I was at a good friend’s wedding last night (congratulations again to Adrien + Rachel!), and one of the topics that came up at our table was whether it is better to own or rent your home. Now, in North America, conventional wisdom would suggest – almost mandate – that you have to own your place. If you’re still a renter, well then you’re “throwing away your money” my friend.

But are you really? 

A big part of the value of owning your home is that it’s forced savings. Every month when you make those principal and interest payments, you’re paying down your mortgage and socking away money for the future. And this can be a great thing for a lot of people, particularly if you’re not disciplined enough to save otherwise.

But when you own a home, you’re also spending time and money on maintaining that home, and you’re also tying up capital that could be used elsewhere. So consider this: what if, instead of putting your savings towards a downpayment, you simply continued to rent and created an investment portfolio that you then contributed to on a regular basis just as you would a home?

Depending on your assumptions, renting could turn out to put you further ahead financially. Here’s an example of that scenario from the Globe and Mail.

Similarly, I remember being told in business school that companies that own their own real estate tend to under perform those that do not. And the rationale is that owning lots of real estate ties up capital that could otherwise be reinvested in the core business. In other words, if your core business is making widgets, then invest your money in making better widgets, not in real estate.

But this is not to say that everybody should rent. Obviously I’m a big believer in real estate. And for a lot of people, owning may make sense. This post was really just to say that the owning vs. renting decision may not be as black and white as you might think.

Image: Flickr

Last week a friend of mine sent me a really fascinating article from The Economist talking about the role of foreign investors in Vancouver’s housing market. If you subscribe to The Economist, you can click here to read the article. If you don’t subscribe, you’ll have to rely solely on what I’m about to say.

In case you weren’t aware, Vancouver is an incredibly expensive city when it comes to real estate. The average price for a single-family detached house is now around C$1 million. By some measures, that makes it the most expensive housing market in North America. Here’s a chart that looks at house prices as they relate to household income:

According to The Economist, the median household income in Vancouver is $68,970. This places them 23rd out of 28 in terms of Canada’s major cities. So how is it that homes are, on average, selling for $1 million? The locals don’t seem to be able to afford them.

Well, it’s a well known fact that Chinese buyers continue to be an integral part of Vancouver’s housing market. In fact, up until this year, Canada offered a fast track option for citizenship applications if you brought at least $800,000 into the country.

So we know that foreign buyers are having an impact. It’s a phenomenon we’re seeing in many other cities around the world,

Toronto Life recently published an interesting article called Stuck in Condoland. A lot of people have mentioned it to me, so there seems to be a lot of interest in the topic. It basically profiles the lives of a few young families who live downtown and are trying to raise young children in relatively small condos (think 700 square feet).

I thought it was interesting because I like the idea of small and efficient living. The average post-war bungalow in Toronto was probably less than 1,000 square feet. And so this modern notion that you need a big house in order to properly raise a family is a relatively recent phenomenon. Although we’re a richer city today and that’s what happens when people become wealthier: they consume more.

But the article also makes it seem that developers only want to build small condos and that larger condos and single-family homes just aren’t profitable enough. Thus the reason all these families are being forced to into tiny shoeboxes in the sky. But that’s not really true.

Look, just like every other for-profit business on the planet, developers are concerned with making money. And so they will always look for ways to increase efficiency, drive down costs, and so on. But there are certain realities of the market that developers don’t have control over.

First, developers aren’t building new single family homes in the city (at any sort of meaningful scale) because there’s no land to do so. And because the land use policies in place and the current thinking around how we can more sustainably build our cities for the future dictate that we should be building more intensely. In other words, building up. So it’s not a question of developers not wanting to build single family homes; it’s a question of not being able to.