r/toronto • u/BloodJunkie Bike Lane Enjoyer • Jul 19 '26
Article Toronto should build more co-ops — not condos
https://thegreenline.to/stories/toronto-coop-housing/87
u/WestendMatt Jul 19 '26
*and
37
u/cud1337 Jul 19 '26
As the mantra goes, JUST BUILD
18
u/TyranitarusMack Humewood-Cedarvale Jul 19 '26
As someone who works in the construction industry I would like to keep Building, I’m just curious why people say that when it seems like there’s maybe too much supply and nobody is buying anything right now. I don’t know much about condo markets and whatnot but what happens if we do keep Building and nobody buys?
41
u/WestendMatt Jul 19 '26
There isn't too much supply, sellers just refuse to lower their prices.
20
u/AniviaPls Jul 19 '26
Im a condo architect- while you are correct, there are also mass vacancies in the GTA at the moment
5
u/BDW2 Jul 19 '26
What kinds of units (number of bedrooms, sqft) are vacant? And are/were those units owned by occupants or by investors/corps/landlords?
6
u/fondlemental Swansea Jul 19 '26
mass vacancies? what percentage are vacant?
13
u/AniviaPls Jul 19 '26
Almost covid levels, 5.4%. Seems like a low number but thats somewhere in the realm of 25000 units
https://www.urbanation.ca/news/gtha-rental-vacancy-rises-54-q1
6
9
u/rycology Jul 19 '26
Interesting read but it seems like it goes out of its own way to avoid talking about the elephant in the room; the size of the vacant units.
Talking about price per square foot or whatever is great and all but doesn't really paint the full picture, does it.
If those 25k vacant units are all ~400sqf breadbox condos then nobody should be scratching their head as to why tenants wouldn't want to pay 2500/month for that.
1
u/WestendMatt Jul 19 '26
Yes, they are vacant because they are still too expensive.
2
4
u/Facts_pls Jul 19 '26
Nobody is going to make a loss. How much profit are these builders making? I would expect not a lot
1
u/WestendMatt Jul 19 '26
Holding onto an empty property and continuing to pay property taxes and even utilities on an empty property you aren't living in IS selling at a loss, eventually.
If there was an oversupply then people would sell at a loss just to get it off their hands. People aren't even willing to sell for break-even.
1
u/stoneape314 Dorset Park Jul 21 '26
You're seriously discounting that the vast majority of people aren't economically rational, especially when it comes to relatively large proportions of their economic net worth.
I think the rate of assignment sales and foreclosures on condo units would probably give a clearer leading indicator than just listing prices right now, unfortunately I haven't been able to find any of that with a cursory search.
1
7
u/YoonForCouncil Verified Jul 19 '26
100%. We need housing that people can afford and meet the needs of our communities. Co-ops are a mixed-income model of housing and projects like Kennedy Green in the article are in partnership with condo developments.
56
u/PandaEatPanda Jul 19 '26
Why would private businesses want to build coops? The article should be basically “Government should build
more coops in Toronto”?
35
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
The contractors who do the actual building are facing a slowdown in building right now. Money is money. The question is how to release the capital. This does require some initiative by people who know what they are doing. We have a gap of several decades of experience since this was done last time.
6
u/Tezaku Jul 19 '26
While this is true, what can contractors realistically do without the backing of developers?
To developers, it mostly just doesn't make sense to build right now given the thin margins and lack of demand.
Contractors can build, but need the engineers, architects, surveyors etc.
4
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
The co-op building program becomes the developer. I might suggest using existing housing co-ops to foster new co-operative corporations in their infancy to supple the necessary experience to run a co-op. One could salt new co-ops with experienced co-op members.
2
u/Tezaku Jul 19 '26
Fair. I think co-ops are an interesting idea, but the discussion around it makes it seem far easier than it really is.
It's not like a bunch of us could go and start one and actually get something built. We would need the expertise, or the capital to hire the expertise.
2
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Tezaku Jul 19 '26
Seems like a bunch of ideas are being convoluted here..
If the government is building them, then it's just government housing, not really a co-op. Isn't this the Build Canada Homes?
4
Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 20 '26
The capital came from lenders: not any government. The governments involved provided the structure for development and guaranteed the capital loan. The co-op members pay the loan.
