% or less of the lot area. The 5/1's tend to be more like 80%, so you need to get in the 15 story range before you have equal density to 5/1.
@@TheDEM1995 I like high density but taller isn't always better, or cheaper. Like blubaughmr says, taller buildings might have less lot coverage, so not as much FAR increase as you'd think. Also, construction costs increase as you change regimes: wood frame to concrete to steel; elevators and extra stairs; _more_ elevators for really tall buildings. Personally I would be inclined to get rid of height limits everywhere and let the market rip again. But failing that, it's plausible that allowing 3-6 stories everywhere would do more good than allowing more high-rises in a limited number of areas.
@@mindstalk I don't think of 5-over-ones when I hear conversations about the missing middle, but that might be on me. I never was saying taller was better, though. I _was_ saying density is the cheapest/most sustainable, but I would revise that to "allowing developers to build maximally dense", as price constraints do matter. "Too much density is as bad as too little" is what I really objected to, though. If the intent was that "zoning a few areas extremely dense and the rest as low is bad", that went over my head.
Thank you for making this video. I work in as a traffic engineer and I write traffic studies for new housing and I always encounter NIMBYs who need to see a clear explainer video like this to alleviate their fears.
You make the mistake of assuming NIMBYs are fearful in good faith. No, they just want to stop development. Whatever excuses they come up with serve that goal, and debunking them is useless. They’ll come up with a new excuse, and resume their NIMBY ways.
Great comments about the Vacancy Chain. That's something a lot of people (myself included) haven't really considered prior to this year. Redeveloping a grocery store definitely makes more sense than other types of infill development, so it's sad to me when my home of Calgary ends up turning down grocery store redevelopments like the one at the Brentwood Co-op that's been on hold for nearly a decade now.
What are your thoughts on decreasing the cost of building housing? Great video with awesome visuals, but you didn’t really address that. The reason developers needed to build high-rises is because that’s the rent needed to meet the cost of construction. You should do a follow up video on cost of permits and fees with city government. You alluded to that increase in the first half of this video.
The city I live in is kind of infamous for building almost exclusively luxury housing. Hardly any mid-level housing gets built - let alone affordable and low-income ones. The thing is, those are usually not "people moving in to a fancier house" kind of units. These are wealthy people's vacation homes and airBnBs. Most of those units are empty 90% of the time. So they both reduce the number of units available, causes other landlords to turn their rentals into AirBnBs because now it's a "tourist-y area", AND raise the prices of apartments and cost of living around them.
“Luxury” condos have been over-used in all presales not just here but in US cities as well… It was more of presale marketing, but today it just means New, better looking than what you currently have… the only thing Luxury is the price…
I have watched a few of your videos now, and I had to comment to share how much I enjoy your work. It's the perfect blend of informative, well researched ideas being presented with a good sense of humor and creative lighthearted editing. Really superb work! Love from a new subscriber ❤
The first example you gave of landlords being opportunistic/competitive is still a factor. I’ve had friends get kicked out of their apartments because the complex was upgrading all the apartments and intended to start nearly double after the renovations were complete. For any tenants who didn’t want to move out to allow for renovations, they were still going to raise rents 50%, effectively forcing them to leave. These were run of the mill apartments from the 1970s. They weren’t the fanciest, but they were perfectly comfortable. The landlord slapped on some paint and new carpet and called the apartments “fully renovated.” There should obviously be nicer places for the people that can afford them, but the problem is that developers and landlords aren’t taking the fact that fewer and fewer people can afford to pay luxury prices every year. I live in a city with some of the best zoning laws in North America. There are hundreds of “luxury” shoebox apartments in my city sitting vacant while unhoused people camp out front. The only luck I’ve ever had with apartments was finding a place with absentee landlords who never bothered to adjust to market rates. Sure, I had to fix my leaky sink myself, and nothing had been changed since the place was built 60 years ago, but at everything was clean, safe, and affordable.
That's what the cheerleaders don't understand about vacancy chains in neighborhoods with a new "luxury" rental. Landlords (often realtors) will evict existing tenants, bring in a stainless fridge and increase the rent to $200 less than the luxury building. We've seen an explosion in "owner's use" fraud in BC in the last few years where they don't even bother to bring in a new fridge. The cheerleaders either don't understand what happens to the lower end or are lying.
My other concern for the apartment market is the condos that were built or are still being built that seem geared more towards just investors than for people to live in them. In Toronto and Vancouver respectively, condos built before 2000 are 76% and 73% owner occupied. Condos built after 2015 are 45% and 52% owner occupied. The newer ones are way smaller and not really built for anything resembling a family.
One problem is that in Ontario we now have no rent control on any residential unit first occupied after November 15, 2018. So anything new is not rent-controlled.
@@scientificapproach6578 Rent freezes that don't take into account the costs of building raises rents. Proper rent control does not. Repealing rent control would just increase the profit margin of older rentals, which are already priced at a profitable level. The problems are the costs and restrictions of new construction.
As a wheelchair user and accessibility consultant who works with developers, that "vacancy chain" is not going to happen for disabled folks needing accessible housing. Developers are not building wheelchair accessible housing and older units are usually not wheelchair friendly. Whenever I get a request to review a floor plan for a new residential property, there is a high chance that it fails most accessibility standards because lending/financing programs like MLI Select are asking for 2012-era accessibility standards (which were poorly developed) instead of 2024-era ones (which fixes a lot of issues that the old standards had). And there is no pressure to improve the situation; in fact, my residential developer clients try to weasel their way out of each recommendation by doing only the bare minimum (2012-era) requirements. So as time goes along, there will not be additional wheelchair accessible dwellings available, putting strain on a group that already struggles with employment and income. As our population ages and more disabled people seek to live independently and participate in society, this is going to become a huge crisis.
That is why the government has to be involved in making new buildings to catch up what is lost, apartments, and the changes in society and not be involved in building, or helping, to build single homes.
Wow, thank you for pointing out this under acknowledged issue in housing! I live in an art deco apartment on the third floor, and there is no elevator. I imagine most of the existing housing in the city I live has stairs of some sort. So if even brand new housing is incompatible with existing as a wheelchair user, where is someone who uses a wheelchair supposed to live?
@@dennis2376 The government is actually trying to introduce new requirements but the pushback from developers have thwarted this attempt so far, including the City of Vancouver, which shrunk back immediately. The developers seem to have an immense amount of political power behind the scenes.
@@RobinRaye-np3vw I never said we should stop new housing. And as I already said, there ARE updated standards - but the housing developers and lenders aren't adopting them. They are readily available and 2023 actually saw the release of a brand new manual that is specifically designed for residential properties (called "CSA B652-23"). But it has been ignored so far by developers and lenders.
The government needs to select like 6-10 low-rise apartment and townhouse-complex designs, then issue huge contracts to the best bidding developer to mass-build them with the end goal of at least a quarter being co-ops. England built huge amounts of housing after WW2 and South Korea did the same in Seoul after their war. It can be done. Nothing elaborate. Just basic apartments in a way that maximizes building efficiencies and economies of scale. Low rents in combination with BC's natural appeal would supercharge our economy.
Yeah it’s not that hard to build enough housing, look at China, even with extreme value placed on real estate and very dense population, a large amount of property development eventually lowered home prices. Now over 90% own homes and many homes lay empty waiting to be bought. Some companies even give long term employees housing (to own). They mainly built luxury condos there too. Only difference is that they built enough condos and no detached homes.
Hamilton, ON sold a lot to McMaster University for development. After 2 years available only 40% of the building was occupied. Why? Because they had put so many amenities in it that they had to charge stupid high rent. Rent that the students and faculty simply couldn't afford to pay. This is the problem with luxury apartments. They are too expensive to run cheaply enough to keep rent low enough for the people intended to live there to actually live there.
This is by design. These requirements are meant to make development so expensive that it doesn’t pencil out and nothing ever gets developed. All zoning requirements must be abolished.
Have you considered that they might be charging stupid high rent because they want to? I also live in new university housing and the 10% decrease in units from putting a small gym in the first floor is not enough to make the rent stupidly high, even if the costs were spread among 10% fewer units.
This is seriously the best explanation I've seen someone make of this issue. And you do a phenomenal job with your caveats too. Thank you for spreading the word on this!
It’s tough. Over a year ago my family and I were crammed into a high rise apartment, and it was $2000 a month. To rent a duplex with 3 beds and 2 baths we now pay $3000 a month and live an extra 20km outside of the city (we were already in the suburbs in that apartment.) The chunk that shelter takes out of our household budget is crippling. I recognize it’s not as bad as some have it, but it’s far from ideal. We need more housing, we need to get the costs down on permitting and building in general.
less housing standing empty because no one can afford it could also be good... like, why does it pay off better to keep unit empty than to rent it at lower rate?
My problem with the rents going up (even with new construction) is that, at least where I live, there's basically no renter protection. Affordable apartments are commonly falling apart, infested with something (usually roaches) and/or infected with mold. There are technically laws about having to keep a home liveable, but there's a weird social dynamic where because the renter lives there, it's expected they up keep it like they own it. Particularly with corporate landlords. There needs to be some kind of mechanisms in place so renters don't have to worry about being evicted for expecting property owners to keep a property in good condition.
