These are the world's biggest property bubbles as ranked by UBS

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Is there definitive proof that the Greenbelt is increasing housing prices? Are compact cities always expensive? Does sprawl solve housing cost issues and if so, is it worth it? How do the many, many cities that are denser than Toronto keep housing costs down? Why are more spread out cities like Sydney so expensive?

Housing supply isn't being constrained by the Greenbelt. Supply has gone up. The 40-50,000 annual housing starts we've been getting since 2000 is a lot more than when housing was cheaper in the 90s. Increasing supply even more won't make housing cheaper. Usually it's the opposite that happens - supply goes up when prices do.

Stop blaming the Greenbelt for housing prices

Again, there's enough land inside the Greenbelt to accommodate growth for decades.

There is room for growth by means of increasing density, but not for building acres of new SFH which has been the most desirable form of housing for the average person for over 50 years. It's really not hard to say that increasing the number of prospective buyers on a finite supply of houses is going to raise prices. Rental rates have lagged the appreciation of housing prices, as suburban apartment buildings have always been less attractive to most people.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

There is room for growth by means of increasing density, but not for building acres of new SFH which has been the most desirable form of housing for the average person for over 50 years.

The amount of undeveloped land in the GTA not covered by the greenbelt is around the size of the City of Toronto.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

There is room for growth by means of increasing density, but not for building acres of new SFH which has been the most desirable form of housing for the average person for over 50 years. It's really not hard to say that increasing the number of prospective buyers on a finite supply of houses is going to raise prices. Rental rates have lagged the appreciation of housing prices, as suburban apartment buildings have always been less attractive to most people.

Obviously the land won't accommodate exclusively single detached, which has never happened even before the Growth Plan. But as the graphic in the previous post shows, it can accommodate decades of growth at the densities that the Plan requires, which still allows for large numbers of new single detached houses and keeps the GTA relatively spread out by world standards. Yes, people want single detached houses but they also want to protect farmland and limit sprawl.

Expecting a single detached houses to be cheap in a big thriving city is completely unrealistic. Unless of course you want suburban sprawl all the way to Lake Simcoe.

[dc_denizen]

I don’t think Toronto belongs in this discussion.

Vancouver takes the cake when it comes to overvaluation.

It’s not even close

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by Mister F

Is there definitive proof that the Greenbelt is increasing housing prices? Are compact cities always expensive? Does sprawl solve housing cost issues and if so, is it worth it? How do the many, many cities that are denser than Toronto keep housing costs down? Why are more spread out cities like Sydney so expensive?

Housing supply isn't being constrained by the Greenbelt. Supply has gone up. The 40-50,000 annual housing starts we've been getting since 2000 is a lot more than when housing was cheaper in the 90s. Increasing supply even more won't make housing cheaper. Usually it's the opposite that happens - supply goes up when prices do.

Stop blaming the Greenbelt for housing prices

Again, there's enough land inside the Greenbelt to accommodate growth for decades.

This article is an opinion piece. Im not saying it dosent have some valid points but it's not objective economic analysis.

Supply of new housing starts may have increased but this isnt going to resolve the problem if immigration rates have skyrocketed since the 90s. A good 50% of these immigrants are rich or in a position to fill a high paying STEM job. But not everyone is rich or high IQ enough to get a high paying job. And one should wonder if the housing start figures include condos which are unaffordable. $800 per month is maintenace fees is out of the question for working class people.

The government needs to get rid of development fees and replace this revenue with a new high tax on property speculators who dont create new units and a surtax on residences worth over 4 million dollars. $200,000 of the cost of a new home is due to government fees and regulation.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

This article is an opinion piece. Im not saying it dosent have some valid points but it's not objective economic analysis.

Supply of new housing starts may have increased but this isnt going to resolve the problem if immigration rates have skyrocketed since the 90s. A good 50% of these immigrants are rich or in a position to fill a high paying STEM job. But not everyone is rich or high IQ enough to get a high paying job. And one should wonder if the housing start figures include condos which are unaffordable. $800 per month is maintenace fees is out of the question for working class people.

Of course the article is an opinion piece, it's not pretending to be otherwise. But it references real data.

Toronto's CMA growth rate isn't any higher than it was in the 90s, but housing starts are significantly higher. Between 1997 and 2002 the growth rate was 11%. Between 2012 and 2017 it was 8%.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Supply of new housing starts may have increased but this isnt going to resolve the problem if immigration rates have skyrocketed since the 90s. A good 50% of these immigrants are rich or in a position to fill a high paying STEM job. But not everyone is rich or high IQ enough to get a high paying job. And one should wonder if the housing start figures include condos which are unaffordable. $800 per month is maintenace fees is out of the question for working class people.

Are immigrants to Toronto really that rich or educated relative to the general public? There are plenty of immigrants to Toronto that are working class or middle class, even if not poor. Toronto or the GTA is not Silicon Valley or the Bay Area. It's much more like NYC immigrant-wise, you get a mix of rich and poor, uneducated and educated because there's just such a large mass of immigrants from all over.

But some immigrants can often live under conditions other groups might not want to (eg. more crowded houses/apartments/extended family living).

Some immigrant groups might prioritize home-owning over spending money on other things.