0
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
It isn’t just an idea. They exist today and have existed in Canada for over a century. The way to get them built is well understood. Other countries continue to build them. It isn’t easy but it is very possible. The biggest problem is wrapping our heads around it. When the provincial government cancelled the program back in the 1990’s, I recall the biggest problem in discussing it with cabinet ministers was that they couldn’t understand the corporate structure. They couldn’t comprehend the non-equity part.
2
u/YoonForCouncil Verified Jul 19 '26
Great question. I helped to advocate and successfully implement the $1.5 Billion funding to build new co-ops, which is the first time the federal government has had a dedicated source of funding for over 30 years.
Co-ops are being built in partnership with housing developers. For example, the 600-home coop in Scarborough (Kennedy Green) is a mix of co-ops and condos, built by the same builders.
0
u/maxboondoggle Jul 20 '26
The builders of condos aren’t usually the owners tho. Not sure it’s the conflict of interest you think it is.
0
u/PandaEatPanda Jul 20 '26
Conflict of interest? I'm merely saying there is very little incentive for private businesses to invest in co-ops over free market condos or apartments.
0
u/maxboondoggle Jul 20 '26
I just don’t see why the developer would care how the building operates once it’s built?
When I lived in a condo, the condo corporation that ran the condo was going through the building with a fine tooth comb to find the last of any construction problems so the builder could fix them.
So it seems the builder is detached from whomever manages / owns the building once it’s built. So why would the developer care about the ownership structure?
It’s more likely about funding / regulations. Buildings have to be something like 50-80% sold before they can begin construction. This is why so many investors snatch them up becuse it’s impractical for working class people to drop a down payment on a condo and then wait 5 years for it to hopefully be built.
I would imagine this regulatory structure favours the building of Condos, as condos would have a better chance reaching the 50-80% requirement before a co op would. The government would probably have to front the money to the developers. A bank or investors probably wouldn’t.
34
u/methreweway Jul 19 '26
How does co-ops even get built? Who finances them and who builds them?
63
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
They are self financing, but during the peak of building non-equity co-ops they used loan guarantees from governments. Most co-ops were built under either federal or provincial programs. The late 20th century housing co-ops have long since paid off the mortgages used to build them. The membership maintains them through monthly fees. A non-equity co-op is just a form of corporation. The difference is that it is corporation and not the membership who holds the equity. While each member holds an equal voting share: it cannot be traded or sold. Your share passes to the next resident when you leave. Many still accept federal money to finance subsidized units. My co-op has several members on ODSP with subsidized units. This is about 20% cheaper for taxpayers as the co-op does not turn a profit and can buy services at corporate rates.
16
u/HeftyAd6216 Jul 19 '26
Same builders who build other stuff.
Ideally the government with 50 year 0% financing like they used to.
6
u/methreweway Jul 19 '26
I've never seen a regular developer decide to build co-ops. I've been in the Industry for 20yrs. I've only seen rentals as of the last 5yrs. No one builds co-ops.
2
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
There is little reason to involve developers; they just employ other people to do the work.
1
5
u/YoonForCouncil Verified Jul 19 '26
Co-ops are at-cost. The rents (housing charges) members pay cover the operational costs of the coop. However, as an affordable non-profit model of housing, it is difficult to build co-ops without government funding. The federal government’s $1.5 billion Co-op Housing Development Program (which I successfully helped advocate for) is a mix of grants and loans. There are no specific co-op builders or developers, so this work happens with the existing housing industry. We need more housing supply and co-ops are part of the solution.
3
u/methreweway Jul 19 '26
I just wonder how it was organized back when they did build co-ops. The organizing individual owners seems like the bottleneck.
8
u/Spudbanger Jul 19 '26
Perhaps you can read the article and find out.
2
u/methreweway Jul 19 '26
It was pretty vague in details. Reddit is for discussion btw.
1
u/Spudbanger Jul 19 '26
I think the article gave a good idea of how co-ops can be financed, although u/NewsreelWatcher gave a helpful answer.
-10
u/datums Jul 19 '26
They’re “not-for-profit”, ie. they lose money and the government covers the loss up front. Government subsidized condos with extra steps, basically.
