this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2025
136 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

9386 readers
1175 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I just looked at a breakdown from precondo.ca and land cost in Toronto is about a third of the per sqft building cost. Profit margins are 12-20%. That doesn't sound insignificant. Also whether the building is for-profit or not-for-profit affects the hard costs. A for-profit building might opt for more glass and flashier "luxury" materials whereas a not-for-profit could keep it down to functional materials.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Condo builds are risky, a 12% profit margin is for a successful project, plenty of projects and developers fail and go bankrupt. I bet you the average return for every attempted project is much lower, but that's not being calculated into that number. A non-profit can still fuck things up and lose money, even (and maybe especially) the government.

The land costs for a condo should be nothing they use almost no base land per person, but even in this case it's still a third of the price. Condo land prices should be a smaller part of an apartment, that's literally the best case scenario for land use per person and why we build giant sky scrapers in the first place. Unfortunately they're also not optimal outside of city cores, and most families don't even want to live in one.

Now go look up the land price vs house price for a 4 bedroom home in the immediate suburbs of a large city.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27750787/236-w-12th-avenue-vancouver https://www.bcassessment.ca/Property/Info/QTAwMDAwMVJYQw==

3.5 million dollars, Assessed at 3 million, and land value assessed at 2.8 of that 3 million. Even if you bought that property and build a new detached house on it from scratch for 1 million dollars, it would still be 75% land costs.

How about further out, somewhere in a random Richmond neighborhood.

https://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDA1WE1UVg== https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/27926782/5280-cranbrook-avenue-richmond

This property is being advertised as basically a single lot for a single home rebuild and it's 2 million dollars. A million dollar home build on it would give you a 66% land cost.

You're absolutely right that a non-profit may build slightly cheaper buildings, but again, it's not going to be a lot.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The bankruptcy risk does not exist for the federal government. So a government funded non-profit development project that's built by the same construction company (charging the same money) that a for-profit investor would hire, would save that 12-20% for that project straight up.

Yes for single family homes the calculus you describe makes sense.

But we aren't building ourselves out of this shit show with single family homes. I think most recognize that given the push for rezoning. So in my mind, looking at multistorey buildings is the only interesting scenario. And I think my argument that there's savings in the elimination of the profit and the "luxury" factors is reasonable.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

It wouldn't save 12-20%, in a situation where the development "fails" it just means that the costs far exceed the revenue and it becomes a tax burden on the public. Just because no bankruptcy is declared doesn't mean there aren't negative consequences for stakeholders.