Real Estate

Canada's Richest Places 2016 - By Avg Net Worth

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 15th, 2016 5:58 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Member
Sep 1, 2013
403 posts
96 upvotes

Canada's Richest Places 2016 - By Avg Net Worth

I suspect a lot of it has to do with the real estate prices - as the list is overrun by the places in the GTA and GVA.

http://www.moneysense.ca/save/financial ... aces-2016/

Ranking with avg. household net worth:

1. West Vancouver (BC) - $3,510K
2. Canmore (AB) - $1,281K
3. North Vancouver (BC) - $1,274K
4. Oakville (ON) - $1,138K
5. Vaughan (ON) - $1,068K
6. Whitchurch-Stouffville (ON) - $1,026K
----------------------
7. Richmond Hill (ON) - $993K
8. Whistler (BC) - $989K
9. Markham (ON) - $981K
10. Aurora (ON) - $966K

Of note, West Vancouver has a population of only 45K people. Canmore has 14K people, Whistler has 11K, W-Stouffville has 44K, Aurora has 59K.

The top-10 list re-sorted by median household income:

1. Oakville (ON) - $108K
2. Whitchurch-Stouffville (ON) - $102K
----------------------
3. Vaughan (ON) - $98K
4. Aurora (ON) - $97K
5. North Vancouver (BC) - $96K
6. Richmond Hill (ON) - $92K
7. Markham (ON) - $89K
8. West Vancouver (BC) - $83K
9. Whistler (BC) - $81K
10. Canmore (AB) - $77K

Based on these two lists and the May 2016 home prices, Oakville and W-Stouffville/Aurora housing markets may have the strongest fundamentals going forward.
23 replies
Deal Addict
Jul 21, 2007
1223 posts
122 upvotes
Sure sure. The folks at Bridlepath would probably beat out any one else couple of times over.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 2, 2013
5532 posts
1416 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Also has to do with the people there. GVA economy sucks so the people you have there already have tons of money feel elsewhere, contributing to net worth. Versus some places in Alberta where incomes are high, but net worth low.
Consultant, Operator/Trucker
  • Oilfield & Industrial Services, Road Construction
  • Tax & Finance
  • In the Western Canadian Oilfield since 2013
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2009
5684 posts
3433 upvotes
Where's Toronto
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jul 30, 2007
29161 posts
14913 upvotes
Toronto
Digo wrote: Sure sure. The folks at Bridlepath would probably beat out any one else couple of times over.
ranking by cities, NOT by neighborhoods. I do agree. Median income would fall in the $500K+ at the conservative range.
Deal Addict
Jul 21, 2007
1223 posts
122 upvotes
booblehead wrote: ranking by cities, NOT by neighborhoods. I do agree. Median income would fall in the $500K+ at the conservative range.
I know it was ranked by cities, but I just thought it was amusing.
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
860 posts
287 upvotes
Even in Aurora or Oakville house prices are 10x times of average income
I don't know how it can be called strong fundamentals
Deal Fanatic
Nov 24, 2013
6214 posts
2963 upvotes
Kingston, ON
kashirin wrote: Even in Aurora or Oakville house prices are 10x times of average income
I don't know how it can be called strong fundamentals
People making average income or less just aren't buying houses in those markets.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 2, 2013
5532 posts
1416 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
kashirin wrote: Even in Aurora or Oakville house prices are 10x times of average income
I don't know how it can be called strong fundamentals
Vancouver region's average household income is 1/10 of the average home price. It's about the same in these desirable areas.
Consultant, Operator/Trucker
  • Oilfield & Industrial Services, Road Construction
  • Tax & Finance
  • In the Western Canadian Oilfield since 2013
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
860 posts
287 upvotes
Mike15 wrote: People making average income or less just aren't buying houses in those markets.
people making average income in those cities were buying houses in those cities 5-10-15-20 years ago and could afford it
they are owners. Percent of renters is very small in AUrora and Oakville

you won't find buyers anywhere with higher income in low income areas if even current owners with high incomes would never afford houses they live now at current prices

so basically fundamentals warrant at least 50% and possibly 70% price deflation in the future
and those are the strongest fundamentals in the GTA? good luck future investors
Banned
Dec 7, 2013
279 posts
283 upvotes
kashirin wrote: people making average income in those cities were buying houses in those cities 5-10-15-20 years ago and could afford it
they are owners. Percent of renters is very small in AUrora and Oakville
and they could afford buying those houses some time ago but not now

you won't find buyers anywhere with higher income in low income areas if even current owners with high incomes would never afford houses they live now at current prices
The people who make median incomes bought homes 5-10 years ago. In 2005, the average detached house only cost 350k in Aurora and Oakville.

The new homes that cost over a million are purchased by people who are moving up or by people who make way more than the median.

The demand is real, there is no shortage of people bidding these prices. A lot of people make way more money than the median.
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
860 posts
287 upvotes
shumami wrote: The people who make median incomes bought homes 5-10 years ago. In 2005, the average detached house only cost 350k in Aurora and Oakville.

The new homes that cost over a million are purchased by people who are moving up or by people who make way more than the median.

