Population and Housing

[nms]

In piece of news surprising no one, the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo census area is second only to London (CTV), Ontario for the most investor-owned condominium apartments.

London has 86.4% to the Region's 61.5%.  Toronto is down at 36.2%.  If condos only built since 2016 are considered, KWC jumps to 77%.  Needless to say, investors who need to cover their mortgage costs are less likely to lower rent  From the article:

Brian Doucet, a professor at the University of Waterloo’s school of planning says housing in Canada, and in many countries, plays two conflicting roles.

“It’s shelter, it’s a basic human right,” Doucet said. “And on the other side, it’s a commodity, a speculative commodity.”

Doucet says a housing market geared toward investors can lead to the most vulnerable being squeezed out.

“We don’t see a whole lot of units that are actually affordable as rental units to people on low and very low incomes, so we don’t see a lot of people on minimum wage, or living wages in the new buildings where three-quarters of the units are owned by investors,” he said.

The argument is often made that condos need to be built to house more people.  Yet only small condos sell and developers aren't patient enough or creative enough to come up with condo solutions that appeal to anyone other than investors.  Will KCW crack 80% investor-owned by 2025? How soon until we're number 1 in the province?

[panamaniac]

Could be lots of fun if the bottom falls out of the market.

[ac3r]

And sadly it's also investors who build what housing we even do get. These condos, townhomes and subdivisions still heavily rely on investors to exist. Most of us wouldn't be living where we are if it weren't for investors investing in the development of our condos, apartments or entire subdivisions.

It's not as if our various levels of government are all that willing to invest in this stuff themselves. I mean...our region throws spare change around to promote actual shanty towns. We literally spend tens of thousands of dollars a month to put some portable toilets and security guards making barely above minimum wage in a shanty town next to Google Canada and in our main public park and call that a temporary solution we should be proud of. Waitlists for more tangible housing is still years and years long. We've got international students lured here with the allure of great education, job prospects and a life only to find themselves living in the corner of a room of a gross apartment with 6+ other people. It's actually no wonder why there has been a 40% decline in permanent residents coming to Canada even bother to become citizens anymore. There's very little point.

The severe lack of actual investment in public housing is one of the biggest issues, not investors and people running Airbnb's. We love to point fingers in this country whilst doing next to nothing since it's easier. Spend a few years trying to find a vacant plot of land to build some literal sheds for people (oh, sorry, "better tents")? Green stamp the hell out of that. Spend money on community housing? Nope. We're a region of over 630'000 people and the Region of Waterloo oversees a mere 5600 units of public housing (not much better elsewhere, though. TCHC only has 58'000 units for nearly 3 million Toronto citizens). And when they do try to promote public housing solutions that aren't literally garden sheds from Home Depot in some plot of grass nobody can see, it's negotiating with wealthy developers: we'll approve your condo project if you agree to throw some pocket change into our affordable housing piggy bank so we can act like we're doing something. Worse, the feds keep inviting people in we can't accommodate. It's to the point the federal government is actually shipping the poorest migrants arriving into Québec to Ontario by the hundreds. Yet they're also opening the doors to about half a million of them every. single. year (447,000 in 2023 and 451,000 in 2024). People can't afford to rent a room, find a doctor or feed themselves but the Liberals are like, yeah, come on in. Open for business. Pitch your tent somewhere, if you can find a spot. Try not to get sick, though if you do you can maybe legally kill yourself like the disabled are sadly now feeling compelled to do.

[dtkvictim]

It's an interesting statistic, and it does say something, but the general conclusion that it's responsible for the housing crisis just doesn't make sense. Speculation is a symptom of the crisis, IMO.

The argument is often made that condos need to be built to house more people.

The condos were built, and now house people, so the argument holds true.

Needless to say, investors who need to cover their mortgage costs are less likely to lower rent

I don't think you are thinking from their perspective. If they won't drop their rents to match the market, they will have an empty unit and be significantly more cashflow negative. They can either rent at a slightly lower price and bet on their "asset" to appreciate a greater amount in the long run, or if lower rents means a lower sale price then they can cut their losses and sell.

“We don’t see a whole lot of units that are actually affordable as rental units to people on low and very low incomes, so we don’t see a lot of people on minimum wage, or living wages in the new buildings where three-quarters of the units are owned by investors,” he said.

I understand his concern about the lowest income earners, but what is his point here? I don't really want to get into some equity argument here about how he thinks things should be... But these buildings wouldn't be built without investors, simple as. How is less housing, where the current condo occupants are instead competing for the existing housing stock, better for those at the bottom?

[bravado]

I don't understand how there is any debate about this, if investors are aggressively snapping up units, it must mean there is a market there for it. The constrained market is created by city council and zoning that limits construction and constrains supply.

The big investment firms even say it in their financials: https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/159...6205639681

Yet again, council gets off the hook when we frame the fight as "normal people" vs "investors".

All of this ignores the fact that our governments do not build any public housing anymore, but Doug Craig has made it pretty clear what he thinks about spending literally any money in government that isn't the police budget.

[Rainrider22]

It's an interesting statistic, and it does say something, but the general conclusion that it's responsible for the housing crisis just doesn't make sense. Speculation is a symptom of the crisis, IMO.

The argument is often made that condos need to be built to house more people.

The condos were built, and now house people, so the argument holds true.

Needless to say, investors who need to cover their mortgage costs are less likely to lower rent

I don't think you are thinking from their perspective. If they won't drop their rents to match the market, they will have an empty unit and be significantly more cashflow negative. They can either rent at a slightly lower price and bet on their "asset" to appreciate a greater amount in the long run, or if lower rents means a lower sale price then they can cut their losses and sell.

“We don’t see a whole lot of units that are actually affordable as rental units to people on low and very low incomes, so we don’t see a lot of people on minimum wage, or living wages in the new buildings where three-quarters of the units are owned by investors,” he said.

I understand his concern about the lowest income earners, but what is his point here? I don't really want to get into some equity argument here about how he thinks things should be... But these buildings wouldn't be built without investors, simple as. How is less housing, where the current condo occupants are instead competing for the existing housing stock, better for those at the bottom?

You are spot on !!!

[plam]

In other countries, say New Zealand, there was a notion of "state houses".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing

The NZ government built thousands of houses (sadly, mostly houses and not apartments). When the conservatives (the National Party) get in they tend to sell these houses to... speculators... and then when Labour gets in they try to build more houses. There was a promise by the current government about building tons of houses and they only built kilograms of houses so far, but at least it's not negative progress and they're trying to improve on it (while backpedalling on the "tons" part of the promise).

[danbrotherston]

In other countries, say New Zealand, there was a notion of "state houses".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_housing

The NZ government built thousands of houses (sadly, mostly houses and not apartments). When the conservatives (the National Party) get in they tend to sell these houses to... speculators... and then when Labour gets in they try to build more houses. There was a promise by the current government about building tons of houses and they only built kilograms of houses so far, but at least it's not negative progress and they're trying to improve on it (while backpedalling on the "tons" part of the promise).

It sure is exhausting watching people vote for conservative governments which then proceed to grift public assets to their friends.

I'm not saying other governments are better, but it's a little on the nose given conservatives are the ones who almost always use "corruption" as a talking point.

[tomh009]

In piece of news surprising no one, the Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo census area is second only to London (CTV), Ontario for the most investor-owned condominium apartments.

London has 86.4% to the Region's 61.5%.  Toronto is down at 36.2%.  If condos only built since 2016 are considered, KWC jumps to 77%.  Needless to say, investors who need to cover their mortgage costs are less likely to lower rent  From the article:

77% for the region -- Kitchener is at 64.3% and Waterloo at 80.5% for that latest five-year period. I expect the student-focused condos are driving the very high percentage of investor ownership in Waterloo.

[tomh009]

And when they do try to promote public housing solutions that aren't literally garden sheds from Home Depot in some plot of grass nobody can see, it's negotiating with wealthy developers: we'll approve your condo project if you agree to throw some pocket change into our affordable housing piggy bank so we can act like we're doing something.

That's not an entirely fair characterization. Here is my quick list of recent/current projects with substantial (50-100%) affordable units in the region:

• St Mark's Place
  
• 581-595 Langs Drive
  
• Three former regional houses on Mill St
  
• New Hamburg feed mill project
  
• House of Friendship project at Charles/Eby
  
• Making Home project at 83-97 Victoria
  
• Knossos project at 206 Duke St E
  
• OneROOF project on King St E
  
• 544 Bridgeport Rd E
  

I'm sure there is more yet.

As for international students, having talked to quite a few (Conestoga) international students about housing, they are living the same way most university/college students are: by sharing houses and apartments. And, once they are employed, they are generally getting their own apartments, or sometimes sharing with a roommate if they are single.

[Acitta]

Less than 25 per cent of Waterloo Region’s new condos are owner occupied

[tomh009]

Less than 25 per cent of Waterloo Region’s new condos are owner occupied

I think this was already in another thread? Anyway, for that five-year period (2016-2020) it was about 35% owner-occupied in Kitchener and only about 20% in Waterloo.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I thought I would share this project. It's one that I've been familiar with for a while now, so I'm very happy to see that it's beginning to secure some serious funding. I hope that the Waterloo Region can take lessons from projects like this.

https://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/new...7c1cb2646d

[Acitta]

I thought I would share this project. It's one that I've been familiar with for a while now, so I'm very happy to see that it's beginning to secure some serious funding. I hope that the Waterloo Region can take lessons from projects like this.

https://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/new...7c1cb2646d

It looks like a nice project, but it is not particularly high density. Project Tiny Hope

[tomh009]

I thought I would share this project. It's one that I've been familiar with for a while now, so I'm very happy to see that it's beginning to secure some serious funding. I hope that the Waterloo Region can take lessons from projects like this.

https://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/new...7c1cb2646d

It looks like a nice project, but it is not particularly high density. Project Tiny Hope

Hopefully the concept could be used with higher density in a more urban environment. Even stacked townhouses would be significantly higher density, or something like a three-storey walk-up.