In my city (in Europe) one developer bought more than 3 square miles of land on the edge of the city and plans to build a lot of housing with various prices (from somewhat affordable small apartments to luxury apartments/penthouses). They also built shopping mall, hospital, plan on tram and schools and pre-schools and basically want to make a whole new city district with appx. 50 000 people living here. And because nobody lived close by (from one side there is highway and city hill/park, from the other railway and more fields) there wasn't much NIMBYism and in the long run kept prices more grounded than it would otherwise rise during post-covid price hike. So it can be done - but it's a hassle.
New development by my parents supposedly has "affordable housing" that starts at $1350 for a single or $2200 for two bedrooms. You have to make $23.50/hr to qualify for the single room??? I hate it here. The "old" housing costs just as much as they've considerably raised rates on what was affordable. There's zero housing in my area that you can afford on minimum wage. Rent has never gone down.
luxury apartments have been going up where i live, and in response, the surrounding apartment buildings raise their prices because “that’s the market,” even though they haven’t changed anything in their buildings. my rent for a 1 bedroom in a building that had been around since the 60s went up by *40%*, just because other places were charging more so why not?!
Feels like I've been screaming into the void about the nomenclature of "luxury" for far too long. When housing is unaffordable, merely being housed is luxurious. Fun fact: when I did urban studies coursework in early aughts San Francisco, the projections for housing/population were as dire as they became.
1. More subsidized housing. There's almost nowhere in the world that doesn't need "more" housing. 2. Require all multifamily redevelopment to increase density. Since even with a duplex, the ship has already sailed, so if you rebuild it, it's now a quadplex and etc. 3. Take "expensive" neighborhoods and ban any major rework of existing houses without density upgrades. 4. Remove all "single family only" property restrictions in urban areas. 5. Remove all utilization restrictions in urban areas. 6. Build a really big hole and throw all the NIMBYs in it. That would probably fix everything.
@@BrianHYX The one who should be building is the government, building for profit is the whole problem. Until the early 90s that was the case and as soon as the Canadian government followed the US example set by reagan, the whole problem started and escalated in the last 30 years.
I definitely agree, any high density housing like towers is what’s needed, and it doesn’t matter if you call it luxury. The higher supply will then make already existing housing more affordable for people who can’t afford brand new apartments
Great video! It's crazy how denser developments are always the target while people think of low density housing as fine and dandy! San Francisco is a great example case. Thanks for raising the awareness on this topic, I always felt that we need a better understanding of this.
Housing development in Canada is unilaterially controlled by the rich. When the rich build housing, they build housing to the benefit of the rich. Adequate mass public housing is the answer. It's always been the answer.
What a great video covering some big misconceptions revolving housing unaffordable crises! Personally I do sympathize a bit with the people opposing “luxury housing”. I agree that they can definitely help shift some of the higher earners out of the general housing market releasing some of the pressure, how ever I feel that higher earners would see the benefit first as they already have the means to get into the market. Many lower income individuals and families would see very little impact. Canada has one of the lowest social housing stocks amongst OECD countries, and by prioritizing non market and off market housing a similar shift would be created, but rather a shift that would benefit lower income people first. You did address the need for social housing i just think that it should be the priority rn and not market housing. Totally agree that we need both tho! As a resident of the commercial area, I’ve seen the many plans go up and down, so at this point it would be nice for something to eventually go up 😂. Keep the the good work 🔥
One thing BC is doing right now is funding non-profit housing organizations in buying older apartments to remain affordable. That's much more cost effective at delivering permanently affordable housing than subsidizing the cost of new development. And _permitting_ market housing doesnt detract from the ability for government to support non-market housing. The additional tax revenue likely makes funding non-market housing easier, and new market housing lowering the demand for older market housing will keep those buildings more affordable for purchase as non-market housing.
This is a great way of describing the housing affordability crisis in the United States & Canada, as well as addressing the conflicts between affordability and luxury.
I wish the world "luxury" were regulated. In the city I live in, luxury basically means, freshly renovated as cheaply as possible and there's probably an elevator. No doorman, no garden or rooftop terrace, no fitness room, no parking, definitely not full service, where's the luxury? Cheap reno by migrant workers and the cheapest Frigidaire appliances $1000 can buy does not equal luxury.
The label of "luxury" is just a marketing gimmick. When you think luxury, you think of marble countertops, chrome appliances, rich hardwood flooring, etc... but choosing one type of aesthetics is negligible in terms of cost, when you compare it to the overall cost of building a home. A more "economical" looking apartment will barely change the price of the unit. Either way it will be pricey, so developers/builders will probably use the "luxury" material to market the units as "upscale", thus buyers can emotionally justify the amount they will be paying.
When i was in chicago going to college me and my friends would call the large luxury styled apartment buildings on the edge of downtown "Influencer holding tanks". I guess "tech bro holding tanks" could work too.
"Luxury" seems to be mostly a marketing term. Reminding consumers of their social status anxiety might be "clever" marketing but using the term "luxury housing" is probably not useful for debating housing policy, except as rage-bait.
Great insight into how we tend to oversimplify problems in a complex industry. Another point I feel is worth making is the rise in rentals/ decline in ownership. Being able to build equity in a living space is a huge point of financial stability, but so many companies are only offering their spaces for rent instead of purchase.
At this point, housing is the luxury. edit: Power utilities are unregulated in texas, you could be in for a surprise, as evidenced by that snowstorm a few years back. Also, why would anyone want to live in texas?
2 месяца назад+2
Until proven otherwise “luxury” just means new for most developers.
Thanks for making this video. Many people instantly vilify developers but the study breaking down costs to breakeven show the risk a developer takes on and the difficult environment they operate in, and the 413% increase in development fees points to municipalities adding even more pressure to a development's feasibility
Fellow Vancouverite here! I have been making this case to so many people in our city, and it never seems to get across, so I'm glad to finally have a video I can send them haha Well done!
That post was back in 2020 too, the escalation of construction cost, government taxes and fees, and most dramatically financing costs, has been so much worse since then. And this is while condo prices have been stagnant, this is why you're seeing practically no new development happening now. Everything coming to the market was started 3-5 years ago. Our housing affordability crisis continues to get worse, and there will not be a big rush of new housing to solve it.
I believe the problem hit here in BC in the early 80s. No one, but unions could build the bigger structures and you could not join the union, because union works were unemployed. The unemployed union works have to be hired first. We were in a depression then.
Montreal is still more affordable than Vancouver so I don’t think there’s a connection with corruption. Land values have a bigger role. There are so many empty, undeveloped spaces in Montreal, even close to downtown. And neglected buildings, boarded up shops. Vancouver has the lowest retail vacancy rate in Canada while former commercial spaces in Montreal are being used as residential. You just can’t compare the two.
In Turkey, those luxury houses not for locals but for mafia, arabs, oligarchs etc. Also government give residency if you buy luxury housing. And pushing more refugees in country adds extra pressure. Those who buy luxury houses don't rent them to locals. Those answers you gave are only acceptable in vacuum or in some places. There's a lot of factor, job market, gdp, inequality, government regulations and decisions about immigration. etc. , If they build luxury housing for foreigns they change demography for that area, locals will leave cheaper places and lose their once lovely neighbourhood to some contractors greed.
That actually makes so much sense that new housing usually starts out as luxury. Why would a developer with modern technology develop a ratty old cinder block apartment on purpose? It’d probably save only a bit on costs while decreasing the demand a lot. And at the same time it’d probably still be more expensive than old apartments because it’s still freaking new, amenities still work and the walls are shiny, and they still have to follow new building regulations-because it’s new. A new “non luxury” development basically just means it’s uglier. It makes no sense for market developments.
Except that all those luxury apartments tend to be cost cut to hell with some veneer slapped on. Especially from a UK perspective, if you want a property with decent quality you're looking at avoiding new builds entirely and most from this century. Apartment cladding you need to look into as well since up until the Grenfell Tower fire, highly flammable but cheap cladding was common in new build apartments or reclad buildings. So there is no luxury bar the price.
@@kitfagan2027Yea even “luxury” developments have cut corners but how it’s irrelevant unless you are saying “non-luxury” developments lack the same issues?
Thank you for making this video. This addresses one of my BIGGEST pet peeves with the affordable housing conversation. So many people think that you can just build a 750sf apartment with linoleum floors in Manhattan and that rent will be cheap again.
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code ABOUTHERE for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.com/abouthere
Govts need to do a private-public development. With government subsidizing the housing.
I love all of your videos! Thank you! (But you misunderstand the danger of public WiFis, everything nowadays is https)
Love your channel but they have you spouting false info. A VPN cannot protect your privacy. It just masks your traffic.
unsubscribe, terrible thesis, really misinformed.
What ugly than free home in communist blocks?. It is homeless.