The demand is real, there is no shortage of people bidding these prices. A lot of people make way more money than the median.
where do they move up from?
who is buying from them? people with low income?

to buy 1 million dollar house you need at least 200 k income

less than 1% have this kind of income. I would not say it's a lot of people
and most of them already have nice house and don't want to move

demand maybe real but it's all speculation demand, fundamentals say prices should be half of what they now

you can rationalizes as much as you can. there is no value or any fundamentals at current prices
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 6, 2010
9309 posts
1355 upvotes
Montreal, QC
GiOBoY wrote: I agree, Toronto should be in there (because of Bridlepath)
If it's based on average household net worth, then Toronto's stats probably get skewed by all the lower priced apartments/condos. The more numbers/population, the more diluted the stats get.

If you separate it by enighborhoods, then yes Briddle Path is near the top:
Canada's Richest Neighborhoods 2015
Banned
Dec 7, 2013
279 posts
283 upvotes
kashirin wrote: where do they move up from?
who is buying from them? people with low income?

to buy 1 million dollar house you need at least 200 k income

less than 1% have this kind of income. I would not say it's a lot of people
and most of them already have nice house and don't want to move

demand maybe real but it's all speculation demand, fundamentals say prices should be half of what they now

you can rationalizes as much as you can. there is no value or any fundamentals at current prices
You don't seem to understand how buying RE works. It is mostly based on the snowball effect.

Let's say a couple makes 80k together in 2005 and bought a house for $350k with 20% down in Aurora.
This couple now has a mortgage of $280k which they have had 10 years to pay off, so they now owe around $100k left on their mortage.
That house is now worth 1 million dollars *doctor evil pinky* in 2016.
They can now sell this house for 1 million dollars, carry another say $500k and buy a $1.4 million dollar house and reset term to 25 years.
This means they put down almost 72% for the house and carry around 28% mortgage.

The only time this house is unaffordable, is to first time buyers without enough equity. I own my house outright. It is worth around 750k. I can go out and buy that million dollar house and only have a $250k mortgage.
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
860 posts
287 upvotes
shumami wrote: You don't seem to understand how buying RE works. It is mostly based on the snowball effect.

Let's say a couple makes 80k together in 2005 and bought a house for $350k with 20% down in Aurora.
This couple now has a mortgage of $280k which they have had 10 years to pay off, so they now owe around $100k left on their mortage.
That house is now worth 1 million dollars *doctor evil pinky* in 2016.
They can now sell this house for 1 million dollars, carry another say $500k and buy a $1.4 million dollar house and reset term to 25 years.
This means they put down almost 72% for the house and carry around 28% mortgage.

The only time this house is unaffordable, is to first time buyers without enough equity. I own my house outright. It is worth around 750k. I can go out and buy that million dollar house and only have a $250k mortgage.
who is buying their 1 million dollar house when they move up?
people with low income?

and moving from 1 million to 1.4 million will cost at least 120k in real money - realtor fees, land transfer fee etc.
and most likely it will severely change their lifestyle into downside
and I'm not sure they will get something that really worth so much trouble
and that's what most market observers say - people just stopped moving up
Banned
Dec 7, 2013
279 posts
283 upvotes
kashirin wrote: who is buying their 1 million dollar house when they move up?
people with low income?

and moving from 1 million to 1.4 million will cost at least 120k in real money - realtor fees, land transfer fee etc.
and most likely it will severely change their lifestyle into downside
and I'm not sure they will get something that really worth so much trouble
and that's what most market observers say - people just stopped moving up
Young people without RE equity buy 350k condos. Those who owned the 350k condos now buy 600k townhomes. The guys who had the 600k townhouse now buy a 800k semi. The guy who owns the 800k semi buys the 1 million detached.

We can go back and forth all you want. The reality of things is that this market may be crazy, but it is self sustaining in debt.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2009
5684 posts
3433 upvotes
Kind of like a pyramid scheme ? We all know how those end up ;)
Sr. Member
Jan 30, 2006
860 posts
287 upvotes
shumami wrote: Young people without RE equity buy 350k condos. Those who owned the 350k condos now buy 600k townhomes. The guys who had the 600k townhouse now buy a 800k semi. The guy who owns the 800k semi buys the 1 million detached.

We can go back and forth all you want. The reality of things is that this market may be crazy, but it is self sustaining in debt.
unfortunately this scheme you describe doesn't work at current prices
Banned
Dec 7, 2013
279 posts
283 upvotes
kashirin wrote: unfortunately this scheme you describe doesn't work at current prices
It only does not work for those who don't have equity. It works perfectly fine for everyone else who has property. There is absolutely a limit to what you can do, because there are only so many years you can extend the mortgages.
fdl wrote: Kind of like a pyramid scheme ? We all know how those end up ;)
This is how it works in every country in the world. No one is going to come out from College or HS and get a detached house in a great area. I don't think that is feasible in all major cities in the world.

What you call a pyramid scheme is simply climbing the property ladder. You are free to stop at any point, you only climb as high as you can possibly do so.


Regardless, Im going to stop debating this. You two can believe anything you want. I like living in my own house, if you two like renting then that is your choice. I just think it's unreasonably to think that prices will ever go to a point where anyone working a management job at a McDonalds can afford a detached in Toronto.

Top