Toronto and Vancouver real estate

[Docere]

Not trying to engage in "city vs. city" but comparing apples to apples what is the difference in real estate prices between the 2 cities?

One thing I've noticed is TREB covers a wider area while Vancouver's real estate board doesn't even include Surrey.

[ainvan]

[Steveston]

There are two big real estate boards covering Metro Vancouver: the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV), which includes the Cities of Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, New WEstminster, the entire North Shore, the entire Northeast Sector out to Maple Ridge, and part of Delta. The Fraser Valley Real Estate Board (FVREB) is everything else out to and including Abbotsford. Chilliwack east to Hope has its own Board.

Another big difference between Van & Tor is the presence of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Without it, huge swaths of farmland in the 'inner belt' of suburbs would have been developed (Richmond, Delta), and most of the next ring (Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Surrey, Langley) as well.

This, coupled with the development constraints imposed by the Coast Mountains and the U.S. border, represent, I think, the primary geographic differences between Van & Tor.

There are many others, of course -- historic settlement patterns imposed by transportation barriers and bottlenecks; influence of a regional planning entity and the tension caused by it vis-a-vis the 25-or-so local government authorities, historic preference against freeway infrastructure in Van, retention of streetcar network in Tor.

Just to get the conversation started...

[niwell]

Are assessed values in Vancouver an accurate representation of potential sales values? Current Value Assessment in Ontario is intended to represent what the property will sell for on the open market but because of the way the assessment cycle works they are generally somewhat lower than market price. And particularly so in Toronto.

The entire province is assessed every 4 years with the last assessment in 2016 for the 2016 assessment year, and appearing on 2017 municipal property tax bills. The increase in assessment between 2016 and the previous assessment in 2012 gets phased in over 4 years. So by the time the next cycle rolls around in 2020 the property is generally "behind" in assessed value. This isn't an issue because of the way property tax works within muncipalities, but means that the assessed value isn't necessarily a useful tool to figure out home value - particularly if you are in a municipality with large increases (Toronto).

https://www.mpac.ca/PropertyOwners/F...PhaseinProgram

[Docere]

Ainvan: Not sure what your point is other than "Vancouver is expensive."

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by niwell

Are assessed values in Vancouver an accurate representation of potential sales values? Current Value Assessment in Ontario is intended to represent what the property will sell for on the open market but because of the way the assessment cycle works they are generally somewhat lower than market price. And particularly so in Toronto.

They're always a lot lower. My neighbour's house was assessed for $516,000 as of July 1 2016, yet on May 31 2016 they bought it for $628,000. It's a townhouse, and there's no way it dropped that much in a month.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

They're always a lot lower. My neighbour's house was assessed for $516,000 as of July 1 2016, yet on May 31 2016 they bought it for $628,000. It's a townhouse, and there's no way it dropped that much in a month.

Depending on the number of years between assessments, that doesn't strike me as totally out of whack in a time of rapidly rising prices.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

They're always a lot lower. My neighbour's house was assessed for $516,000 as of July 1 2016, yet on May 31 2016 they bought it for $628,000. It's a townhouse, and there's no way it dropped that much in a month.

Yep, my condo's assessments have always been tens of thousands below actual listings, and they always go to bidding wars well above listing price.

Even back in 2005 I had to beat five other first day offers, but luckily didn't have to go over asking, and my place has doubled in value in the last two years alone. The building was full of blue collar senior citizens who bought for five digits, but my new neighbours are young lawyers and doctors who paid at least half a million for one bedroom.

As bad as Toronto is, there's really no comparison. The high end may be close but there's no low end in Vancouver until you get so far out that commutes are impossible.

[ssiguy]

Although Vancouver is still sizeably more expensive than Vancouver {although that gap is certainly narrowing} the real difference is between Ontario and BC.

There are huge swaths of Southern Ontario that are very affordable bordering on cheap and within commuting distance of Toronto suburbs. In BC the entire province is grossly over valued. What is considered "affordable" in areas outside the Lower Mainland would be jaw dropping almost anywhere else in the country. In short, you can't get away from high prices in BC even in fairly remote areas unless you want to live in the middle of absolutely no where and even then the prices are still inflated.

Toronto is overpriced but it's a province wide problem in BC.

[osmo]

Ontario has the Greenbelt which mimics the Agriculture Land Reserve in BC does it not?

All one has to do is look at Income geared to prices, Vancouver is out of wack and has been for a long time, nothing about the market makes sense and land scarcity isn't the excuse. It is all re-cycled continuous speculation and tepid supply growth that is caused mostly homes to be worth far more than they need to. Toronto is messed up as well, but housing still has many areas that can be hitched to income levels in the general sense.

