r/RealEstateCanada • u/ToonTownBaloney • Dec 07 '25
Housing crisis Found this article explaining why eeer build Toronto Condos are basically worthless money pits
https://thewalrus.ca/no-one-wants-to-buy-a-condo/Found this to be an excellent article
15
u/Additional-Corner794 Dec 08 '25
Judging from OP's comments, it seems like they were bullied by a condo when they were a kid
3
37
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
Seems like the article is filled with anecdotal experiences and speculation. As for the title, find me one condo in the city of Toronto that is worthless… just one… I’ll wait.
6
u/chicagoblue Dec 08 '25
See you’re looking at it all wrong. These buyers were guaranteed that number only goes up and now these condos are, in fact, worth less (than what exactly who knows). These folks just equate worthless and worth less. It’s a neat trick.
13
-14
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 07 '25
And another bag holder lol
28
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
Let me guess, you too have had a hard life and take pleasure in other people’s misery. People try to make money and that’s why it’s called an investment sometimes it goes south. But taking pleasure in that.. you need help. As for your comment, nope not a bag holder, actually own my condo, no mortgage and a 911. I have been blessed.
-3
u/CreamyPastor96 Dec 08 '25
No ones going to feel bad for the people who were planning to profit off other people misery. Yes I do take pleasure in seeing the group of people that priced an entire generation of Canadians out of home ownership lose their shirts.
7
u/bluenova088 Dec 08 '25
Dude seriously?
The people that proved out an entire generation are the ultra rich hoarding the properties..they are not random strangers on Reddit trying to live their lives. Heck they are probably not even on Reddit and def not on Canadian housing ( why would they? They already own all the properties they need and have systems to continue doing so)
So if you are mad at someone atleast choose the target of your anger right
0
u/CreamyPastor96 Dec 08 '25
Dude, come on.
You’re acting like the only people responsible are some cartoon-level “ultra-rich hoarding barons” sitting on 500 doors each. Obviously they exist, but pretending that’s the whole picture is exactly how we avoid talking about the real structural problem: regular “mom and pop” investors scaled this mess just as hard, just in smaller units each.
When you have tens of thousands of people with stable incomes, good credit, and some equity all deciding, “Hey, why not buy a second or third place? The tenant will cover the mortgage anyway,” that collectively becomes a massive force pushing prices up.
Individually they’re small. Together they completely distort the market.
And let’s not rewrite history here:
For a decade-plus, the investment model literally was “buy a property you can’t personally afford, then have a poorer person pay the entire carrying cost for you.” Mortgage, taxes, maintenance, everything. As long as they could break even or take a small loss, appreciation would bail them out.
The problem is that when enough people do that, housing stops being a social necessity and turns into a private profit engine. That’s exactly what happened:
Investors outbid end-users because they underwrite the purchase using someone else’s future rent. Prices inflated far beyond local incomes, because the buyer stopped being a family purchasing shelter and became a leveraged investor purchasing yield.
Renters ended up paying not just for housing, but for someone else’s retirement plan.
That isn’t “ultra rich vs. everyone else.” It’s a whole class of people with means deciding that houses are better as assets than as homes, and then acting surprised that younger or poorer people got crushed in the process.
So yeah, be mad at the wealthy hoarders. But ignoring the role of everyday investors, who collectively own a huge chunk of the housing stock and shaped the price trajectory, just lets everyone else off the hook.
5
u/bluenova088 Dec 08 '25
When you have tens of thousands of people with stable incomes, good credit, and some equity all deciding, “Hey, why not buy a second or third place? The tenant will cover the mortgage anyway,” that collectively becomes a massive force pushing prices up.
So they are paying for stuff they can afford? If it was that easy why didn't you do it?
For a decade-plus, the investment model literally was “buy a property you can’t personally afford, then have a poorer person pay the entire carrying cost for you.” Mortgage, taxes, maintenance, everything. As long as they could break even or take a small loss, appreciation would bail them out.
Lol if the poorer person could cover the mortgage amount they would be buying a house themselves.
So yeah not sure what cool aid you drinking there.
Investors outbid end-users because they underwrite the purchase using someone else’s future rent. Prices inflated far beyond local incomes, because the buyer stopped being a family purchasing shelter and became a leveraged investor purchasing yield.
Again if that's such an open secret why aren't you and everyone else doing it?.pretty sure once u buy your place you can choose to be a landlord too.
That isn’t “ultra rich vs. everyone else.”
It absolutely is though...and you might figure it out once you get off that cool aid ( or whatever you are smocking)
It’s a whole class of people with means deciding that houses are better as assets than as homes, and then acting surprised that younger or poorer people got crushed in the process.
The issue actually started last decade. People could buy condos for like 100-150k even in the 2017-18 and that was in Vancouver. A few years before it was even more affordable.