The fact that there is already an excessive amount of demand awaiting its absorption, despite how everyone is frightened and calling the crash, is another reason why it is less likely to occur that way. 2008 saw no one, at least not the broad public, making this forecast, as I'll explain below. The ownership rate was noted to have peaked in 2004 in the other comment. Having previously peaked in the second quarter of 2020, we are currently at the median level. Between 2008 and 2012, it dropped by 3%, and by the second quarter of 2020, it had dropped from 68 to 65.
Real estate and stock investments may be good decisions, especially if you have a solid trading strategy that can see you through prosperous days.
You're not doing anything wrong; the problem is that you don't have the knowledge needed to succeed in a challenging market. Only highly qualified professionals who had to experience the 2008 financial crisis could hope to earn a high salary in these challenging conditions.
@@sloanmarriott5 Recently, I've been considering the possibility of speaking with consultants. I need guidance because I'm an adult, but I'm not sure if their services would be all that helpful.
Well, there are a few out there who know what they are doing. I tried a few in the past years, but I’ve been with Izella Annette Anderson for the last five years or so, and her returns have been pretty much amazing.
I appreciate you sharing this. When I looked up the woman you named and read through her credentials, it was obvious that she was a complete professional. I just need her to respond to the message I wrote her.
As a realtor in my opinion, a housing market crash is imminent due to the high number of individuals who purchased homes above the asking price despite the low interest rates. These buyers find themselves in precarious situations as housing prices decline, leaving them without any equity. If they become unable to afford their homes, foreclosure becomes a likely outcome. Even attempting to sell would not yield any profits. This scenario is expected to impact a significant number of people, particularly in light of the anticipated surge in layoffs and the rapid increase in the cost of living.
I suggest you offset your real estate and get into stocks, A recession as bad it can be, provides good buying opportunities in the markets if you’re careful and it can also create volatility giving great short time buy and sell opportunities too. This is not financial advise but get buying, cash isn’t king at all in this time!
You are right! I’ve diversified my 450K portfolio across various market with the aid of an investment coach, I have been able to generate a little bit above $830k in net profit across high dividend yield stocks, ETF and bonds.
I've been looking to get one, but have been kind of relaxed about it. Could you recommend your advisor? I'll be happy to use some help.
“ Melissa Terri Swayne is the coach that guides me, She has years of financial market experience, you can use something else but for me her strategy works hence my result. She provides entry and exit point for the securities I focus on.
I just looked her up on the web and I would say she really has an impressive background in investing. I will write her an email shortly.
Replacing an older apartment with single family homes is wild. It's crazy the city will approve something like that while continuously kicking the can down the street on non-market.
The city not only approves it, it is illegal to replace the older apartment building with a new apartment building. The old apartment building was built before restrictive zoning laws when it was legal to build apartments in any residential area.
Replacing older apartment buildings with single family housing is extremely rare, even in Vancouver. Are there any other cases other than this one in Kits? This kind of cherry-picked example detracts from otherwise excellent video.
@@davidbellman6698even if its only one example its still not good
It’s interesting bc for decades, developers have been tearing down single family homes to build apartments. Now they’re reversing that trend.
@@smrk2452 It's not a trend - it's one plot in Kits made before zoning changes. There's no other examples like it.
I agree. None of these luxury housings are “luxury”.
Gigantic mansions and penthouses deserve that title, not 1-3 bedroom units
Luxury in New York is when your common charge is the Rent of new 2 bedroom.
Even an average 3 story townhouse deserves the title over the most boogie condo. It’s not even comparable.
same thing as saying a gucci wallet isn't luxury, but the larger bags are.
Makes zero sense. A 1 bd condo can absolutely be luxury, all depends on its relative cost to other 1 bd
The real term should be modern and updated
you can absolutely make 1-3s out of quality materials and design, the thing is there's three apartments going up near me that promise "luxury" on the sign but are stickframe built facing a major road. they're not even concrete. they don't have AC. it's wild
It’s so luxurious not being homeless!
Had to scroll down to find this. The luxury IS housing!
right! (as i'm sitting in my North Face 2-Meter Dome Tent)
Cities need to upzone most of the areas of the city and let offices be next to residential. Building an oversupply will cause prices to crash like shown in the Austin example. We need that oversupply on steroids as building outwards isn't viable or efficient long term. Also imagine the wealth and buying power that would be freed up from not having to spend on rent and being able to use that toward retirement or goods that boost you and your family's quality of life.
Housing is guaranteed in countries not owned by English people.
Yet guaranteed mass public housing is an unimaginable idea in Canada. One of the most spacious and resource rich nations on the planet.
I agree. Not only is "luxury" overused to describe virtually every new apartment building, it also cheapens the word itself. If all apartments are sold as being luxury, then clearly only a few of them are.
It's just a term to mean it's not cheap and it's a counter to NIMBY concerns about crime i.e. poor people (because poor people are all automatically criminals). Because no one who makes a lot of money never commits crime! All this is all in bad faith anyway, NIMBYs only care about increasing the value of their properties through artificial scarcity.
@@sor3999 Yeah god forbid they want to keep the vibe and feeling of a neighborhood the same rather than letting a bunch of soulless tech workers move into soulless five-over-ones
@@mikeydude750 As long as they don't turn around and complain when maintaining the vibe results in more homeless, because it kills the vibe.
@@mcdermottpa This wouldn't happen if companies didn't insist on overhiring and cramming more people in. We need to stop job growth in cities and move them to other places
@@mikeydude750 How would you do that when cities are the place where the majority of people lives? Much of the housing issues we have are literally due to decades old policies that favors nimbyism and not actually building anything (this is a oversimplification since I haven't even mentioned car dependency, restrictive zoning killing mixed uses development, parking minimum, old safety codes that aren't reflective of modern materials, etc)
Basically what I'm getting at is "maintaining the vibe" is killing the development of a city because you're just forcing stagnation in a place that is supposed to be dynamic all the time. If you really want vibes then move somewhere else out of the city because all you're doing is making the problem worse for everyone else just to save your literal feelings. Things change a lot in a city. That's how it's supposed to work.
edit: Austin is literally an example of adding housing eventually leading to decreased rent prices because it's not quite as competitive to get a place to live.
Damn really had us in the first half with that ad read
Lmao I was like Wtf? You're sponsored by what you just said is the problem?
Same- I was ready to turn the video off 😂
I stopped listening at Westbank
😂 So good
It got me so good dude, I was straight up in whiplash shock
I think it's time to make it more appealing for potential buyers. Real estate can be quite the rollercoaster! the stress and uncertainty are getting to me. I think I'll cut rents to attract potential buyers and exit the market, but i'm at crossroads if to allocate the entire $680k liquidity value to my stock portfolio?
"Overall, buyers hold a lot of the cards right now, and sellers are having to give out more concessions to close a deal." All the best, buying on sale is actually one of the best ways to invest in stocks, and advisors are ideally suited for such task
Until the Fed clamps down even further I think we're going to see hysteria due to rampant inflation. If you are in cross roads or need sincere advise on the best moves to take now with financial markets will be best you seek a fin-professional with fiduciary responsibilities who knows about mortgage-backed securities for proper guidance.
this sounds considerable! think you know any advisors i can get on the phone with? i'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation
There are a handful of experts in the field. I've experimented with a few over the past years, but I've stuck with ‘’ Sophia Maurine Lanting ” for about five years now, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field, look-her up.
She appears to be well-educated and well-read. I ran a Google search on her name and came across her website; thank you for sharing.
I know this is for Canada, but I live in an apartment labeled as a "luxury" apartment in the US, the cupboards in my bathroom don't close properly, and the kitchen is filled with appliances of mediocre quality labeled as "high quality stainless steel appliances". 😮💨
I lived in one in US as well. The management was actually pretty good and I guess having a rooftop pool was nice (more preferred the space for reading after work) but the room was small and inexplicably windowless and walking into the lobby area felt like walking into a very very nice college dorm visually.
That's standard up here too. Aka a "westbank"
I made a similar comment... everything is cheap quality, but because it's stainless steel, that's luxury! That's the excuse for charging $500 more in rent!
@@wildwheelsdarin More like $1,500. That seems to be the standard owner's use eviction fraud rent increase amount, at least in Vancouver
Same. The city should regulate the use of the word in documents. Luxury should be defined as a certain size and type of amenities as a legal matter for the city. This way it can’t be misused by those looking to label something luxury that isn’t actually luxury for nefarious purposes.
From the bay area here, and I've desperately tried to explain this exact concept to no avail. Thank you for another great video.
The difference is that San Francisco has well paying jobs while the Vancouver (and Canadian) job market is collapsing.
I honestly don't think it's because they (people who oppose high-rises) don't know or understand.
Vacancy chains are bullshit. Most landlords just increase the rent and the "poors" can't move in anyways.
@@TheCatherineCC It's actually crazy how poor Canada is compared to the US. I don't mean to rub it in but to give context Vancouver has a lower GDP/capita than every single US metro area of over a million people. Seattle, a city frequently compared to Vancouver has a GDP/capita that is 2.5 times higher. At an estimated $47,000USD that puts it lower than Fresno, California.