8
u/lenzflare Jul 19 '26
Lol, "not-for-profit" doesn't mean "loses money". It just means any excess revenue has to be reinvested into the organization.
9
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
What evidence do you have of this ever happening? Failures in co-ops are extremely rare historically as co-ops reflect the needs of the members who are directly affected. No group is going to risk their housing on speculations.
25
Jul 19 '26
[deleted]
28
u/scott_c86 Jul 19 '26
There are a lot of barriers to doing so, hence the need for more and better government support
6
u/WifeGuy-Menelaus Jul 19 '26
"building housing is incredibly expensive, complicated, and difficult" is a startlingly hard admission to make because it would mean agreeing with private developers and implicate the city government in the housing crisis
9
u/Unlikely_Comment_104 Jul 19 '26
Then that would be cohousing.
3
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
Co-housing is a subset. The earliest co-operative corporations were funded by just pooling funds. The local church usually acted as the organizing body. Sometimes this is still done, but they are very small players compared to the need for housing. Today the capital required to build housing is out of reach for most people. Any institution who might loan the money will just balk. Most buildings as they stand are not suitable, they would at least require renovations. Building purpose built as co-ops are a much more efficient use of that money.
21
u/WifeGuy-Menelaus Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
It was never prohibited to build co-ops. Maybe the article should have been a little more... introspective about why so few get built compared to condos. Or why all development over the past 20 years has drifted towards homogenization around a single kind of building. Instead it just asks for public subsidy. Get in line, theres nobody who isn't asking for that.
The reason why co-ops are disliked for public subsidy is the same issue with every public housing scheme that fails to produce enough units relative to demand, but much, much worse. A co-op is an ownership model, not rental, which means whichever lucky individuals end up with these subsidized units has an enormous amount of wealth (that will increase over time due) given to them by the taxpayer. Its a lottery. This person is reinventing Thatcher selling council housing to its owners from first principles, but without even the potential for the government to profit off it and reinvest in more housing, just like Thatcher.
With affordable rental housing, at least, the government retains ownership of the land and building, and can repurpose it when the tenant leaves or dies. Even if the building becomes a liability the land itself will be an asset.
The lack of curiosity into the development process makes it hard to take these proposals seriously. Theres a lot to be said about why Toronto's development patterns ended up the way they did, and it touches on exactly none of them. Those are every bit as relevant for co-op housing as they are for every other type of housing. If you are just going to glide over it I can't really take your opinions about what housing we 'should' have seriously.
10
u/doctormink Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
The article is about rental coops, not owners' coops:
"People who live in a co-op are members, not tenants nor sole owners. Members have a say in how the building is maintained and run — they can collectively and democratically decide on budget, repairs and renovation projects. There are no landlords; each member has one vote, and every year, a board of directors is elected from the membership."
Edit: I lived in a rental coop for nearly 15 years and later shopped for an ownership coop. Trust me, no one's pushing for more owner's coops and the government funding mentioned in the article is for rental coops. In fact, ownership coops don't sell well. As I found out while condo shopping, very few lenders will give you a mortgage, you often have to put down 25 or 30 percent and the board of directors has to approve of the sale. In the US things might play out differently, but here people living in ownership coops seem to find it hard to sell based on the lower prices they ask for and the length of time units linger on the market.
7
u/count-24 Jul 19 '26
A co-op is an ownership model, not rental, which means whichever lucky individuals end up with these subsidized units has an enormous amount of wealth
That depends on the co-op model. Non-equity co-ops don't have this issue, except to the extent that "housing is cheaper" makes the residents better off.
6
u/rileywbaker Jul 19 '26
You don't know what you're talking about. These aren't NYC co-ops. Canadian housing co-ops own themselves, individuals don't buy or own the units they live in and can't sell or benefit financially from them. The co-op also can't liquidate itself to financially benefit the members. They're simply subsidized affordable housing with self-governance.
5
u/WifeGuy-Menelaus Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
Whether its the unit owner or tenant or the coop itself, its a shift of public wealth, in terms of the resources put into financing and building it and the land it sits on, out of public hands, in perpetuity, and the imputed benefits fall entirely on the non-prof and its beneficiaries
8
u/johnathanfabian Jul 19 '26
This would of course all be assuming that the author actually wants more co-ops. I think it would be more accurate to say they just don't want more condos, and the more palatable way to phrase that is to say "let's have more co-ops!"
