Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
528, 533, 550 Lancaster St W | 10, 12, 18, 30, 30 fl | U/C
#31
For those interested here is a link to the Heritage Impact Assessment - 
https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenDa...ssment.pdf
Reply


#32
Seems like moving the two houses to a new location might be a/the price of approval. Not sure if I agree, or whether an affordable housing provision might be of greater benefit.
Reply
#33
I retract my original comments about this project. Seeing the bigger vision I'm coming around to it.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that living here you're walking distance from the smokehouse. I swear.
Reply
#34
(10-17-2021, 11:07 PM)ac3r Wrote:
(09-10-2021, 02:01 PM)Lens Wrote: Rumour is there there are plans for at least 2-3 other towers here down to General Dr. Hopefully the two heritage cottages aren't destroyed in the process. Corley is part of the Auburn crew so maybe they'll be done by 2050

Do you work in this industry too? Haha. I know I'm not the only one privy to info who posts here...only I locked myself out of my account for about two weeks and couldn't update this thread. You, another and myself seem to have knowledge of things others don't. :^)

Adjacent to, not in the industry. There aren't that many players in the local development scene so word can travel fast.

(10-21-2021, 08:54 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Seems like moving the two houses to a new location might be a/the price of approval. Not sure if I agree, or whether an affordable housing provision might be of greater benefit.

They will and should absolutely be saved/moved. There is nothing like them in the region, especially their orientation and proximity.
Reply
#35
I don't think I understand the proximity thing. Aren't there plenty of houses in older neighbourhoods that are quite close together? One of my neighbours can reach out his bedroom window and easily touch the bricks next door without even leaning...

Or am I missing something and it means more than just two houses really close together?
Reply
#36
Article in the Record:
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...treet.html

Obligatory NIMBY quote:
"Deborah Geiger, who lives on Lang Crescent, said she and other neighbours feel like they live in the middle of a construction zone. She had initial concerns with the affordable housing projects being built by Menno Homes behind her on Bridgeport Road but said she supports their efforts to find homes for people who can’t afford it.

But the massive project at Lancaster is not addressing the housing crisis, she said. 'What is going on there is pure greed.'"
Reply
#37
"Concerns about affordable housing" is always an odd thing to hear. What does that even imply? Nobody ever elaborates on it and the only way I can seem to interpret it is "there will be poor people here and I don't like that".
Reply


#38
(11-12-2021, 11:27 PM)tomh009 Wrote: “But the massive project at Lancaster is not addressing the housing crisis, she said. 'What is going on there is pure greed.'"

[Image: main-qimg-72122817a446eb9c7ee17db47bb1d589]
Deborah must be unaware that the only way to decrease prices is to decrease demand (which ain’t happening) or increase supply.
Reply
#39
(11-13-2021, 11:00 AM)CP42 Wrote: Deborah must be unaware that the only way to decrease prices is to decrease demand (which ain’t happening) or increase supply.

One can pretend to decrease prices by instituting price controls. Too many people confuse this with actually reducing prices. I read an article in the Globe and Mail which argued that “we can’t build our way out of high housing prices”. Unbelievable. The exact opposite of the truth, which is that building housing is pretty much the only way to reduce housing prices.
Reply
#40
(10-22-2021, 06:44 AM)Spokes Wrote: And it has nothing to do with the fact that living here you're walking distance from the smokehouse. I swear.

Sure, we believe you.
Reply
#41
(11-13-2021, 11:58 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(11-13-2021, 11:00 AM)CP42 Wrote: Deborah must be unaware that the only way to decrease prices is to decrease demand (which ain’t happening) or increase supply.

One can pretend to decrease prices by instituting price controls. Too many people confuse this with actually reducing prices. I read an article in the Globe and Mail which argued that “we can’t build our way out of high housing prices”. Unbelievable. The exact opposite of the truth, which is that building housing is pretty much the only way to reduce housing prices.

Except what about this scenario:

Housing is built and purchased by real estate investors who need to get a return on their investment. They now have a mortgage that must be covered at a monthly rate that far exceeds a rental rates that matches what those living in the Region can afford to pay. This unit sits empty or is rented at the inflated price while the investor waits for the value of the unit to climb before they sell it to another investor who now has an even bigger mortgage that has to covered.  The renter(s) who need a place to live are forced to pay higher than expected rent while not having the ability to save up money to purchase their own housing unit.

If someone purchases a housing unit to live in (condo, townhouse, duplex, single family etc), they remove themselves from the market and the demand for housing has dropped by one unit.  If the housing unit is instead purchased by an investor, either local to the area, or from somewhere else, there is still someone locally who would like to purchase a house to live in.  Relative to the number of real estate investors that exist in the world, there is a finite number of people looking to live in Waterloo Region. 