@@nat_pen_rosePooer than Fresno? Man. That’s depressing.
This is a great topic to explore. Every “affordable” rental, was once a brand spanking new development that was “luxurious” compared to the old existing buildings.
The building I am in, from the 60s, was built as a “luxury, mahogany hardwood floor, with modern amenities (for the time)”.
But 60 years later it is now cheap compared to new builds. Not building luxury buildings today means there will be less 60 year old cheap buildings in the year 2080. We are sowing the problems of our future generations because we are not thinking critically.
In New York you can get much larger flats in many older former luxury buildings for 2400 Dollar while you would pay 3400 Dollar in new build across the road. Where you get 30% less space
Oh stop being so naive. The "luxury" cr@p they're building today won't last 60yrs. They'll be lucky if they last even 30.
@@lynb1022 they're already falling apart during move in...
@@lynb1022 Interesting point. Do you think building crap buildings is worse than no buildings at all? I'm curious which one will do more damage long term.
@@josephcarreon2341 I suppose it depends on where you live. A crap-build in southern Ontario might be tolerable, while a crap-build in Edmonton might not. Also depends on how you define crap; anyone building equivalent of "tofu dregs" here can kill people when they unexpectedly collapse (afaik it doesn't happen often, but it happens). Building crap just costs more down the line, so I think we should stick to higher standards.
413% increase in government fees 🙄and the slow approval rate of new housing in city of Vancouver are definitely something that needs to be changed if the politicians actually care about providing affordable housing.
that +413% number was for Toronto
Metro Vancouver just voted to increase the developer fees (DCA) even further. what they should be doing is increasing property taxes instead but they are too chicken. so they are choosing to favour house-rich Boomers over most people younger than 65.
@@commentBox82 If they are anything like the morons who have-for several decades-constituted council majorities here in Wellington, New Zealand; they will probably waste the additional income.
@@commentBox82 Good, if that's the only we can get public benefit out of private land hoarding than so be it.
Ditching the public comment merry-go-round would be a big help. It's a f*cking city, not a museum. I'm not saying cities should have zero architectural standards for street facing windows, some aesthetic concerns, etc but allowing developments to be put on hold for years due to kens and karens freaking out is just not acceptable.
Its also hilarious how all new construction labels itself as "luxury" when its actually terrible quality and hastily built. - A lot of the new construction homes in Seattle come with more problems than a 1907 craftsman.
Builders even jokingly call em 15 year homes...
15 year home, 30 year mortgage. Starting at $700,000. Oh man, I wonder why millennials and gen Z aren't having kids?
why is the keyboard guy here lol
Their mentality is essentially quantity > quality.
eyyy the keyboard guy
@@Walker-vm6bfbecause many of us keyboard degens wouldn’t mind owning less keyboards if housing was more affordable.
Grew up in the SF Bay Area, and every politician here needs to watch this video 10 times. The NIMBYism here is maddening, and the irony is that it's coming from supposedly progressive Democrats.
SF Bay Area resident here. Local NIMBY residents elected politicians to protect their interests. Totally agree that NIMBYism here is maddening,
*conversative Democrats. There is nothing stopping any politician to say they are a Democrat.
Same is happening everywhere. So-called progressives virtue signaling while they self benefit.
Selfishness manifests under many labels.
I'm also a native of San Francisco, and still follow my hometown news from afar. It's maddening how many people will foam at the mouth with rage about an apartment tower blocking their precious views, yet ignore the fact that blocking all housing development only preserves the need for the homeless encampments on their doorstep
Residents and politicians alike tend to have a tough time grasping the fact that the vacancy rate is below 1% region wide. Meaning that even though YOU can't afford a unit, the landlord will have no problem finding someone else who can.
Not building housing isn't gonna make these people go away. They're either here or they're coming, so is housing them going to be tomorrow's problem? Because it's been tomorrow's problem for the last 40 years
Plenty of high end rentals have been empty for years.
But remember, thanks to Trudeau, renters will now be able to see what the rent was for the previous tenants...oh wait, you dont agree with the massive rent hike? get out of the way, next one in the line please..
Except we can stop people coming by forcing companies to stop overhiring
@@mikeydude750 What does "overhiring" mean?
@@mikeydude750 companies aren't overhiring, they're underpaying to disincentivize domestic workers so they have an excuse to bring in even lower-paid TFWs.
Hit 100k today. Thank you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 17k in last month 2024
Wow that's huge, how do you make that
much monthly.
that's nice you makes you that much!! please is there a way to reach her services, I work 2 jobs and trying to pay off my debts for a while now!! Please help me.
The first step to successful investing is figuring out your goals and risk tolerance either on your own or with the help of a financial professional but is very advisable you make use of a professional i am grateful to Michelle sule
Working with her has been a game-changer for my financial well-being. Her ability to simplify complex financial concepts and provide tailored solutions is commendable. Francine passion for her work shines through, making the financial planning process not only effective but also enjoyable..
Most people are retiring this year and has nothing to show for. But I assure you it’s never late to get your financial life together again.. All thanks to sule michelle for I and my family
I’m a new dad, I moved to the Bay Area a few years ago and I’m thinking of purchasing a single family home, but with real estate prices currently through the roof, is it still a good idea to buy a home or should I invest in stocks for now and just wait for a housing market correction? I heard Nvidia and AMD are strong buys.
it’s a personal decision, but according to Forbes, housing activities will remain stagnant for the most part of the year, so maybe hold off a little.
well you could put a downpayment on a home and as well diversify as much as you can into Ai and pharm. stocks like Pfizer and JnJ.
Certain Ai companies are rumoured to be overvalued and might cause a market correction, I’d suggest you go with a managed portfolio, but even those don’t perform so well, so it’s best you reach out to a proper fiduciary to guide you, that’s what works for my spouse and I.
this is all new to me, where do I find a fiduciary, can you recommend any?
When ‘Carol Vivian Constable’ is trading, there's no nonsense and no excuses. She wins the trade and you win. Take the loss, I promise she'll take one with you.
The problem isn't complex, complicated, or new news. It's always, "NIMBY'ism", and your video demonstrates exactly that via the "413% increase in government fees, regulations, taxes, etc..." That's not a societal mistake; the system is functioning exactly as designed by giving homeowners what they want ie their investment increases. Until homeowners stop weaponizing government regulations against renters, this situation will continue lurching onward as is.
100%. This is the problem with the assumption that property values should always go up. People who own the property don't want more housing units to be built because it would devalue their "investment."
Yep, totally agree. The assumption that property prices should go up assumes that insufficient housing should be built.
Those "no megatowers" signs are pretty hilarious because it really seems like they slapped the little "yes to affordable housing" text on at the last minute to try to seem less like NIMBYs
@@findmeinthefuture. In my town there are three new developments going up; the original design for all three (they were made by the same company that advocated New Urbanism) had apartment buildings going into the neighborhood and single family homes in the middle and back. In all three neighborhoods, the apartments were voted down with the signs just as you described (yes to affordable housing).
In my town, there were TWO neighborhoods that were able to put in apartment buildings, and curiously they also allow small commercial buildings. These two neighborhoods have, far and away, the most expensive housing. People just don't get the memo that a few apartment buildings plus some slapped-down sidewalks = hugely desirable neighborhood.
@@langhamp8912 I always think those little "I'm totally not a NIMBY" caveats on NIMBY marketing is hilarious. Its one step away from saying "Build new old housing!"
One nuance i would like to add is every new development is labelled as luxury because every developer wants to sell their unit for more money. Even if they use the cheepest possible materials, cut every corner, they will still label it as luxury housing because it's free money for them. As long as they use whats fashionable, its still going to "feel" luxurious. In other words, we build luxury apartments, because developers are incentived to call every apartment they build luxury, not because they aren't building the cheepest possible apartments.
This is why I think luxury should be reserved for actually luxurious apartments. Cities should define what luxury is. So that way everyone knows what it isn’t legally. “Luxury” and “affordable” are the most misused and misrepresented terms in the real estate market right now.
This. This is why new apartment buildings aren't going to solve the housing crisis. The developers have every interest to keep unit rent cost high as possible. Calling people NIMBYs is just developer propaganda at this point. Pretty sad people that are typically against corporations seemingly have no problem with corporate developers doing their thing unchecked.
None of which we know will fall apart within 50 years.
because long lasting isn't a priority in the for profit housing form of any development.
@@Praisethesunson Show me housing from any time period that is still up today without any upgrades or maintenance. 🤔
@@SwiftySanders Soviet block housing. Compare that to any neglected American suburbia and see which stands better(and still has a full roof)
Canada has the internal resources to build guaranteed quality apartment housing for every single Canadian. Your literal landlords will never allow it. Since your lack of guaranteed access to public housing makes it much easier to extract maximum profits from you.
They want not being homeless to be a luxury. That's the problem.
Is there a youtube channel out there with better vibes than this? This dude is just so chill and helpful
Dude... when's your next song coming out???
