Unlike the housing market crash in the USA, in Canada the average home price is reaching record highs, or is already there depending upon how you measure it and adjust for inflation. Market watchers are starting to cry “bubble!” They are predicting a burst, or at least a noticeable slow down soon. (Good article in the Globe and Mail on who is saying what, and why.) They may be right — or not.
However, here I offer the theory that maybe the steady increase in house prices isn’t a bubble, but a response to shifting urban trends. The demand for homes (whether condo, townhouse or single family) close to the urban core continues to grow, while supply cannot keep pace. The result is rising prices.
Increasingly, individuals and families want to live in close proximity to jobs, as well as urban amenities. There is a limited supply of housing in such places, and thus prices go up.
When analysts speak of record high prices, they are typically talking aggregate values, nationally. What I want to see are prices broken down by proximity to urban core. Home price increases may be uneven geographically with the rapid increase of metro core homes masking declining or stable values in suburban places and smaller towns.In the Metro Vancouver area, for example, homes actually in Vancouver, near or in the dense urban core — with proximity to a wide variety of urban amenities from restaurants to theatre, the ocean and transit — have continued to increase in price throughout the recession. But in the more distant, automobile-centred suburban areas, this is not the case.
In the GTA, I’m hearing a similar phenomenon. Home values in Rosedale or Forest Hill continue to rise; demand for downtown Condos has not been satiated. But what about the distant suburbs?
Does anyone have some good, local level numbers?
Other comments on my theory that it’s the rising sale prices of houses in certain places driving up the national average?