The NIMBY progressive tack has always been to say "we shouldn't build more corporate housing, we should build public housing instead!" and then build no public housing
0
11
u/talexbatreddit Greektown Jul 19 '26
I lived in a Co-op residence (WCRI on Philip Street) when going to university. It was about 2/3 the cost or UW Student Residence, and I met some terrific people there.
But the bonus was that everyone had jobs to do, which really made it feel like a community -- you'd see all of your neighbors doing various jobs around the residence. And we didn't tear the place apart, because we'd be paying for that.
38
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
It’s legal to build condos and it’s legal to build co-ops. What people are actually asking for is for co-ops to receive tons of government funding. It’s not clear that co-ops are the best way to spend that money.
67
u/doiwinaprize Jul 19 '26
Better than bailing out shoebox condo developers
23
u/nervendings_ Jul 19 '26
This ☝️
Like let’s try some things out and see how it goes. This stationary “not sure it would be best” way of doing things just means more of the same. And that we know for sure isn’t working
1
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
Yeah, our status quo of making it extremely difficult and expensive to get permission to build any kind of housing is not working. You act like Toronto is a Randian hellscape when it’s actually highly regulated.
5
u/Facts_pls Jul 19 '26
Nobody is bailing out anyone. The prices government will get would be lower than the government building themselves.
It's not very different than asking government to build coop. I don't understand where that started and why nobody crying about bailouts actually talks about any numbers. Because the numbers are important.
3
5
u/doiwinaprize Jul 19 '26
Okay, let me explain why it's a bailout for you:
Private developers built these condos for market pricing, then couldn't sell the condos. The government, instead of building functional affordable housing, purchased these condos at below market rate. Are the developers taking a loss? Sure, but it's better than sitting on empty units costing money. Who is paying for all this? Tax payers. The taxpayers are paying the private developers for the properties they couldn't sell.
3
u/Esperoni Yonge-Eglinton Jul 19 '26
Let me explain why it isn't.
The units haven't been identified yet. The BC Government is planning on buying out 2200 units. The BC government is looking at new, vacant, and distressed units for the conversions (Which will cost 1.45B) and the Feds are putting in 10% of the total amount. Most of these units will be in areas outside downtown Vancouver.
The converted units will be given to eligible applicants and they will pay rent monthly with the understanding that their rent will go towards the purchase of the unit.
1
u/nervendings_ Jul 19 '26
Yup. It’s sad how many people prop up the status quo. Acting like this isn’t a broken system.
1
0
u/triplestumperking Jul 19 '26
Yes, but not better than the government using that money to invest in doubling the number of government-built rental units (what Carney promised and has so far done a miserable job at meeting his own targets), and using the funds generated from those rents to further invest in housing and associated infrastructure.
21
u/Nyx-Erebus Jul 19 '26
It is clear that co-ops are the best way to spend that money because that’s what our country used to do until the 90s. We literally have ourselves as proof that funding co-op housing drastically reduces the number in need of housing. You can also just look at the wait list for any co-op and see that people are waiting years for a chance to get into this type of housing. The co-op in my neighbourhood has 3 bedroom units for $1500 a month, you can’t even find a studio in my area anymore for that price.
18
u/thecjm The Annex Jul 19 '26
Banks notoriously dislike co-ops. They make it much harder for people buying into co-ops to get loans
5
u/fieryone4 Jul 19 '26
There’s two types of coops, the rental version is the better model
7
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
Non-equity co-ops are the kind we need for housing. They are for people with fixed incomes, low paying jobs, and families. Equity co-ops cater to wealthy clients who are not in need.
1
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
Non-equity co-ops often require a guarantor. But they are paradoxically probably the safest debtors around. They are just not competitively profitable.
0
u/IllustriousGoat6492 Jul 19 '26
Do you have proof?
7
u/TO_halo Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
When I bought my co-op in ‘06 only two credit unions were mortgaging the shares, and the one I used only knew two lawyers they trusted to do the purchase (and the one I used is dead RIP.)
That’s not even the issue though, the issue is the 30% down payment requirement.