While also dropping straight bangers that do so well at explaining important housing concepts
The problem is stagnating wages. Tracked to (inflation x productivity), minimum wage should be $30-45/hr. 62,000-93,000 per year. Stop letting Corporation post record breaking profit year on year on year. PAY the PEOPLE.
"luxury" is a marketing term that is used by developers for promotional purposes and by NIMBYs for oppositional purposes. The proper term for this type of housing should be "market rate" housing. The one thing I was expecting this video to discuss but didn't is that the reason developers only build market rate housing is that if they have the ability, persistence, and funding to make it through the lengthy entitlement process -- a process that most developers can't navigate which lessens competition -- you naturally want to cater to the highest end group because the margins are wider. It doesn't cost all that much more to build a high-end apartment than it does to build the same number of units but with less fancy finishes. If you want developers to build affordable units, the luxury market needs to be saturated, so you should build as much of that as possible until the people in the city willing to pay more for a fancier unit have been exhausted, and a developer can save money by building units for the lower tier down that won't pay more for a nicer unit.
That's a very good point
It's maddening that these people think that if we don't build housing for the rich, then the rich will simply disappear
@@RobinRaye-np3vw I saw a post on Reddit a couple weeks ago about luxury units putting "downward pressure" on the rent. They tried to argue that people who can afford to rent at higher cost will generate less demand on the more affordable units when they rent luxury instead. Because that's a thing people do, apparently.
Oh man that fake ad got me good. Another great vid man, always learn so much from your videos
I've been inside these mega towers while they are in construction, and I have seen what they decide to label, "Luxury." Here is the problem, at least part of the problem. Developers will call anything, "Luxury," even when it isn't. I've been luxury housing have no central air, particle wood structures with expensive looking veneers over them, thin ass walls, small rooms, and multiple other things that might look good, but actually favour looks over function (like shitty ass sinks and faucets that fucking splash everywhere all the fucking time) then the developer turns around, calls it luxury, and lets you know you can rent it for minimum $3500 a month for a single bedroom. These are not luxury units, they lack all the things that people would consider luxury, the only thing that can be said is that they often display nicely, but that is it, they are the same units as anywhere else, with a fake label of luxury to charge higher prices.
Luxury housing isn't attached to price either. There are apartments in LA called "luxury" that are cheaper than other units. It's a useless and meaningless label.
In New york you can be lucky if they just demand 4000 dollar for a studio
They're often very 'shiny'. Superficially expensive looking.
Yeah I think it's all marketing.
Well said!! 👍🏻👍🏻
While a multi-faceted problem, I truly think mid to low rises with commercial on the first floor need to be a popular option in certain neighbourhoods. It alleviates roads due to walkability of shops and groceries, while also providing supply of housing. The land/building owner still generates profits from commercial and residential.
This is critical. When people complain about gentrification THIS is what they're talking about. It's not about more housing or rich people moving in, it's about how they'll replace laundromats and supermarkets with coffee shops or whatever the next trend is and make it nearly impossible just to live unless you can drive which, as anyone in poverty knows, is a complete luxury when you're in a city and a nearly-impossible necessity outside of one. Food deserts are, depressingly, only MORE common now especially in the US.
Zoning is a big issue in America that stops a lot of this.
I went down to the Dominican Republic last year and, while considered third world, I thought the cities were amazing! There was single family housing still, but in the downtown areas there was lots of 2-3 story mixed use buildings.
Lots of multi unit apartments on top of one or more small businesses, bars, grocers. Garages right around the corner to get your motorcycle or car repaired. Fresh fruit delivered to these places so everything you'd need is extremely walkable and accessible. Night life was amazing too because people would be out listening to music and hanging out all night, but that's what happens when a city is more integrated and not so boxed off.
2:11 Correction: with personal income tax, you CANNOT even pay rent with your entire month's post tax income.
lol
I’m so confused wasn’t the salary pre tax?
Government fees, charges & taxes +413% in 15 years... what?
Beurucacy become so big, they need to fund their big fat paycheque 😂
The fact that you didn't know IS the problem
Ontario municipalities are heavily reliant on developer fees to subsidize pre-existing suburban infrastructure that overburden city budgets (which are often years behind on property tax hikes).
NIMBYs and the real estate lobby control most of local government so they can charge insane rents for their shack.
@@jasperli THIS! Costs being shifted around and downloaded means user fees like this? Skyrocket!
I like how this video also briefly focused on the increasing cost of constructing new buildings and the lengthy government approval process. As a result, some developers are forced to charge high rent to tenants just to break even. I appreciate it when you present both perspectives instead of only taking one side. Another great video, Uytae!
Density. Opposing dense housing from a SFH because "luxury condo" 🙄. Let's just build!
The only kind of "Luxury condo" are those like NYC Central Park Tower. There aren't many condo that tall and that central.
Exclusivity
@@li_tsz_fung ok but Midtown Manhattan real estate is some of the most expensive in the world, that land was never going to be used for affordable housing... the math doesn't pencil out. NYC's problem is that their vacancy rate is 1.4% and Jersey City (Pop: 286k) AND Austin (Pop: 800k) build more housing annually (~20k) than NYC, a city of 8 million does (~13k thus far in 2024)
I oppose immigrants and that would increase my property value means higher taxes. So not only would I be in a more dense more polluted area to pander to childless millennials and immigrants the luxury condos would increase the property value of everybody around the area, forcing them out turning the single-family housing into Mick mansions. Because low prices.
I don't think we can make the same "pressure off the housing market" arguments in Vancouver as we can in cities like Austin (less tourist-heavy, infinitely more space to expand outward, not surrounded by water on 3 sides). The problem with luxury condos for me is that few if any units go into the housing supply at all because they get bought up for vacation units, either personal or rented out. I used to manage a building near the stadium and nearly HALF the units were illegal AirBnbs. The city has laws about this but with zero enforcement there may as well be no laws at all. I would love to see a video about that, actually. There are something like 30k AirBnb whole-unit listings at any given time, and the city itself has already identified at least 10k that are definitely illegal. Why is the city so hesitant to crack down on this? I know it wouldn't solve everything, but 10k units on the market tomorrow certainly wouldn't hurt! Plus if it were harder to use AirBnb or Verbo, if would surely disincentivize "investment" buyers and give a more fair shake to those actually purchasing or renting a unit to live in it.
The safeway site is peak NIMBY-ism. Like you pointed out, it'll only displace a grocery store temporarily.
Look at Station Square in Burnaby for example. It was all parkades and stores/restaurants. They levelled and rebuilt the entire 4 blocks of it and now you have easily 3-5x more restaurants and shops in it, along with 1000's of residential units between the 5 towers. 1000's of units that just didn't exist before.
It's not about the grocery store, the are other stores on the drive. I think they don't want unsupported increase on local infrastructure and services like schools, doctors, parks, community centres, etc.
They really don't need to build high-rises though. 12 stories would be more reasonable... though they should zone ENTIRE CITIES to be 8-12 stories everywhere, that way there would be less pressure to build high-rises.
Higher density will generally increase the tax revenue that the city can collect per square metre. If anything the municipality would have more money to spend on infrastructure and services.
@@aygul386 But if you allow mixed zoning, they could put some of that stuff on the bottom floors or the new apartment buildings. And putting people in apartments means way less ground space is used than SFHs, so you could plop some parks around it by ripping out some old SFHs with big yards. They just have to build smart.
@@jessip8654 That particular build isn't coming with allocations for schools, doctors, yard space, etc.
ANY development is better than none.
Not west bank development 😂
Yes to mega towers at Safeway! It’s right next to the second busiest rapid transit station in the country. A massive grocery store with a huge parking lot is a terrible use of space in a city with such a massive housing crisis
@@gdcolwell could have a grocery store on the first floor 😚
But they can still have a Safeway there on the ground floor with parking for shoppers and have towers too. This is quite possible, as people need stores.
@@lopoa126 there will be. There's also a proposal for a residential building on top of a grocery store in West Point Grey, where there used to be a Safeway, and a Safeway in Kitsilano was recently sold for redevelopment to put housing on top (but will probably be years away).
Hopefully the ground floor remains designed as a rapid transit hub to handle the increased ridership.
1:20 YOU HAVE BECOME THE VERY THING YOU SWORE TO DESTROY... oh wait
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That moment had me laughing two minutes straight. Such a great gag
I'm eagerly anticipating a potential housing crisis to make affordable purchases after selling some properties in 2025. I'm also thinking about investing in stocks as a backup plan. Any advice on the best timing for these investments? I've seen substantial trading profits, but there are worries about the market's instability and the possibility of a dead cat bounce. Can you explain why this market phenomenon happens?
Investing in real estate and stocks might be a wise choice, particularly if you have a sound trading plan that can get you through profitable days.
You're not making mistakes; you just don't have the know-how to profit in a tough market. In such challenging times, only highly experienced individuals who went through the 2008 financial crisis can anticipate making significant profits.
Lately, I've been thinking about reaching out to consultants for advice. I'm at a stage where I could benefit from some guidance, but I'm uncertain if their services would truly be beneficial.
