this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
92 points (98.9% liked)

Canada

10535 readers
681 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DonkMagnum@lemy.lol 3 points 5 days ago

You know how I know there's nothing in this article that pertains to the best interests of Canadians? It's sources are in the real estate industry, the least talented yet most entitled group of "entrepreneurs" the world has thus far produced.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Warning for Vancouver real estate as 2,500 condos sit unsold

So prices will go down, right?

...Prices will go down, right?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Economics is only a pseudo-science for the rich. For the poor, it's always an ineffable mystery.

[–] khar21@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Where is your source for this statement?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)
[–] khar21@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Cool thanks for the source clown.

I really don't understand, how do people have the gaul to make such an outlandish comment and publish onto the internet? At least try to prove such an outlandish statement with something.

You're asking for a source for a snide comment "published" on lemmy.

Get a clue.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Maybe for a bit as those companies go out of business. Then they go way up because there's no new houses. Or we could solve whatever the underlying problems are.

[–] DonkMagnum@lemy.lol 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The underlying problem is houses are priced to high. There is no such thing as an "unsold home" - they are overpriced. Mystery solved.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The thing we're worried about here is unbuilt homes. I think I actually laid it out pretty clearly.

[–] DonkMagnum@lemy.lol 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Overpriced homes will go unbuilt, as will homes for foreign investors and homes for short term rentals. That's all good news so far. Demand for affordable homes for Canadians homes will continue, and so will supply. Supply of those homes will increase as supply of the overpriced decreases - ie when the real estate industry starts building what people want and no what they want to sell.

"homes will go Unbuilt if we don't bend over for the real estate industry" is exactly the same lie as "if we tax Job Creators the jobs will go away".

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago

The homes in the article were the affordable kind.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

there are over 100,000 empty in Ontario.

These idiots who keep telling us housing is priced by supply and demand need to fuck off.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent.

Like. Since all these Ricky dinky pieces of shit started being out I've firmly believed they were a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. I feel like the whole fucking real estate market is.

Sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost.

Bkawwwwww

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Industry professionals say unbought condos could lead to big layoffs

Everything is unaffordable, workers are all being laid off, AI is replacing people, minimum wage isn't enough to support a living wage...

What's the capitalist end-game here? A world full of poor, unemployed, desperate people likely won't make shareholders any richer, will it?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Nobody is at the wheel. Nobody ever was.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"I guess we'll see what happens."

~ Billionaire CEO who can support his family for the next 1,000 generations.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Historically big business wealth only lasts a few, actually. Nepobabies spend big, and each can have several children of their own to which the wealth has to be divided.

[–] khar21@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How dare you use facts and logic! This is whining sublemmy and I find it appalling that you don't just whine like everyone else!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yeah, they all seem to gravitate towards that. Hopefully I'm helping.

Since I've been white knighting for developers and investors up and down this thread, I should probably mention that I still am team eat the rich, or at least team we shouldn't have any rich. The funny thing is that they wish they were evil geniuses, like their opposite number around here seems to want to think.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 6 points 1 week ago

You can decide to make a left turn without knowing whether you're going to end up in Kamloops or Kapuskasing by doing so. That's the level of steering that's going on: no one is looking past, at most, the next couple of intersections, and the GPS is on the fritz.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

What's the capitalist end-game here?

That capitalists maximumize their wealth.

And ultimately that there can be only one, and they all believe that it'll be them

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The capitalists' game is to pivot their wealth and influence to becoming the dictators of countries. It's world domination.

I'm not kidding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blargle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What's the yeast's end-game here?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kbal@fedia.io 30 points 1 week ago

It's a real shock, I know. Who could ever have imagined that building loads of million-dollar condos and endless suburban sprawl would fail to be the answer to our housing problems?

[–] powerofm@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago

Who could have guessed? The super tiny, yet still branded "luxury" condos, listed at nearly the same as a townhouse, are having troubles selling???

In Burnaby, they're building super high density 400sqft micro apartments as if land is super scarce, while next door are 6000sqft lots of single family houses. Of course older condos are selling better because they're nearly double the size and often low-rises that sit with a community, not among wannabe-downtown skyscrapers.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Oleg Galyuk, real estate agent with Royal Pacific Realty, said in his experience older condos tend to sell better than pre-sale condos.

"The new inventory tends to sit on the market," he said.

He said the layouts of some of the new homes are one reason for lack of buyer interest, as well as a lack of parking spaces that are harder to sell and rent.

Galyuk said developers are throwing out a variety of incentives to get people to buy built units.

"They're throwing in parking stalls. They're throwing in storage lockers. They're giving cash-back on completion."

He said he thinks some developers have put too many eggs into the "investor basket."

"Right now, a lot of condos [are] coming online that people don't really want to live in."

Says it all really

[–] OliveMoon@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The reason older condos/townhouses sell is because they were built when there were inspectors actually doing their jobs. Step-daughter moved into a new teeny-tiny condo, and shower door fell off after 4 months. Gaps developing in the β€œluxury” vinyl plank flooring. Cupboard doors coming off because screws aren’t long enough. They’re garbage homes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

β€œThe new inventory tends to sit on the market,” he said.