[WhipperSnapper]

Don't buy. Rent. Unbelievably, Vancouver continues to be more affordable than Toronto.

[osmo]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Don't buy. Rent. Unbelievably, Vancouver continues to be more affordable than Toronto.

In the overall sense - Metro vs Metro?

I can't wrap my head around this being true.

You can find some deals out in Milton and Orangeville!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Don't buy. Rent. Unbelievably, Vancouver continues to be more affordable than Toronto.

That's actually quite believable if you think about it. Would you, say, find it "unbelievable" if an Australian told you that the cost of living in higher in Sydney than in Brisbane...?

I know it's not THAT simple, but at first sight, someone smart and educated who hasn't paid attention to Canada would probably guess the priciest real estate in the country (per sq ft of land) is in the heart of Toronto... same way I would guess the priciest real estate in Britain is in the heart of London.

[WhipperSnapper]

No. Vancouver is a fair bit more expensive to buy but a fair bit cheaper to rent. I really don't know how landlords are making any money.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

No. Vancouver is a fair bit more expensive to buy but a fair bit cheaper to rent. I really don't know how landlords are making any money.

A lot of landlords or would-be landlords make the lion's share of their money through the appreciation in value of their properties, not rent. Some people in this group leave their properties empty because dealing with tenants is not even worth it. When your house is going up by $300,000 a year and you might want to sell at any time it is not worth having tenants that pay $2,500 a month.

I will say that it's puzzling how a lot of people hold on to their houses for no particular reason. I know a bunch of examples like this and the owners often don't even really understand how they could make more money by selling, with less hassle. They've been landlords (usually slumlords) for years and years and they just carry on doing the same thing. They're the people who rent out the $900 a month apartments in $1.5M teardowns. They do not seem to be waiting to time the market.

It's a bit strange how the Vancouver housing bubble has made multi-millionaires out of a bunch of random people who would, umm, probably not otherwise have prospered much financially. These are not shrewd, driven investors. They're crazy cat ladies who now own $5M worth of Vancouver Specials, etc. My old landlord was a very modest guy who did odd jobs and inherited a big house from his parents. His house is worth $2M+ now. He does the same thing now he has been doing for probably 40 years, renting it out to tenants and performing dubious minimal upkeep when needed. He should probably sell it and move to a small town somewhere but I'm not sure he has the faculties to take a step back and consider his situation. He'll probably just pass his house on to his kids.

Some other people have basement suites and the like to make a bit of extra cash. They would be living in and paying for their house either way, so it seems like a net win, although I think a lot of them wouldn't be making much money if they did everything above board. For example, you're supposed to have permits for your suite and the work you do, you're supposed to pay income tax on the rental income you get, and the capital gains exemption on houses doesn't apply to the portion of your property that's used as a rental even if you live there (for a lot of Vancouverites that alone would make having tenants not worth it, but I doubt they all pay their taxes correctly).

[GreaterMontréal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07...da_a_23017645/

Growth rate (in percentage) of the number of children aged 4 and under, Canada, provinces and territories, 2006 to 2011

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...l/tbl1-eng.cfm
Quebec (17.5%) has the 3rd highest growth rate after Alberta and Saskaschewan. the 2016 census will probably show the trend.

Ontario at 5% , BC at 8.8% .

high priced real estate is not good for families.

[WhipperSnapper]

That doesn't really explain it, IMO. Toronto's real estate was moderately high to high but manageable during most of that period.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That doesn't really explain it, IMO. Toronto's real estate was moderately high to high but manageable during most of that period.

the median total income , in 2011, was the same , in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. $69k
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il107a-eng.htm

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

the median total income , in 2011, was the same , in Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver. $69k
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...il107a-eng.htm

Median income only tells one story. Housing between 2006 and 2011 reflected the large range of incomes in Toronto a lot better than it does now. The low end of the market has seen much larger percentage increases than the high end in the last 5 years. Houses that were $1.3 to 1.5 million around 2009/2010 are maybe $2 million now. Houses that were $250 to 300,000 are now $600,000 to $750,000. Even the badly managed, 1970s condos where family sized units were selling for as much as $120,000 five years ago are now well over $200,000.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07...da_a_23017645/




http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...l/tbl1-eng.cfm
Quebec (17.5%) has the 3rd highest growth rate after Alberta and Saskaschewan. the 2016 census will probably show the trend.

Ontario at 5% , BC at 8.8% .

high priced real estate is not good for families.

I am totally shocked by those numbers. I knew there was a difference between provinces but not so much. Ontario is in a baby bust.

By a longshot Quebec added more kids in sheer numbers than any other jurisdiction.