Lately, I've been thinking about reaching out to consultants for advice. I'm at a stage where I could benefit from some guidance, but I'm uncertain if their services would truly be beneficial.
Desiree Ruth Hoffman, my CFA, is well-respected in her field. I suggest delving deeper into her qualifications. With her extensive experience, she serves as an invaluable asset for those seeking guidance in the financial market.
One problem with a lot of new luxury housing is that they are not built to be lived in. Too many of them are barely one bedroom units. Many are really just studios with fake walls to give the illusion of being a one-bedroom. They are the NFTs of housing.
This channel About Here addressed the issue that you're talking about in a previous video, tiny apartments. It's because of modern regulations as well as their profit margins being thin and having to stretch out what they can from each project since each project is so arduous.
If developers had fewer restrictive and often outdated building regulations to deal with and they had more breathing room in the economics per project, developers could build more 3+ bedroom apartments.
ruclips.net/video/011TOfugais/видео.html
If I see one more studio apartment with a ponywall trying to call itself a 1-bedroom I'm going to lose it.
Not having grown up in Canada I really cringe every time I hear the term luxury housing and the cost of construction over here.. the luxury ends at the price, construction quality here is sub par and overpriced.. this year I helped a friend install a multizone AC to their house, it cost him 5 grand plus 1k for a professional inspection, instead of the crazy 25 to 35k that were quoted by companies.. it literally took the 2 of us 2 days, that's it.. anyhow, there are soo many different issues other than construction cost coming into play here in Vancouver, if the government isn't actively building housing themselves the market will not be able to regulate as there is just not enough incentive/profit to make private construction attractive enough. It's just ridiculous to think a market for profit will in any way behave socially responsible or charitable, that is a governments job.
Yes, there very much needs to be non profit-driven housing, from the government, from co-ops, from wherever. People often don't realize that housing is not a market like that for goods, and so the solutions also need to be different. That is, "the market" won't solve the housing shortage (at least not without bankrupting a large chunk of the population).
@@AubreyBarnardna, it definitely would
@@AubreyBarnard I'm all for non-market housing, and so is Uytae. If you want to see him talk about it, check out his video "the non-capitalist solution to the housing crisis"
But protesting market developments isn't the same thing as supporting non-market ones. We could easily have both, but NIMBYs want us to have neither
@@RobinRaye-np3vw Yes, I saw that video. I think it would be great to have a mix of market and non-market housing. Not only could non-market be more anticipative of housing shortages and be quicker to permit and build, but, perhaps more importantly, it can serve to keep the market honest.
I would never call any of these new developments “luxury.”
I agree. The finishes were luxury about 15 years ago but now that every single new build has the same finishes. It’s funny that it can be still called luxury because the build quality, shared walls, amenities, and common areas isn’t.
It's both an issue of use as a marketing term to try and draw in buyers, and then shorthand for "not-affordable" housing. The finishings in the 'luxury' condos and apartments are often pretty cheap and only give the illusion of luxury. And if you're an investor, either as a corporation or an existing homeowner looking to make an investment, the appearance is all you care about to try and either a) up the rent, or b) fool the next buyer. The addition of all sorts of amenities also cranks up the strata fees which make the homes even less affordable, whether it's for an owner-occupant or passing those fees along to renters.
But it's the latter issue, that the word "luxury" is now being used by anti-density and NIMBY groups to oppose new housing developments, which is the most insidious - as was discussed in the video. I fully agree that Canadian cities need to be building more 2 and 3 bedroom family-oriented homes but until the market or government subsidies can make that viable, any net increase in housing stock is at least better than no housing at all.
The real luxury is having a home at all
@@ChristopherGreerCDN Luxury is used to combat NIMBY complaints about "crime" i.e. poor people. Luxury is to say no one poor is going to live there. If NIMBYs are using it AGAINST developments, it really shows any of their arguments are in bad faith because ultimately they only care about raising the value of their run down SF apartment complex.
I got a problem with luxury housing. There aint damn enough of it!
I love how the local government advocates affordable housing, yet they quadruple taxes on the development.
Luxury condos oh pleeaaase... I was living in one in Toronto and the sink fell off because it was attached with silicone only (thank God I moved a month later).
Don't get me started with the tenants who kept jamming the garbage chute twice a week because they kept throwing in whole pizza boxes
"Luxury Apartment" is one of the biggest oxymorons of the 21st century.
You almost fooled me with that Westbank fake promo.
Ditto! That half-second stomach lurch... ;-)
Had a Goyim moment
There is a flaw in the "break even" calculation - when you buy a house you don't lose net worth at all. The money you pay for it, you get in house value. If you buy a house for 100k, you lost 100k in money but gained 100k in property, the rent you need to charge to "break even" is 0 dollars per month. You can sell the house at any point to recover the money you paid for it, and more often than not you will get more for the house than what you paid for it. Landlords are not poor schmucks, they're greedy and trying to make money off of renters because they got to the house first.
One critique is that I would caution against saying a neighborhood’s vibes are improving with wealthier residents. Given the complexities of gentrification, I would prefer to say they’re “changing”. These patterns of movement can displace people, sever community ties, and change the racial and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods. I think there’s danger in painting those changes as improvements, as it can suggest a hierarchy between the people and ways of life that exist in a neighborhood before and after that shift
oh hell yeah bro say that shit louder
The last apartment I was living in Raleigh, NC I was paying $1,250 for a 1 bedroom. At renewal they hit me with a $500 increase to $1,750. I asked if they had any resigning incentives and arbitrarily the price comes down to $1550. I told them they could reach out before the end of my lease if they were willing to negotiate. 2 weeks before my move out they hit me with $1,300. I still moved out and am now paying $1,300 in a brand new apartment across the street. These management companies are just trying to fuck with you.
That’s really a good point at the bigger problem: the “missing middle” combined with inflexible zoning regulations. Building towers over everything else is the other extreme of the spectrum; they may provide housing, but not necessarily the sustainability of the missing middle in the long run - too much density is as bad is too little of it.
Interestingly, it’s also a historical tendency in North America, because people back then didn’t want to recreate the “slums” of 18-19th century Europe. This is also reflected in zoning codes that often allow either single-family homes/ high-rises/ commercial buildings. It’s not a call that we should copycat European cities, but to adapt what’s really effective - mixed use mid-density, which also tends be much less car-dependency inducing type of developments.
How is too much density as bad as too little? The denser you go, the more housing your have in an area, the more bargaining power tenants have. Shifting %s of single-family lots to triplexes is more sustainable than not, but _all_ extremely dense is the most sustainable/cheap you can get- land costs become the most marginal (a 1.2 mil lot becomes some tiny fraction rather than 400k per unit before construction costs) and you gain economy of scale with building. Concentrating people also makes car alternatives more viable (look at Tokyo or NYC). I'm not saying I want to live in a place where that's the only option, but saying it's the same as too little density is just untrue.
You’re right there’s a missing middle, but there’s also a severe lack of high density too. So at this point, with a 1% vacancy, it’s hard to build wrong when increasing density
Highrises don't necessarily create much more density than 5/1, even though they are much more expensive to build. The tower footprint tends to be 25% or less of the lot area. The 5/1's tend to be more like 80%, so you need to get in the 15 story range before you have equal density to 5/1.
@@TheDEM1995 I like high density but taller isn't always better, or cheaper. Like blubaughmr says, taller buildings might have less lot coverage, so not as much FAR increase as you'd think. Also, construction costs increase as you change regimes: wood frame to concrete to steel; elevators and extra stairs; _more_ elevators for really tall buildings.
Personally I would be inclined to get rid of height limits everywhere and let the market rip again. But failing that, it's plausible that allowing 3-6 stories everywhere would do more good than allowing more high-rises in a limited number of areas.
@@mindstalk I don't think of 5-over-ones when I hear conversations about the missing middle, but that might be on me. I never was saying taller was better, though. I _was_ saying density is the cheapest/most sustainable, but I would revise that to "allowing developers to build maximally dense", as price constraints do matter. "Too much density is as bad as too little" is what I really objected to, though. If the intent was that "zoning a few areas extremely dense and the rest as low is bad", that went over my head.
Thank you for making this video. I work in as a traffic engineer and I write traffic studies for new housing and I always encounter NIMBYs who need to see a clear explainer video like this to alleviate their fears.
You've nailed it with "fears". The consequences many fear are much less likely and less disruptive in reality than in their heads.
You make the mistake of assuming NIMBYs are fearful in good faith. No, they just want to stop development. Whatever excuses they come up with serve that goal, and debunking them is useless. They’ll come up with a new excuse, and resume their NIMBY ways.
Great comments about the Vacancy Chain. That's something a lot of people (myself included) haven't really considered prior to this year. Redeveloping a grocery store definitely makes more sense than other types of infill development, so it's sad to me when my home of Calgary ends up turning down grocery store redevelopments like the one at the Brentwood Co-op that's been on hold for nearly a decade now.
What are your thoughts on decreasing the cost of building housing? Great video with awesome visuals, but you didn’t really address that. The reason developers needed to build high-rises is because that’s the rent needed to meet the cost of construction. You should do a follow up video on cost of permits and fees with city government. You alluded to that increase in the first half of this video.
The city I live in is kind of infamous for building almost exclusively luxury housing. Hardly any mid-level housing gets built - let alone affordable and low-income ones.
The thing is, those are usually not "people moving in to a fancier house" kind of units. These are wealthy people's vacation homes and airBnBs. Most of those units are empty 90% of the time. So they both reduce the number of units available, causes other landlords to turn their rentals into AirBnBs because now it's a "tourist-y area", AND raise the prices of apartments and cost of living around them.
Since when is laminate floors and quartz counters considered luxury.
It's just a marketing term
“Luxury” condos have been over-used in all presales not just here but in US cities as well… It was more of presale marketing, but today it just means New, better looking than what you currently have… the only thing Luxury is the price…
They'll sit on it and make up for the loss by raising rent while people go without homes.
I have watched a few of your videos now, and I had to comment to share how much I enjoy your work. It's the perfect blend of informative, well researched ideas being presented with a good sense of humor and creative lighthearted editing. Really superb work! Love from a new subscriber ❤
The first example you gave of landlords being opportunistic/competitive is still a factor. I’ve had friends get kicked out of their apartments because the complex was upgrading all the apartments and intended to start nearly double after the renovations were complete. For any tenants who didn’t want to move out to allow for renovations, they were still going to raise rents 50%, effectively forcing them to leave. These were run of the mill apartments from the 1970s. They weren’t the fanciest, but they were perfectly comfortable. The landlord slapped on some paint and new carpet and called the apartments “fully renovated.” There should obviously be nicer places for the people that can afford them, but the problem is that developers and landlords aren’t taking the fact that fewer and fewer people can afford to pay luxury prices every year. I live in a city with some of the best zoning laws in North America. There are hundreds of “luxury” shoebox apartments in my city sitting vacant while unhoused people camp out front.
The only luck I’ve ever had with apartments was finding a place with absentee landlords who never bothered to adjust to market rates. Sure, I had to fix my leaky sink myself, and nothing had been changed since the place was built 60 years ago, but at everything was clean, safe, and affordable.
That's what the cheerleaders don't understand about vacancy chains in neighborhoods with a new "luxury" rental. Landlords (often realtors) will evict existing tenants, bring in a stainless fridge and increase the rent to $200 less than the luxury building. We've seen an explosion in "owner's use" fraud in BC in the last few years where they don't even bother to bring in a new fridge.
The cheerleaders either don't understand what happens to the lower end or are lying.
My other concern for the apartment market is the condos that were built or are still being built that seem geared more towards just investors than for people to live in them.
In Toronto and Vancouver respectively, condos built before 2000 are 76% and 73% owner occupied. Condos built after 2015 are 45% and 52% owner occupied. The newer ones are way smaller and not really built for anything resembling a family.
Anyone else notice those people walking perfectly in sync at 3:11?
Creepy Lol
One problem is that in Ontario we now have no rent control on any residential unit first occupied after November 15, 2018. So anything new is not rent-controlled.
Rent control actually increases the overall cost of housing. I wonder if this channel covers this in another video.
@@scientificapproach6578 Absolutely false
Price control always fails and economists are overwhelmingly against it - whether they be right or left leaning.
@@scientificapproach6578 Rent freezes that don't take into account the costs of building raises rents. Proper rent control does not.
Repealing rent control would just increase the profit margin of older rentals, which are already priced at a profitable level.
The problems are the costs and restrictions of new construction.
@@lodnam This is an industry talking point. Rent control does not always fail. Look up the 2023 economist sign on letter to the FHFA.
As a wheelchair user and accessibility consultant who works with developers, that "vacancy chain" is not going to happen for disabled folks needing accessible housing. Developers are not building wheelchair accessible housing and older units are usually not wheelchair friendly. Whenever I get a request to review a floor plan for a new residential property, there is a high chance that it fails most accessibility standards because lending/financing programs like MLI Select are asking for 2012-era accessibility standards (which were poorly developed) instead of 2024-era ones (which fixes a lot of issues that the old standards had). And there is no pressure to improve the situation; in fact, my residential developer clients try to weasel their way out of each recommendation by doing only the bare minimum (2012-era) requirements. So as time goes along, there will not be additional wheelchair accessible dwellings available, putting strain on a group that already struggles with employment and income. As our population ages and more disabled people seek to live independently and participate in society, this is going to become a huge crisis.
That is why the government has to be involved in making new buildings to catch up what is lost, apartments, and the changes in society and not be involved in building, or helping, to build single homes.
Wow, thank you for pointing out this under acknowledged issue in housing! I live in an art deco apartment on the third floor, and there is no elevator. I imagine most of the existing housing in the city I live has stairs of some sort. So if even brand new housing is incompatible with existing as a wheelchair user, where is someone who uses a wheelchair supposed to live?
That's a really interesting point
It seems to me though that the answer then should be updating the standards, not stymying new housing
@@dennis2376 The government is actually trying to introduce new requirements but the pushback from developers have thwarted this attempt so far, including the City of Vancouver, which shrunk back immediately. The developers seem to have an immense amount of political power behind the scenes.
@@RobinRaye-np3vw I never said we should stop new housing. And as I already said, there ARE updated standards - but the housing developers and lenders aren't adopting them. They are readily available and 2023 actually saw the release of a brand new manual that is specifically designed for residential properties (called "CSA B652-23"). But it has been ignored so far by developers and lenders.
Another great video! And a lot of these “luxury” labelled apartments are built so quickly the quality cannot be considered “luxury”
The government needs to select like 6-10 low-rise apartment and townhouse-complex designs, then issue huge contracts to the best bidding developer to mass-build them with the end goal of at least a quarter being co-ops. England built huge amounts of housing after WW2 and South Korea did the same in Seoul after their war. It can be done. Nothing elaborate. Just basic apartments in a way that maximizes building efficiencies and economies of scale. Low rents in combination with BC's natural appeal would supercharge our economy.
Yeah it’s not that hard to build enough housing, look at China, even with extreme value placed on real estate and very dense population, a large amount of property development eventually lowered home prices. Now over 90% own homes and many homes lay empty waiting to be bought. Some companies even give long term employees housing (to own). They mainly built luxury condos there too. Only difference is that they built enough condos and no detached homes.
Germany did the same.
In addition they have strong renters protection.
And to make it more affordable, build modular. Building inside a factory reduces the cost of building.
@@dennis2376 This is what the Soviets did, although I think Canada could do better.
Sweden did the same as well, and many of those units are still in use today! It was called the Million Programme.
Crazy how Australia and Canada have the exact same issues. Hopefully your government has more sense than our two parties
Hamilton, ON sold a lot to McMaster University for development. After 2 years available only 40% of the building was occupied.
Why? Because they had put so many amenities in it that they had to charge stupid high rent. Rent that the students and faculty simply couldn't afford to pay.
This is the problem with luxury apartments. They are too expensive to run cheaply enough to keep rent low enough for the people intended to live there to actually live there.
This is by design. These requirements are meant to make development so expensive that it doesn’t pencil out and nothing ever gets developed. All zoning requirements must be abolished.
Have you considered that they might be charging stupid high rent because they want to?
I also live in new university housing and the 10% decrease in units from putting a small gym in the first floor is not enough to make the rent stupidly high, even if the costs were spread among 10% fewer units.
This is seriously the best explanation I've seen someone make of this issue. And you do a phenomenal job with your caveats too. Thank you for spreading the word on this!
It’s tough. Over a year ago my family and I were crammed into a high rise apartment, and it was $2000 a month. To rent a duplex with 3 beds and 2 baths we now pay $3000 a month and live an extra 20km outside of the city (we were already in the suburbs in that apartment.)
The chunk that shelter takes out of our household budget is crippling. I recognize it’s not as bad as some have it, but it’s far from ideal. We need more housing, we need to get the costs down on permitting and building in general.
less housing standing empty because no one can afford it could also be good... like, why does it pay off better to keep unit empty than to rent it at lower rate?
My problem with the rents going up (even with new construction) is that, at least where I live, there's basically no renter protection. Affordable apartments are commonly falling apart, infested with something (usually roaches) and/or infected with mold. There are technically laws about having to keep a home liveable, but there's a weird social dynamic where because the renter lives there, it's expected they up keep it like they own it. Particularly with corporate landlords. There needs to be some kind of mechanisms in place so renters don't have to worry about being evicted for expecting property owners to keep a property in good condition.
It's labeled "Luxury" housing because calling it "Overpriced" housing isn't gonna get the rich people who can afford to own homes interested.
In my city (in Europe) one developer bought more than 3 square miles of land on the edge of the city and plans to build a lot of housing with various prices (from somewhat affordable small apartments to luxury apartments/penthouses). They also built shopping mall, hospital, plan on tram and schools and pre-schools and basically want to make a whole new city district with appx. 50 000 people living here. And because nobody lived close by (from one side there is highway and city hill/park, from the other railway and more fields) there wasn't much NIMBYism and in the long run kept prices more grounded than it would otherwise rise during post-covid price hike. So it can be done - but it's a hassle.