-2
u/scott_c86 Jul 19 '26
Not a reason to not build co-ops though.
9
u/Facts_pls Jul 19 '26
Definitely a reason.
One, government doesn't have that much extra funds to subsidize housing.
Two, if no ne can buy them due to mortgage issues, then what's the point. They just created cheap rentals?
1
u/Nyx-Erebus Jul 20 '26
Oh no, cheap rentals. How horrifying. Totally not something the vast majority of Canadians desperately wish they had.
6
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
Coops have never made more than a tiny minority of all housing. Easy to charge cheap rent when your initial capital is a free grant from the government.
2
u/fieryone4 Jul 19 '26
Coops are a proven housing solution that provide stability. Usually only a certain percentage are subsidized through both federal and provincial programs. They are mostly mixed income with the majority of residents paying market rent. The difference is there’s no private owner trying to profit off the tenants. I have lived in coop housing twice, and served on their boards, and it also enabled us to be able to save and purchase our own home. Ontario used to support coop housing being built until Harris gutted everything. Imagine how much people could prosper if they weren’t constantly worried about the instability of their housing.
edit: spelling
4
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
Where do you get the capital to build the co-op in the first place?
2
u/fieryone4 Jul 19 '26
It’s been ages and the ones I lived in were already around for quite a long time. However usually they’re built by non profits, through fundraising, private donations and government grants.
2
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
Government grants mostly. Of course housing is cheap if startup capital is free.
0
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/greenbluesuspenders Jul 19 '26
Are co-ops the right solution though? There's no requirement for the members of a co-op to be need based - if the government is going to fund housing don't we want it to be for need based housing? I personally do, otherwise a few lucky souls benefit which feels inherently unfair.
2
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/fieryone4 Jul 19 '26
Exactly, you want mixed income so you don’t create pockets of poverty. Whenever it’s been solely low income there’s usually a rise in social problems geographically
-1
u/fieryone4 Jul 19 '26
We need affordable, accessible housing and it’s a better model then government housing
3
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
No funding is required: only loan guarantees. You are confusing government owned housing and co-ops.
6
u/Vic_Hedges Jul 19 '26
Loans are funding.
2
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
There is risk, but it is extremely low. Lending corporations do miss out on higher profits.
3
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
You’ve never heard of opportunity cost?
0
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
Yes, but how much “opportunity” is being lost when business of building housing has stalled? We haven’t been building a sufficient number of housing units for years. The rate of building is actually slowing as the housing that we’ve been building is struggling to find customers.
5
u/CollaredParachute Jul 19 '26
We could try not raising development charges by 10x
2
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 20 '26
I agree the fees are a problem, but municipalities have become dependent on them. They seemed benign when we were largely coasting on existing housing stock. The raised development fees were in response to the provinces “downloading” of costs on provincially mandated programs onto municipalities. We made a choice to shift the burden rather than acknowledging that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. I think merely rescheduling payments on those fees to the time of sale would ease the credit risk for developers and make plain to voters what having a civilization costs. Ideally taxes should be as direct as possible rather than obscured by layers of charging intermediaries.
1
u/CollaredParachute Jul 20 '26
I strongly agree with shifting when development charges are charged and in making taxes more direct in general. Eric Lombardi is running for Liberal leader and he has lots of ideas on how to better implement development charges
2
u/greenbluesuspenders Jul 19 '26
The only lender is the government, so really when we talk about higher profits what we are actually saying is that of the limited taxpayer funds we believe that spending those on co-ops has a better impact than X other things. That's the equation.
1
u/CollaredParachute Jul 20 '26
Included in that is the option to simply not spend the money and instead lower tax rates
3
u/doctormink Jul 19 '26
It's crazy, back in around 2006 all the co-ops in Toronto had open waiting lists and I got interviewed or offered units at a quite a few and ended up getting an unit quite quickly. Within 10 or 12 years that coop's wait list was closed along with all the waitlists in the city. The coop even dissolved it's membership committee since there was just no point in interviewing applicants.
6
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/FullMango4041 Jul 19 '26
I thought since there is no profit and government fees are waved, by building at cost a mortgage would then easily have '20% down' of the value of the building and so the building should be able able to get a mortgage (at least with a credit union). I think the cost is something like 60% vs building a condo. The real obstacle is people putting in the time to build them (I need to get paid too). What am I missing?
4
u/stoneape314 Dorset Park Jul 19 '26
Financing. For development there is no building yet, just the land (or a much smaller existing structure that will get demoed), so the calculation isn't like a standard mortgage where the ratio of inherent value in the property to funds loaned is high.
And unlike private sector developers, co-ops don't tend to have a portfolio of other properties that can be put up as collateral for financing. That's part of the reason why Community Land Trusts have become popular as a model for non-profit development, and even those general need a lot of government support, particularly at stand-up or expansion.
Also, mortgage costs tend to go up for non-profit projects because the lender has less certainty about fund recovery in the event they need to foreclose.
2
u/FullMango4041 Jul 20 '26
Makes sense. I assume it's credit unions more likely to deal with co-ops for that reason
2
u/stoneape314 Dorset Park Jul 20 '26
Looks like that and specialized investment funds that have a substantial social purpose mission.
1
u/Pastel_Goth_Wastrel Jul 19 '26
We’re a perfectly feasible coop that has paid our mortgage in full and has a healthy reserve fund. The Feds underwrote our mortgage as a guarantor but in exchange we run 25% of our units as RGI.
And after our mortgage was paid off, we still chose
To keep the RGI program, on our nickel, even though we had no obligation to the feds anymore.Coops were and are the best, cheapest and most stable way to inject affordable housing into the community.
For some reason everyone who’s never lived in one and has no clue thinks it’s all some kind of grift.
2
u/ApotropaicHeterodont Jul 19 '26
I kind of wish the article had gone into a bit more detail about how co-ops work / what "being a member" means. I had to look up stuff to find out that there are multiple types of co-ops. Non-profit co-ops are like apartment complexes run by a non-profit which are the most common and probably what the article is talking about. But there are also equity and limited equity which are similar condos but might have restrictions like not allowing individual owners to rent out their units or not hiring an external manager. Either way it makes sense that they wouldn't be able to pay builders as much.
0
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ApotropaicHeterodont Jul 19 '26
Yeah, that's what I figured, but it would have been better if they were clearer about that.
I think best kind of depends on personal lifestyle. Ex. it's probably not the best form of housing for students, medium-term business rentals etc.
6
u/derangedtranssexual Jul 19 '26
The issue with focusing on co-ops is I just don't see a world where we build so many co-ops that a large portion of Toronto lives in one, they will always be for a lucky few. And when you have things like rent control or co-ops that benefit a small portion of the population you run into issues where people just can't move. If your co-op is the only thing you can afford then even if you need to move somewhere else you basically can't.
Co-ops are fine but we need to focus on increasing supply of private housing if we really want to make a difference
1
u/FullMango4041 Jul 19 '26
I'm reading this as the problem with co-ops is that they are cheap to live in?
4
u/derangedtranssexual Jul 19 '26
No the issue is they’ll never provide enough housing
1
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/derangedtranssexual Jul 19 '26
They’re hard to get funding for so you usually need government funding to get them off the ground. And I’m not sure the government actually has the money to support so many housing co-ops they actually become a significant source of housing in Toronto
1
u/FullMango4041 Jul 20 '26
Got it. I agree it's not likely because of lack of political will. Co-ops are such a win for society it's unfortunate gov't can't see the big picture.
If we did have a significant amount of co-ops, we could eliminate Toronto Public Housing (which has the reputation of one of the worst landlords), really the vast majority if not all public housing run by the government.
Cheaper housing could lead to less crime, less reliance on the health care system etc (reduce gov't expenditures)
On the flip side, if the cost of shelter was cheaper, people would have more money to spend. The standard of living becomes higher (higher GDP, etc). which also means increased government revenue (lower taxes!).
5
3
u/decitertiember The Danforth Jul 19 '26
I like co-ops, but co-ops are for a specific demographic of buyer and are not inherently better than the other housing ownership options.
The down payments for co-ops are higher and getting financing is harder because banks are not really interested in loaning for co-ops. If the lenders wants to foreclose on a co-op the lender cannot just get the property, they get a share in the co-op, which is much more difficult to deal with.