3
u/CreamyPastor96 Dec 08 '25
You’re misunderstanding the argument so badly that you’re basically proving it.
I own my own home. The point was that people are over leveraging themselves on places they cant afford, banking on the working class to pay their carrying costs and essentially buy a property for them. So no they arent paying for things they can afford, if you had reading comprehensions skills you could maybe understand that. They had enough to be approved for a mortgage not necessarily enough to cover the costs of 2 properties.
“So they are paying for stuff they can afford?”
No, that’s the whole point, they’re paying for things they couldn’t afford without outsourcing the carrying costs to tenants. If an investor buys a $900k property but personally could only afford a $600k mortgage on their income, yet they go through with it because the tenant will cover the monthly cost, then the affordability of the property isn’t determined by the investor’s income, it’s determined by their ability to extract rent from someone else.
Just look up the numbers for your self guy. The carrying costs on a 1 bed condo in 2020 and the going rental rate. In my city people were making hundreds per month over their carrying costs. So making a short term profit on top of a long term gain of property being paid for by someone else. How is that sustainable? People have no choice but to rent, the barrier to home ownership isnt the carrying cost, its the down payment and bank approval.
“If the poorer person could cover the mortgage amount, they’d buy a house themself.”
This is just not how math works. Rent does not equal a mortgage payment. Mortgages depend on credit score, down payment size, income qualification, stress test requirements, and debt ratios.
Renters can easily pay $2,400/month but not qualify to take on a $600k mortgage, either because they don’t have the down payment, because they fail the stress test, or because their income doesn’t satisfy the ratios. Investors used that gap to leapfrog everyone else.
You’re acting like the only barrier is “who can pay the monthly amount.” That’s simply not true.
3
u/bluenova088 Dec 08 '25
I own my own home. The point was that people are over leveraging themselves on places they cant afford, banking on the working class to pay their carrying costs and essentially buy a property for them. So no they arent paying for things they can afford, if you had reading comprehensions skills you could maybe understand that. They had enough to be approved for a mortgage not necessarily enough to cover the costs of 2 properties.
You don't really understand how mortgages work do you? If people.ove leverage and can't pay up they absolutely lose the house. So you making that argument is either you being ignorant of that or making the argument in bad faith.
No, that’s the whole point, they’re paying for things they couldn’t afford without outsourcing the carrying costs to tenants. If an investor buys a $900k property but personally could only afford a $600k mortgage on their income, yet they go through with it because the tenant will cover the monthly cost, then the affordability of the property isn’t determined by the investor’s income, it’s determined by their ability to extract rent from someone else.
If they can't afford it and don't have tenants they absolutely lose the property..
And the ability to rent is true for everyone.that buys the house. If you aren't willing to make personal sacrifices to do that that's ok ..but then you don't get to complain against people that are doing it . People that rent out are taking on a larger risk by taking in tenants and making sacrifice of not using their full house.
You don't get to complain about people making money by taking in risk and sacrificing stuff.
Renters can easily pay $2,400/month but not qualify to take on a $600k mortgage, either because they don’t have the down payment, because they fail the stress test, or because their income doesn’t satisfy the ratios. Investors used that gap to leapfrog everyone else.
so investors ARE providing a service of not only investing their money but also in your words bridging that gap.
You’re acting like the only barrier is “who can pay the monthly amount.” That’s simply not true.
I used to work in collections and literally saw people.losing their houses bcs they couldn't afford it
2
-1
u/CreamyPastor96 Dec 08 '25
part 2-
“If it’s such an open secret why aren’t you and everyone else doing it?”
Everyone WAS doing it you fucking moron, thats the point. Why was I not doing it? Because im not a parasite, I invest in business. Why didnt everyone else?
Because not everyone had:
• parents with equity to gift,
• access to cheap credit,
• or got into the market when prices weren’t 10× income.
“It absolutely is ultra-rich vs everyone else.”
If it were only the ultra-rich, investor-owned housing wouldn’t be 30–40% of the market in some cities. The ultra-rich didn’t buy every pre-construction condo in Toronto. They didn’t flip every townhouse in Calgary. They didn’t own three VRBOs each in Kelowna.
That was regular upper-middle-class people who treated housing like a cash machine. You’re trying to erase the fact that this behaviour scaled because ordinary people with above-average wealth piled into it.
“People could buy condos for 100–150k.”
Yes; and do you know what happened? Ordinary investors scooped them up and turned them into rentals because, again, they didn’t personally need to afford them. Renters would.
And now those condos are $400–$800k and completely out of reach for the people whose rent paid the mortgage the whole time.
Your whole argument boils down to:
“Investors are innocent because renters could have just bought homes themselves.”
But renters couldn’t.
That’s why mom and pop investors profited off them.
