Urbanation just released its Q1-2025 condominium market survey results for the Greater Toronto & Hamilton Area (GTHA). Here's how things are looking:

The entire GTHA recorded 533 new condominium sales and the City of Toronto recorded 215 new condominium sales in the quarter. Once again, and as you can see above, this is the lowest level since the early 90s.

For all intents and purposes, I think you can look at these sales figures as mostly representing a zero. The numbers are relatively small and a sale doesn't necessarily equate 1:1 to an eventual new home. The sale needs to be within a project that achieves its requisite pre-sales for construction financing.

Since the beginning of 2024, Urbanation has tracked a total of 5,734 pre-construction condominiums that have been put on hold, cancelled, placed into receivership, or converted to purpose-built rental.

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with:

• 69,042 condominium homes under construction across the GTHA

• 10,934 unsold condominiums in pre-construction projects

• 11,073 unsold condominiums in projects under construction

• 1,911 unsold condominiums in completed projects (standing inventory)

One hypothetical could be that many/most of the projects currently in pre-construction never actually make it to construction, which would mean that the above 10,934 condominiums just disappear from the market. For argument's sake, let's assume this happens. That would leave projects under construction and standing inventory.

Of the condominium's currently under construction, 11,073 are unsold, which represents about 16% of the total. For the units that have sold, some will belong to end users, some will belong to investors who have an ability to close, and the rest will be buyers who, frankly, don't want to close or who can't close.

I don't know what this latter percentage might be, but let's say that 40% of the condominiums sold and under construction become a problem and need to be "reabsorbed" in the market. That is, they need to find new buyers. That would equal 23,187 condominiums (and hopefully I'm being very conservative). In this scenario we would have:

• 11,073 unsold condominiums in projects under construction

• 23,187 condominiums that become a problem and need to reabsorbed in the market

• 1,911 unsold condominiums in completed projects

• Total of 36,171 "unsold" condominiums

So, how long will it take to absorb these new homes? I don't know. It depends on a bunch of factors, including immigration. But I think we need at least 2 more years just to physically deliver the homes that are currently under construction. Then there may be a period of reabsorption. That continues to suggest to me that 2028 could be the year where we're on the other side of this.

Cover photo by Brian Jones on Unsplash

Urban sprawl is how much of the US provides new housing. And here's Conor Dougherty in the New York Times arguing that America needs more of it to fix its housing shortage:

Even if all the regulatory restraints were removed tomorrow, developers couldn’t find enough land to satisfy America’s housing needs inside established areas. Consequently, much of the nation’s housing growth has moved to states in the South and Southwest, where a surplus of open land and willingness to sprawl has turned the Sun Belt into a kind of national sponge that sops up housing demand from higher-cost cities. The largest metro areas there have about 20 percent of the nation’s population, but over the past five years they have built 42 percent of the nation’s new single-family homes, according to a recent report by Cullum Clark, an economist at the George W. Bush Institute, a research center in Dallas.

The obvious benefit is that the resulting housing tends to be cheap. The above article is filled with examples of people buying large homes for a few hundred thousand dollars in newly formed communities across Texas. And if you live in a high-cost city, the social algorithms have almost certainly found you at some point with a shockingly cheap house in one of these places. But, Dougherty also admits that sometimes this may be the only redeeming quality:

Escobar told me he moved to Princeton because he could find a big house there for less than $300,000, but now the city is home, and he didn’t like where it was headed. Over the next four years, he said, his goal is to redevelop the downtown, try to attract offices where locals can work and build out a park system that voters recently funded with a bond measure. “You ask anybody what they love about Princeton, and it’s simply just the affordability,” Escobar told me. “We need to be more than that.”

According to the article, this isn't necessarily a problem, because it's just how cities are built in this day and age. What you do is start with low-cost housing in fringe locations. You grow as quickly as possible until traffic becomes "godawful" and vital infrastructure can't keep up. Then you implement moratoriums on new housing, and start working on other uses like, you know, employment. Eventually, after all this chaos is complete, you end up with something that possibly resembles a real city.

Yeah, I don't know, this seems like a roundabout way of getting to where you want to go. Why not build and plan for something with a high quality of life right from the start?

Cover photo by Leon Hitchens on Unsplash