Warning for Vancouver real estate as 2,500 condos sit unsold
So prices will go down, right?
...Prices will go down, right?
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
90 points (98.9% liked)
Canada
10653 readers
486 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au QuΓ©bec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- 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
Economics is only a pseudo-science for the rich. For the poor, it's always an ineffable mystery.
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
The absolute gall of you, talking about solving problems. Are you even thinking about those poor rich folks out there?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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.
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
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?
Nobody is at the wheel. Nobody ever was.
"I guess we'll see what happens."
~ Billionaire CEO who can support his family for the next 1,000 generations.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Incorrect. Governments and corporation all have leaders who have steered us here, deliberately.
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.
Deliberately, definitely not. Like OP said, why would anyone want this?
There's leaders, but there's a lot of leaders, they have interests at odds with each other, and none of them have a position that can't be lost one way or the other (even dictators fear a coup). In the end, they end up part of the system, not controlling it.
load more comments
(7 replies)
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
The capitalists' game is to pivot their wealth and influence to becoming the dictators of countries. It's world domination.
I'm not kidding.
Dumbing down the population. Remove critical thinking. Reinstate the harshest of religious beliefs. Feudalism.
What's the yeast's end-game here?
THEY'RE GONNA TURN US INTO MEAD AND DRINK US???
I think there was a movie about this
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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
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 βluxuryβ vinyl plank flooring. Cupboard doors coming off because screws arenβt long enough. Theyβre garbage homes.
Doug got rid of all trades inspectors from 2018, so any asshole with a home Depot credit card is now doing plumbing and electrical.
These are Ontario Tofu Dreg projects, years from now they will cost us a fortune to demolish.
βThe new inventory tends to sit on the market,β 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The way around it is transit-oriented development.
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.
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$
Has the province started shutting down those Airbnbs? I thought there was a bunch of media noise about that recently.
AirBnBs are a drop in the supply bucket. It's nice to hate on them, but when you look at the actual numbers they're a negligible impact.
"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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
Lol they definitely did not take better care of infrastructure. They were freaking cowboys and a ton of municipalities got burnt on it. I work on lots of capital jobs that involve fixing problems that have been around since then.
So now they have much more stringent standards, which in turn means projects are more expensive. Add onto that the growing complexity - installing a water main down a street in 1980 when you have overhead hydro lines and no other utilities to work around is much easier than installation in a crowded right-of-way with buried gas, hydro, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and existing water main that needs to continue to service residents.
As for how they were originally funded, idk. Don't think they ever really asked residents what they wanted back then. Now there's much more accountability, which is good but has drawbacks and costs.
In Canadian municipalities specifically, or in general, like for climate reasons?
I mean climate, but not specifically global warming, just the fact were a planet with finite resources.
As for how they were originally funded, idk. Donβt think they ever really asked residents what they wanted back then. Now thereβs much more accountability, which is good but has drawbacks and costs.
That could be. I mean, it was a democracy, but post-WWII it was much more about prominent members of the community who commanded the trust of whatever faith or industry group. Before then there was some upheaval, and I'm less clear on the zeitgeist.
Then again, people definitely wanted handouts in a way that's passe now. In Alberta there was "purple gas", which was artificially cheap but only farmers were allowed to burn it, and that's how they got the agricultural vote. Invisible public works projects wouldn't have helped with that.
Low taxes are like a religion here. I kind of feel like if we were starting over, we'd stick with outhouses forever because nobody wants to raise the tax rate for silly things like "sanitation".
So now they have much more stringent standards, which in turn means projects are more expensive. Add onto that the growing complexity - installing a water main down a street in 1980 when you have overhead hydro lines and no other utilities to work around is much easier than installation in a crowded right-of-way with buried gas, hydro, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and existing water main that needs to continue to service residents.
That makes me wonder how things will look in another century or whatever. If we're paying for debt accrued by the original designers, are we subsidising the future by building neat and well-though-out infrastructure now?
I mean climate, but not specifically global warming, just the fact were a planet with finite resources.
I'm arguing with a degrowther elsewhere here, but you've clearly thought through all the details. On a planet with a growing population, is less architecture really how that should look? When I think degrowth, I think forcing people to be poorer, basically, but they'll still need a place to live. In the long term, I expect housing prices will start to collapse as population goes into decline, and a lot of our more outlying settlements will become ghost towns, but work will continue in core areas.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Yeah, but development fees of that kind seem like they should only vary so much. Probably not to the degree of scuttling condos in Vancouver while they get made like sausages in Calgary.
Fire-prone slum construction isn't the answer, that's true. Regulations tend to wander into catering to nimby sensibilities in the West, though. Or into trying to externalise costs the government really should bear, like I'm kind of suspecting with the non-market housing mentioned.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
So stop building. Stop growing.
Degrowth is the way.
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.
Build something cheaper.
If you read the article, these are tiny Vancouver apartments already. It sounds like going even smaller and shittier would be illegal currently, which is what's causing the problem.
Ahhh, so they're just charging outrageous prices for already cheap housing.
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next βΊ