Last year, the GTHA recorded 29,671 new condo completions. This was some sort of a record. This year, condo completions are projected to total around 31,396 homes. Even higher. But then completions start to fall off, with 17,487 homes scheduled for completion in 2026. By 2029, this number is expected to be close to 1,000. So let's call it zero for argument's sake.
If we are to crudely assume that 50% of these new condominiums ultimately make it to the secondary condo rental market, then we are expecting nearly 16,000 condo rentals this year, just under 9,000 condo rentals in 2026, and ultimately no new condo rentals by around 2029 (or some number close to it).
Now let's consider the purpose-built rental side of the equation.
The 10-year average for purpose-built rental apartment starts in the GTHA is only 2,819 homes. This is a far cry from the volume of rental housing that we delivered in the 60s and 70s. Of course, with the new condominium market largely shut off, there's renewed interest in building purpose-built rentals.
In 2024, purpose-built rental apartment completions totalled 5,537 homes. And in the first half of this year, 3,156 homes reached the occupancy stage. Extrapolating out, I'm guessing that puts us somewhere around 6,000 new purpose-built rental apartment homes by the end of 2025.
If we pause and think about only 2025, we're on track to deliver roughly 37,000 new condo/rental apartments and ~22,000 new rental homes (again assuming 50% of the new condominiums become secondary rentals). I view this as our peak supply year for this cycle.
There's a lot of talk about a "record" number of purpose-built rental apartments now under construction, and while it is true that the numbers are elevated compared to the latest 10-year average, it is not a long-term record compared to the 60s and 70s and, more importantly, it is not enough to offset our dwindling new condominium supply.
Even if purpose-built rental completions spiked to 8,000 or even 10,000 new homes next year, we are still going to see a drop in new rentals and new housing overall in the GTHA. 2026 is the turning point year where new supply turns south. And it's going to keep going south until probably 2029, which is when I believe we will see supply bottom out.
Nothing in this post should be construed as investment or development advice, but here's the way I'm thinking about it:
2025: ~37,000 new condominium/apartment homes (peak supply year resulting from the pandemic boom)
2026: ~25,000 new homes (supply begins its decline)
2027: ~18,000 new homes
2028: ~10,000 to 13,000 new homes
2029: ~8,000 to 10,000 new homes (supply bottom)
I have no idea what will happen with interest rates, immigration, investor sentiment, and the countless other factors that impact a housing market, but even if things started to turn around next year, it would be mostly impossible to avoid the housing supply bottom that I believe we have coming in 2029. Buildings take a long time to build.
Conclusion: I think that 2026 will prove to be an excellent year to buy assets (land, unsold inventory, IPP, and so on), and that 2028 onward will be an excellent time to be delivering new homes. By then, we should be dramatically undersupplying the market. It doesn't feel that way today, but eventually the bill from our frozen development market will come due.
Cover photo by Adam Vradenburg on Unsplash
I recently started reading Marginal Revolution. This recent post, called "Illegal Immigrants Didn't Break the Housing Market; Bad Policy Did," covers many of the things that we talk about on this blog:
If “fixing” housing scarcity means blaming whichever group is politically convenient, you end up cycling through targets: illegal immigrants first, then legal immigrants (as Canada has done), then the children of immigrants, then wealthy buyers, then racial or religious minorities. Indeed, one wonders if the blame is the goal.
If you actually want to solve the problem of housing scarcity, stop the scapegoating and start supporting the disliked people who are actually working to reduce scarcity: the developers. Loosen zoning and cut the rules that choke what can be built. Redirect political energy away from trying to demolish imagined enemies and instead build, baby, build.
As a developer, I naturally chose the most self-serving excerpt to quote, but that doesn't mean that what Alex Tabarrok wrote is incorrect. Blame is, of course, the goal. Such is the reality of politics. Here's another excerpt, this one from one of Howard Mark's investing memos:
I've always gotten a kick out of oxymorons — phrases that are internally contradictory — such as "jumbo shrimp" and "common sense." I'll add "political reality" to the list. The world of politics has its own, altered reality, in which economic reality often seems not to impinge. No choices need to be made: candidates can promise it all. And there are no consequences. If something might have negative consequences in the real world, politicians seem to feel free to ignore them.
This is why immigrants are blamed, foreign buyers are banned, rent freezes are proposed (counterproductive), and we continue to do very little to actually fix traffic congestion in our cities, among an endless list of other things. The real solutions are simply too politically inconvenient; it's more advantageous to blame scapegoats.
Meanwhile, our problems persist.
I woke up this morning to an email from one of our partners with a link to this article talking about a three-storey, 10-unit housing project (plus garden suite) that was just refused by the Committee of Adjustment here in Toronto. It's five minutes from a major subway station. Why?
Because it's always easier to blame someone else.
Cover photo by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash
Yesterday morning, my dad sent me the above chart from Apollo and said, "frightening, do you have one for Canada?" In 2010, the median age (not mean) of all US homebuyers was 39 years old. Today, it is 59 years old. And it has jumped significantly since the start of the pandemic.
The obvious explanation, and long-term trend line, is that housing continues to become more expensive relative to incomes, so it is taking longer for people to save up and afford to buy.
But "first-time buyers waiting longer" can't be the only reason, because homeownership is typically a life-cycle behavior. If you're in your 60s and you still haven't made the decision to buy a home, the probability is low that you will then become a first-time buyer.
As of this month, the share of first-time homebuyers in the US dropped to a record low of 21% and the median age was 40. What this suggests is that the above chart must also be the result of a compositional change in buyers.
Wealthy older people must be buying vacation homes, retirement homes, and/or relocating (maybe for better weather and maybe for lower taxes). Combine this with fewer first-time buyers (and I'm sure some other factors), and you get the above chart.
So what about Canada?
I couldn't find an exact equivalent chart, but I did find this Bank of Canada note from 2022.
As of 2021, first-time buyers still accounted for roughly half of all home purchases in Canada. The rest were repeat buyers, and the smallest percentage were investors, which includes people buying a property as an investment or buying a property to live in while at the same time converting an existing residence into an investment property.
The median age for a first-time buyer was 36 years and the average age for all other buyers was 50 years. If we assume that this split is roughly 50/50, based on the above chart, then we get to an average homebuyer age somewhere around 43 years old. Intuitively, this seems at least directionally right.
(Note, this data is from 2021, which misses most of the pandemic period.)
Canada has a much higher percentage of first-time buyers driving the market. Canada does not have the same wealth inequality as the US. The 55+ age group in the US owns somewhere around 71% of all housing wealth and 69% of all stocks/equity funds.
And, Canadians tend to be less mobile than the US population within the country. Canada doesn't have warm, low-tax provinces attracting older rich people (though I would support us having one or two somehow).
In summary: You're right, dad, it is a frightening trend line.
Cover photo by Valeriia Neganova on Unsplash