Because they are too small, and poorly built, a huge liability waiting to happen with no reserve funds to deal with it. Never, ever, buy a new or preconstruction condo, they are basically kickstarter housing.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 6 points 1 week ago

Everyone's saying housing is too expensive, groceries are too expensive. Everything is too expensive. Which is more likely, that all of those many things are ALL too expensive, or just one simple fact, you make too little?

Just bind wages to a real cost of living.

[–] glibg@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Another reason why this may be the case is that there are a lot of new condos in sprawl-y suburbs. Not everyone wants to live on the outskirts of a city and need to rely on driving for everything.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There's no way around that particular issue, though. As it is high rises are already the best way to develop urban areas in a way that's eco and micro mobility friendly.

[–] glibg@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago

I have nothing against high rises. My city is trying to increase density by changing zoning laws around bus routes, clearing some properties for hi rise development.

When I was looking for places to live, I would rule out places that were too far from where I work/where my friends live because I travel by bicycle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Magister@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You can replace Vancouver for Montreal and you'd have the same thing.

In Montreal we laughed for years at the 1M$ shack or mansions in Vancouver, but now in Montreal an average house is also 1M, it was like 500k 5 years ago. There is something like 3000 empties condos too in Montreal, maybe 10000-12000 airbnb too, and 25-34yo people especially those with spouse/children are leaving Montreal en masse.

It is completely fucked up right now. Rent also doubled. People on minimum wage are making ~2k$/month, an average rent is 2k$/month.

Let's not talk about an average new car at 65k$ and an average used car at 36k$

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Has the province started shutting down those Airbnbs? I thought there was a bunch of media noise about that recently.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

"The cost that is associated with policies at all three levels of government has made it that we can no longer build what people can afford," she said.

I'm curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

It's not like they physically can't build condos people can afford. With no regulations they could build South Korea-style coffin apartments. Nor are they making money from this situation.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

What the developer is saying is that their private industry can't function anymore and it needs to be nationalized and social housing made a right.

Private industry where it can, social industry where it must.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm curious what she means by this exactly. Non-market housing and art is mentioned later on. Are they expected to pay for that themselves?

Development fees are one example. When a new apartment building is constructed, it needs water and sewer connections. The municipality typically charges the builder a development fee (on the order of 100k) to build that stuff. That immediately means the developer needs to charge buyers the development fee to recoup their costs.

Every level of government is going to add restrictions and requirements. Some may be non-negotiable: building codes to ensure the building is up to safety standards. We may want to revisit others.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Note - I work in Ontario, and this is my experience as an engineering consultant working with dozens of municipalities.

We're finally at the end of infrastructure lifespan point for a good chunk of the province. That means Water/Wastewater plants, as well as the hundreds of kilometers of pipes required to transmit those liquids are at the end of their life for the first time since being installed (50-70 years).

The cost to replace those is enormous, and IMO, should be covered primarily by property tax and/or useage fees. However those fees have not actually set aside the money required in many places, which means that municipalities have been propping up their old infrastructure costs by charging large development fees. Doug Ford, as much as I hate him, slashed development fees allowed, which forced property tax rates to rise. This more accurately reflects the ACTUAL cost of owning a home with services by the municipality. Given that I believe growth stagnation is required, this is the direction we need to head. We can't keep running this ponzi scheme of funding old infrastructure with new infrastructure fees. Its unfair to new buyers and subsidizing older homeowners.

We also likely need to take a look at the actual fees and costs associated with maintaining our infrastructure. Stormwater ponds, seen typically in subdivisions, are HORRIBLY under-serviced, with a recent investigation in our area revealing 75% of them had never been cleaned out since being put into service ~30-50 years ago. They typically have a service life of 10-20 years, and have been leaking pollutants into our creeks and waterways since. The primary reason - you guessed it, budget. At 1+Mil/cleanout, they're expensive.

We've skated by up till now by externalizing these costs and letting the damages build up for tomorrow's solutions. We can't keep putting off those costs.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

So 50-70 years ago, did they take better care of infrastructure? I've seen these kinds of problems make appearances in Alberta, as well, and I always wonder how whatever unsexy bit of infrastructure was funded in the first place, given that it's so politically costly to do.

Given that I believe growth stagnation is required

In Canadian municipalities specifically, or in general, like for climate reasons?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I bought a condo that was part of an HOA. 5 year old construction. Purchased right before covid hit. Within the first year I had a chandelier fall out of the ceiling with no provocation, which I had to pay to fix. Then my 2nd bedroom started leaking from the roof and window during rain. A fucking 5 year old roof should not be leaking. The best part, I couldn't pay to get the roof fixed because it was on the outside of the house and those repairs had to go through the HOA. During covid, I'd be in my garage making art, and people would drive through the cul-de-sac asking if any of the condos were for sale. It was my sign to get out. I hated it so much, still couldn't get my roof fixed, and I still managed to sell it and make 20K profit. Much of the newer construction is absolute trash. Also, fuck HOAs.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So stop building. Stop growing.

Degrowth is the way.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Of course, who needs a house? /s

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί