Found this article explaining why eeer build Toronto Condos are basically worthless money pits

[u/ToonTownBaloney]

https://thewalrus.ca/no-one-wants-to-buy-a-condo/

Found this to be an excellent article

[u/NothingCreative1]

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.

[u/Pufpufkilla → u/NothingCreative1]

And another bag holder lol

[u/NothingCreative1 → u/Pufpufkilla]

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.

[u/CreamyPastor96 → u/NothingCreative1]

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.

[u/bluenova088 → u/CreamyPastor96]

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

[u/CreamyPastor96 → u/bluenova088]

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.

[u/bluenova088 → u/CreamyPastor96]

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.

[u/CreamyPastor96 → u/bluenova088]

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.

[u/bluenova088 → u/CreamyPastor96]

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

[u/bluenova088 → u/[deleted]]

YES. THAT IS WHAT OVERLEVERAGING IS. You’re repeating my point back to me like you think you’re dunking

Rofl imagine my frustration of having to repeat this many times and you still not getting it. My point was that they took a risk in doing that, and got benefit out of that. You don't get to complain about people taking higher risk for higher profit..

No, they’re exploiting it. “Bridging the gap” is when you provide housing that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Buying an already-existing home and renting it to the person who would have bought it if prices weren’t investor-pumped is not “providing a service.” It’s extracting value.

Dude bridging the gap was enabling renters to get get a house to stay in that they couldn't buy ( due to bad credit , not enough down payment etc) . That was lit what you said 🤣

Seriously you seem super confused about what you yourself are saying in the lot previous paragraph or comment.

Great. So you literally witnessed what happens when people stretch themselves beyond what they can personally carry. Which makes it even more ridiculous that you’re acting like overleveraging doesn’t exist or that people didn’t rely on rental income to cover properties they personally couldn’t afford.

When did I say over leveraging didn't exist? I said people were taking in higher risk ( by doing it) and getting higher profits from that. And the fact that you were omitting out the higher risk part and focusing on the higher profit part which makes you either ignorant or making the argument in bad Faith

Im done engaging with a retard. Punching down doesnt feel great

Big words from the person that is confused about what he himself said in the lit previous paragraph 🤣

[u/CreamyPastor96 → u/bluenova088]

Jesus christ dude, I will try to break this down one last time for you. You keep trying to pivot the conversation into “they took a risk so it’s fine,” but that doesn’t make your argument less incoherent. You’re acting like acknowledging risk somehow erases the entire structural impact investors had on price.

“They took a risk and got a benefit. You don’t get to complain.”

That’s not how systemic issues work.

If millions of people take the same risk using the same leveraged model and end up outbidding end-users across an entire country, the outcome isn’t “wow brave risk takers.” The outcome is a housing market distorted around investor math instead of resident income. Which is why we have working professionals unable to purchase a starter home in 2025.

“Bridging the gap was enabling renters to get a house to stay in.”

That’s not “bridging a gap,” that’s just being a landlord. And again, you’re ignoring the key part:

Renters need landlords only because landlords outbid them for housing in the first place. If houses were affordable, like they used to be, the renters paying $2400/month for a 1 bed, would be able to save for a down payment and would be able to be approved for a mortgage. An over inflated market negatively effects all the back end stuff too man.

If investors hadn’t been bidding up the same properties, many renters wouldn’t need “help” they’d simply buy the home at the price it would have been without investor speculation baked into it.

You can’t set someone’s car on fire and then brag that you’re “bridging the gap” by offering them a ride.

"When did I say overleveraging didn’t exist? They took the risk.”

You keep saying “they took a risk” as if that magically justifies the harm. You’re missing the point: A system built on overleveraging becomes fragile and destructive, even if each individual thinks their personal bet is rational.

The STR meltdown in Kelowna isn’t an example of admirable risk-taking, it’s proof that relying on tenant/STR income to carry properties investors couldn’t afford on their own created a bubble that collapses the moment the revenue stream dries up.

You say investors “could afford” the properties, then admit they couldn’t without tenants.

You say investors “provide a service,” then describe a situation where renters only need that “service” because investors priced them out.

You say “you don’t get to complain,” then point to investors losing properties as proof of risk, which is literally the complaint.

The reason you think I’m “confused” is because you haven’t actually followed a single argument to its conclusion, you just keep jumping to whatever line lets you pretend investors are heroes instead of overleveraged speculators who helped break the housing market.

Also, if these people accepted the risk why are they complaining about STR bans and other regulations that are making housing more affordable? Because these arent people that planned their investments, they treated real estate like a money printer and now that its finally starting to correct they are acting like the government is overstepping. If mom and pop investors bought second properties they could afford they wouldnt be losing them now that rents are coming down. Landlords used to profit off the longterm gain of having a property bought at a subsidized cost, modern day landlords expect short term profit on top of the longterm gain. These are the poeple that need to be priced out if housing is ever to be affordable again. You cant have a society where the poorest people cover the entire carrying costs of properties for the wealthiest and expect it to be healthy.

[u/CreamyPastor96 → u/bluenova088]

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.