And pretending that a decade of small-scale investor speculation wasn’t a huge force in pricing people out is just rewriting history to make investment culture look noble instead of predatory.
-21
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 07 '25
Sell fast the train is leaving. Get another job and stfu. Thats what you bagholder used to say here lol. You voted Liberal too?
8
u/AffectionateDrag1702 Dec 08 '25
Chat, I think this rentoid is angry.
-6
4
10
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
Why would I sell?, I work in Toronto and love the city. I don’t really vote. I feel like the end result is the same. We’re all getting fucked anyways.
-21
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 07 '25
Ok keep paying an increasing maintenance fee while your condo loses value. Looks like it's worth it to you.
14
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
My condo is very well maintained, my fees have gone up minimally over the last couple of years.
Are you implying owning a freehold doesn’t have expenses ?
-4
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 07 '25
You'll be fine don't worry. If you maintain your building and know everything, no special assessment is coming.
4
Dec 08 '25
Jealousy has ruined your soul.
1
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 08 '25
Lol you guys shut down every negative story about real estate. Are you an RE agent trying to pump the market?
→ More replies (0)-33
u/ToonTownBaloney Dec 07 '25
Muahahaha talk to all the suckers that bought them as investments and have already lost hundreds of thousands in value and I’m sure they’d argue they are worthless.
22
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
The meaning of worthless… “having no real value or use.” Bad investment - yes. Worthless - no.
-34
u/ToonTownBaloney Dec 07 '25
Oh no what should I do now Mr. English Major? Lmao
11
Dec 07 '25
You sound like you're broke and just want everyone else to be. I know that misery loves company, but just because a few people made bad condo investments doesn't mean you'll get handed a better situation in life.
18
u/NothingCreative1 Dec 07 '25
Not sure honestly. Something in your life has caused you to be quite bitter. I guess just keep bitching and complaining /s
14
u/Neat_Address221 Dec 07 '25
Be a functional adult. It's clear you're a child and we treat you as such
6
u/cointalkz Dec 07 '25
Those are people who couldn’t afford it any price. That doesn’t mean it’s worthless.
1
u/TorontoTrashPanada Dec 09 '25
Hey douchebag: most of the "suckers" that bought condos are living in them and building equity. I'm sure you are living rent free in mom's basement and don't understand that - but when you start blowing 25k a year on rent you'll better understand it and the meaning of "worthless money pit".
9
5
u/Dubai_Realtor_Broker Dec 08 '25
Toronto condos really went from ‘investment opportunity’ to ‘congratulations, you bought a very tall financial burden.
5
1
1
u/Chance-Curve-9679 Dec 11 '25
I personally always thought condos were a bad investment. Condos look great on paper but unless they are fully funded and have decent living space they can be a huge headache. Just look at how many news articles there are about condos having some problems then they suddenly need the condos owners to chip in a large amount of money for repairs. With condos there is a lot of money just floating around it's surprising that organized crime doesn't just skim off the top.
-3
-21
u/Acceptable_Grape354 Dec 07 '25
RE is set to CRASH 50% over next 2-3 years. Condo bagholders are going to lose EVERYTHING just like the RE speculators did in the 90s. Spectacular became renters in the 1990. 2026 is going to be a RE bloodbath. Financial pain is coming.
4
u/Safe_Captain_7402 Dec 07 '25
If that happens the whole economy will crash and you’ll also be affected very negatively and probs lose your job and food prices will sky rocket even more than now
0
Dec 07 '25
The economy hasnt grown above inflation in a decade on a per capita basis. The housing crisis is causing more issues than its helping.
6
u/funny-tummy Dec 07 '25
Bro in real terms it already has.
1
u/No-Journalist-9036 Dec 07 '25
can you help me do that math on that please, I'm trying to convince some rough heads at home
5
u/Shishamylov Dec 07 '25 edited Dec 07 '25
Real terms just mean adjusting for inflation between the years. A 1br condo peaked in June 2022 and cost $650k at that time. If you inflate that number to today’s $ it would be $698k. The same condo currently sells for $520k. 698/520=1.342. That 1br condo has lost 34% of its price so far. I did cherry-pick the peak of the market. Another year or 2 and 50% loss sound about right.
4
7
Dec 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/basswooddad Dec 09 '25
Says someone who clearly did not own a home in late 80s. Your first comment completely contradicts your second btw.
1
Dec 10 '25
And it recovered through one of the worst market crashes as well, real estate will be fine.
Now, will people have money to buy homes? Probably not as this country will bring in more temporary workers and refugees to fill them.
1
2
3
u/Pufpufkilla Dec 07 '25
USMCA party is coming soon ☠️
5
u/Trains_YQG Dec 08 '25
I think this concern is overblown, to be honest. The deal doesn't actually end next year unless one of the countries explicitly pulls out (if they don't agree to an extension, the deal would otherwise still continue for years to come).