Cool! As a fellow European, which city was that? :)
Where did he get square miles in Europe?
New development by my parents supposedly has "affordable housing" that starts at $1350 for a single or $2200 for two bedrooms. You have to make $23.50/hr to qualify for the single room??? I hate it here. The "old" housing costs just as much as they've considerably raised rates on what was affordable. There's zero housing in my area that you can afford on minimum wage. Rent has never gone down.
luxury apartments have been going up where i live, and in response, the surrounding apartment buildings raise their prices because “that’s the market,” even though they haven’t changed anything in their buildings. my rent for a 1 bedroom in a building that had been around since the 60s went up by *40%*, just because other places were charging more so why not?!
i nearly clicked off at 1:19... 🤣
Watch for a few more seconds, it was a joke @@longlongdogg
@@longlongdogg
r/whoosh
Feels like I've been screaming into the void about the nomenclature of "luxury" for far too long. When housing is unaffordable, merely being housed is luxurious.
Fun fact: when I did urban studies coursework in early aughts San Francisco, the projections for housing/population were as dire as they became.
1. More subsidized housing. There's almost nowhere in the world that doesn't need "more" housing.
2. Require all multifamily redevelopment to increase density. Since even with a duplex, the ship has already sailed, so if you rebuild it, it's now a quadplex and etc.
3. Take "expensive" neighborhoods and ban any major rework of existing houses without density upgrades.
4. Remove all "single family only" property restrictions in urban areas.
5. Remove all utilization restrictions in urban areas.
6. Build a really big hole and throw all the NIMBYs in it.
That would probably fix everything.
Lmao if you do all that the property value will vanish and nobody will build anything
@@BrianHYX It will greatly reduce property values which are completely out of wack.
@@BrianHYX The one who should be building is the government, building for profit is the whole problem. Until the early 90s that was the case and as soon as the Canadian government followed the US example set by reagan, the whole problem started and escalated in the last 30 years.
@@cadrollhunting3564 lmao government ran properties are disasterous no matter the country or gov
I definitely agree, any high density housing like towers is what’s needed, and it doesn’t matter if you call it luxury. The higher supply will then make already existing housing more affordable for people who can’t afford brand new apartments
I see About Here. I click About Here.
Great video! It's crazy how denser developments are always the target while people think of low density housing as fine and dandy! San Francisco is a great example case. Thanks for raising the awareness on this topic, I always felt that we need a better understanding of this.
When that Westbank sponsor came up...literally made me choke on my water....LOL
Housing development in Canada is unilaterially controlled by the rich.
When the rich build housing, they build housing to the benefit of the rich.
Adequate mass public housing is the answer. It's always been the answer.
What a great video covering some big misconceptions revolving housing unaffordable crises! Personally I do sympathize a bit with the people opposing “luxury housing”. I agree that they can definitely help shift some of the higher earners out of the general housing market releasing some of the pressure, how ever I feel that higher earners would see the benefit first as they already have the means to get into the market. Many lower income individuals and families would see very little impact. Canada has one of the lowest social housing stocks amongst OECD countries, and by prioritizing non market and off market housing a similar shift would be created, but rather a shift that would benefit lower income people first. You did address the need for social housing i just think that it should be the priority rn and not market housing. Totally agree that we need both tho! As a resident of the commercial area, I’ve seen the many plans go up and down, so at this point it would be nice for something to eventually go up 😂. Keep the the good work 🔥
One thing BC is doing right now is funding non-profit housing organizations in buying older apartments to remain affordable. That's much more cost effective at delivering permanently affordable housing than subsidizing the cost of new development.
And _permitting_ market housing doesnt detract from the ability for government to support non-market housing. The additional tax revenue likely makes funding non-market housing easier, and new market housing lowering the demand for older market housing will keep those buildings more affordable for purchase as non-market housing.
This is a great way of describing the housing affordability crisis in the United States & Canada, as well as addressing the conflicts between affordability and luxury.
I wish the world "luxury" were regulated. In the city I live in, luxury basically means, freshly renovated as cheaply as possible and there's probably an elevator. No doorman, no garden or rooftop terrace, no fitness room, no parking, definitely not full service, where's the luxury? Cheap reno by migrant workers and the cheapest Frigidaire appliances $1000 can buy does not equal luxury.
The label of "luxury" is just a marketing gimmick. When you think luxury, you think of marble countertops, chrome appliances, rich hardwood flooring, etc... but choosing one type of aesthetics is negligible in terms of cost, when you compare it to the overall cost of building a home. A more "economical" looking apartment will barely change the price of the unit. Either way it will be pricey, so developers/builders will probably use the "luxury" material to market the units as "upscale", thus buyers can emotionally justify the amount they will be paying.
11:42 Put the Safeway on the first floor of the new buildings
When i was in chicago going to college me and my friends would call the large luxury styled apartment buildings on the edge of downtown "Influencer holding tanks". I guess "tech bro holding tanks" could work too.
"Luxury" seems to be mostly a marketing term. Reminding consumers of their social status anxiety might be "clever" marketing but using the term "luxury housing" is probably not useful for debating housing policy, except as rage-bait.
Great insight into how we tend to oversimplify problems in a complex industry.
Another point I feel is worth making is the rise in rentals/ decline in ownership. Being able to build equity in a living space is a huge point of financial stability, but so many companies are only offering their spaces for rent instead of purchase.
At this point, housing is the luxury.
edit: Power utilities are unregulated in texas, you could be in for a surprise, as evidenced by that snowstorm a few years back. Also, why would anyone want to live in texas?
Until proven otherwise “luxury” just means new for most developers.
Thanks for making this video. Many people instantly vilify developers but the study breaking down costs to breakeven show the risk a developer takes on and the difficult environment they operate in, and the 413% increase in development fees points to municipalities adding even more pressure to a development's feasibility
Fellow Vancouverite here! I have been making this case to so many people in our city, and it never seems to get across, so I'm glad to finally have a video I can send them haha Well done!
"This video is sponsored by.."😂
You had me there for a second.
That post was back in 2020 too, the escalation of construction cost, government taxes and fees, and most dramatically financing costs, has been so much worse since then.
And this is while condo prices have been stagnant, this is why you're seeing practically no new development happening now. Everything coming to the market was started 3-5 years ago.
Our housing affordability crisis continues to get worse, and there will not be a big rush of new housing to solve it.
Is anyone going to talk about construction corruption? A huge problem in the last 70yrs in Montreal
I believe the problem hit here in BC in the early 80s. No one, but unions could build the bigger structures and you could not join the union, because union works were unemployed. The unemployed union works have to be hired first. We were in a depression then.
Montreal is still more affordable than Vancouver so I don’t think there’s a connection with corruption. Land values have a bigger role.
There are so many empty, undeveloped spaces in Montreal, even close to downtown. And neglected buildings, boarded up shops. Vancouver has the lowest retail vacancy rate in Canada while former commercial spaces in Montreal are being used as residential. You just can’t compare the two.
In Turkey, those luxury houses not for locals but for mafia, arabs, oligarchs etc. Also government give residency if you buy luxury housing. And pushing more refugees in country adds extra pressure. Those who buy luxury houses don't rent them to locals. Those answers you gave are only acceptable in vacuum or in some places. There's a lot of factor, job market, gdp, inequality, government regulations and decisions about immigration. etc. , If they build luxury housing for foreigns they change demography for that area, locals will leave cheaper places and lose their once lovely neighbourhood to some contractors greed.
That actually makes so much sense that new housing usually starts out as luxury. Why would a developer with modern technology develop a ratty old cinder block apartment on purpose? It’d probably save only a bit on costs while decreasing the demand a lot. And at the same time it’d probably still be more expensive than old apartments because it’s still freaking new, amenities still work and the walls are shiny, and they still have to follow new building regulations-because it’s new. A new “non luxury” development basically just means it’s uglier. It makes no sense for market developments.
Except that all those luxury apartments tend to be cost cut to hell with some veneer slapped on. Especially from a UK perspective, if you want a property with decent quality you're looking at avoiding new builds entirely and most from this century. Apartment cladding you need to look into as well since up until the Grenfell Tower fire, highly flammable but cheap cladding was common in new build apartments or reclad buildings.
So there is no luxury bar the price.
@@kitfagan2027Yea even “luxury” developments have cut corners but how it’s irrelevant unless you are saying “non-luxury” developments lack the same issues?
@@pr0wnageify exactly. So a non luxury new apartment would be the cheap apartment without the veneer lol.
Thank you for making this video. This addresses one of my BIGGEST pet peeves with the affordable housing conversation. So many people think that you can just build a 750sf apartment with linoleum floors in Manhattan and that rent will be cheap again.
8:50 I think I seen video of hermit crabs doing this 😂
Very very well made video with this one. Love the points you raise and I hope more people start to look at the housing issues here in this way