In that sense, with an infinite number of possible real estate investors, we cannot build our way out of high housing prices.  The only way to do so would require some pretty strict controls on the levers that control the available capital which could include (not that I am advocating any of these, I am just proposing options that could work in certain circumstances:
- much higher mortgage rates for mortgages that are not primary residences
- strict limits on foreign investment and/or the number of owners on a house
- limiting housing purchase to those who already live or work within a certain radius

A couple of scenarios that I am aware of in my immediate neighbourhood that have driven up prices and prevented owner-occupied units:
- informal real estate arrangements where 10+ investors purchase a unit but only one owner is listed on the deed (this gets around the cultural sensitivity to collecting interest)
- investors purchasing homes for their children whose name is put on the deed, thereby reaping the various "first-time homeowner" benefits and/or the "my child sold their primary residence so they will pay less tax). The children may or may not live in the house
Reply
#42
I think your scenario assumes individual investors buying condo units (which don't really have positive cash flow even at today's rents, for the most part). This doesn't really reflect purpose-built rentals which are generally held by a single owner for the long term.

If a new unit is built, and someone lives in it, whether owner-occupied or a tenant, that takes away a unit of demand, regardless of what kind of a unit it is.b

And an infinite number of investors? Really?
Reply
#43
While it is commonly thought that landlords price their rent based on covering their costs, you can’t just charge above market rate. 
If it’s priced above the market equilibrium price, nobody will rent that unit. What we are seeing is there is such a lack of supply that units are being rented out for very high prices because that equilibrium price has been pushed by increased demand. An investor will also not have their unit sit empty… I’ve seen this said many times but this really makes no sense. No property owner is just going to willingly take $0 rental income rather than something slightly less than which covers their carrying cost.

And like Tom said, cash flow positive units are very rare in this market.
Reply


#44
Not saying that some sort of regulation needs to be put in place - just the traditional powers of supply and demand will always be in play.
Reply
#45
(11-13-2021, 11:52 PM)nms Wrote:
(11-13-2021, 11:58 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: One can pretend to decrease prices by instituting price controls. Too many people confuse this with actually reducing prices. I read an article in the Globe and Mail which argued that “we can’t build our way out of high housing prices”. Unbelievable. The exact opposite of the truth, which is that building housing is pretty much the only way to reduce housing prices.

Except what about this scenario:

Housing is built and purchased by real estate investors who need to get a return on their investment. They now have a mortgage that must be covered at a monthly rate that far exceeds a rental rates that matches what those living in the Region can afford to pay. This unit sits empty or is rented at the inflated price while the investor waits for the value of the unit to climb before they sell it to another investor who now has an even bigger mortgage that has to covered.  The renter(s) who need a place to live are forced to pay higher than expected rent while not having the ability to save up money to purchase their own housing unit.

Does the mortgage need to be covered or not? If it does, then they can’t leave it empty. Instead, they will drop their asking rent until they can get a tenant, or sell the unit to somebody else.

Quote:If someone purchases a housing unit to live in (condo, townhouse, duplex, single family etc), they remove themselves from the market and the demand for housing has dropped by one unit.  If the housing unit is instead purchased by an investor, either local to the area, or from somewhere else, there is still someone locally who would like to purchase a house to live in.  Relative to the number of real estate investors that exist in the world, there is a finite number of people looking to live in Waterloo Region. 

And so has the supply.

Quote:In that sense, with an infinite number of possible real estate investors, we cannot build our way out of high housing prices.  The only way to do so would require some pretty strict controls on the levers that control the available capital which could include (not that I am advocating any of these, I am just proposing options that could work in certain circumstances:
- much higher mortgage rates for mortgages that are not primary residences
- strict limits on foreign investment and/or the number of owners on a house
- limiting housing purchase to those who already live or work within a certain radius

Unbelievably bad ideas.

Higher mortgage rates for non-primary-residence properties? You are aware that mortgage rates are set in the market? So you’re proposing some sort of weird price controls on mortgage rates, but only for some properties, based on criteria that are probably gameable. Guaranteed mess.

Strict limits on number of owners? Ever heard of corporations? Guaranteed mess. Will just cause trouble for people in unusual situations.

Limiting housing purchases to very specific groups of people who would have to be vetted by a whole new bureaucracy? Guaranteed mess. Look, if you’re a communist, just come out and say so. I don’t mean to be harsh, but what we need is fewer weird overly-specific rules about how people can use property, not more. What’s next, the local commissar will decide how many bedrooms you may rent/buy based on your family size?

Dwelling prices are high because there are many people who want a place to live and not that many places to live. This is fixed by building more dwellings (or by eliminating some people, but I don’t need to explain why we don’t go there).

The one idea above that might be viable is something about foreign investment. If large numbers of our properties are being kept empty and used as investment tokens by people needing to get large amounts of money out of their countries, then they actually are being removed from the market. Although even there, if prices are high, it should make sense for developers to build more. If prices stay high, that means developers can’t/won’t build more for some reason. If you could build dwellings for $250,000 each and sell them for $1,000,000 each, you would do it right? And the same is true for every developer. And if people are keeping their properties empty en masse, that probably means there is something wrong with tenancy legislation, such as for example it being too hard to deal with deadbeat tenants.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links