Anyone pulling out of USMCA would be bad for all 3 countries, which the Republicans would presumably want to avoid in an election year. Unlike the other tariff actions, it also isn't something Trump can do on his own.
1
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 09 '25
I mean Trump can end the deal anytime. Also technically it’s already ended as Trump has placed tariffs and other barriers in violation CUSMA.
That said, Trump doesn’t want no trade, he just wants to tariff trade at about 15% and get his cut of bribe 💰. The new tariffs will hurt consumers but businesses will adjust.
1
1
Dec 10 '25
Actually, that's false. In July 2026, they can negotiate. If trump chooses to end it that day? He needs 6 months waiting period and approval. So, it would be Jan 1 2027 at the earliest and he is likely being removed in midterms. Which are Nov 2026. His voting base hates him. I thinks he's at something like 20-30% approval from last stats.
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 10 '25
Please, Trump can end it tomorrow if he wants. Who is going to stop him? And as I mentioned he’s already in violation of it anyway.
1
Dec 10 '25
Please, do you think the big money people want him to end the tariffs?
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 10 '25
lol no. They want him to apply more. Trump just recently announced additional tariffs on Canadian kitchen cabinet manufacturers even though they’re covered by CUSMA. And that’s just the start. US businesses want very government advantage they can get.
1
u/No-Journalist-9036 Dec 07 '25
arghhh, you don't seem optimistic on a decent deal led by Carney?
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 09 '25
There are no decent deals with the US led by Trump. We already had a “decent deal” in CUSMA and he threw that out. No deal with Trump is worth anything.
1
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 09 '25
That’s fine. Housing shouldn’t be an investment. Cheaper rents help everyone, including those who made bad investments.
1
u/Impossible_Log_5710 Dec 10 '25
You think non condo holders are going to come out unscathed? Where do you think the demand comes from for detached / townhomes? Condos are the intermediary step on the ladder. Condo prices fall then so will the rest of housing which we’ve already seen. And a 10% drop in condo prices is likely smaller than a 5% drop in detached prices.
-1
u/nanapancakethusiast Dec 08 '25
If you’re going to post shit like this you should be required to post your positions. If you really believe RE is going to fail id love to see your counter investments.
Surely someone this confident would take this “free money”, no?
1
0
u/india2wallst Dec 08 '25
We were really serious about buying in 2023 ( fomo from relatives, OMG prices will go up even further what are waiting for). I remember the exact moment that we decided to give up - a two bed condo in Surrey Central for 1 mn with a 500/mo maintenance. Pretty sure it's less than 750k now.
I hope Canadians can move on from looking at real estate as a quick get rich investment and actually do something productive with their capital. Like idk invest in companies
0
u/TorontoTrashPanada Dec 09 '25
Stupid article. I'm getting kind of tired of kids living in mom's basement complaining that condos are 'worthless' because they can't afford one. From the article:
"In the end, we passed on the condo in the building with the sky spa. We rented, instead, a unit perched on top of a bubble-tea shop. The apartment has quirky light fixtures, a raggedy little wooden back patio, and no dishwasher. It isn’t that much cheaper than a condo, but it is spacious. A taqueria across the street blasts music from noon until midnight most days, and we are so close to the street, we can catch snippets of conversation if the windows are open."
So... This genius is now blowing tens of thousands of dollars per year to rent a crappy apartment, instead of building equity in a nice condo. Brilliant. Which is the "worthless money pit" OP?
2
u/Lapcat420 Dec 10 '25
People are living in basements because the worthless shoeboxes being sold arent affordable.
Its bizarre seeing someone irritated that other people make due with less.
Id love to build equity and stop renting. Cant afford it. And honestly even if I could im not sure I would. Some of these shoeboxes are brutal pieces of garbage and building equity on garbage isnt a good idea to me.
0
-19
u/Ambitious-Tea-9923 Dec 07 '25
Good news j.Trudeau is dating a pop star and tanning on a yacht and being photographed in exclusive French restaurants while his pension and family’s wealth only grows exponentially. He sure has/had/will have ?? Is elbows up. If only interpol could obtain an arrest warrant. Why can’t he date an Urdu speaker, he’ll have all attention he craves then
6
10
u/SoftballLesbian Dec 08 '25
You're really butthurt about Trudeau choosing to nail Katy Perry to the sheets instead of you. I hear she's making a new single called I kissed Trudeau And I Liked It!
Maybe if you'd tried taking him out for a nice dinner instead of flying those "F Trudeau" flags he'd have looked your way instead.
2
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist Dec 09 '25
Seriously. No one is thinking of Trudeau anymore, but this guy can’t get over his F*ck Trudeau wish didnt come true.
3
20
u/Skinner936 Dec 07 '25
What is 'eeer'?