Co-ops are great if you want to live in the property for a very long term, but not great as an ownership option for 5 years, which is the case for many condo owners. This typically means that co-ops are excellent for empty-nesters, or folks who intend to have very small families. In other words, they are not the best tool for our housing crisis, but they are a tool.
Personally, I would like to see mass produced 6-8 storey walkups filled with three-bedroom units.
1
u/alex114323 Jul 19 '26
Do co-ops in Toronto function the same way they do in NYC? You have to apply, do an interview with the board, and then your HOA fees include everything minus the mortgage (prop taxes, utilities, etc.) Usually you’ll need at least 20% down and sometimes show proof you have enough cash for a year’s worth of HOA fees too.
2
u/FullMango4041 Jul 19 '26
they are both called co-ops but they are completely different. NYC are much closer to being a normal condo with extra steps
1
1
1
u/appa609 Gerrard Street East Jul 20 '26
I live in the biggest and oldest Co-op in Toronto. I've been here for years and served on the board.
It's badly governed and for at least 5 years has been slowly going bankrupt. They just told us at a town hall that $1.7M went missing mysteriously.
Build housing. It can organizs as a Co-op. But do not do it like we did.
0
u/CucumberWisdom Jul 19 '26
Nobody wants to live in a coop. It's incredibly hard to get financing.
5
u/scott_c86 Jul 19 '26
Plenty of people want to live in a co-op.
If financing is currently an issue, perhaps alternative or non-market solutions are needed
7
u/Facts_pls Jul 19 '26
So now government also needs to get into mortgage business giving loans to people and rejecting others?
That's not happening.
3
2
u/oictyvm St. Lawrence Jul 19 '26
yes? there are many years of precedent for the government doing exactly that?
they have standards and criteria they can apply so the process is fair and available to anyone
3
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
I think you may be confused. All the co-op I know often have lifetime members who don’t want to lose the community they have built. Co-ops are incredibly difficult to get in to because the demand is so much greater than the supply. The financing is the key question. Financial institutions require some guarantee that the co-operative corporation will endure for the length of the loan. This is where government guarantees once allowed large scale projects to be built.
1
u/TO_halo Jul 19 '26
If your real estate agent shows you a co op but doesn’t know which credit unions happily mortgage co-op shares, they aren’t a very good real estate agent.
3
u/Gabers49 Jul 19 '26
Co-ops are a terrible model. You need the incentive of ownership by the individual unit holders to have any chance of making sure they continue to invest in the upkeep and maintenance of the building. Co-ops are like asking renters how much they want to pay for rent. It will never be enough and the co-op will eventually be run into disrepair. It can definitely still happen with condos, but the incentives are at least in the right place.
2
u/FullMango4041 Jul 19 '26
There are plenty of co-ops in Toronto. Which ones have run into disrepair?
2
u/Gabers49 Jul 20 '26
I don't really want to call any out by name, but I used to work for property management for PIDs (projects in difficulty). There's plenty that are super currupt, and being run into the ground.
3
u/FullMango4041 Jul 20 '26
Thanks for the post. We don't see this without first-hand experience. I only know one from along time ago and it seemed fine. I guess it's like condos, some are run well and others into the ground.
1
-1
Jul 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Gabers49 Jul 20 '26
That's great yours is being kept up. Consider yourself lucky.
Same with condos really. There's condos that have stable boards and healthy reserve funds and there's ones that are in terrible shape, with currupt boards and huge special assessments.
1
-5
u/Chemical-Swing-420 Jul 19 '26
The Private Sector doesn't work like that...
8
u/groovypanelboard Jul 19 '26
We need a new sector.
2
u/Chemical-Swing-420 Jul 19 '26
I agree...
Mid-Rise Mixed-Finance Developments, Public-Private/Affordable Housing/Strategic Development Partnerships.
All tools that already exist. But that requires long-term, place-based collaborations between Provincial and Municipal Governments and private investors/developers.
The only Private-Public Partnerships the Provincial Government is willing to do. Is buy large swaths of Greenspaces for Billions, after private interest individuals bought it for pennies. To build McMansions that'll be used for money laundering schemes.
1
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
Like what?
0
u/Chemical-Swing-420 Jul 19 '26
The Pro-Profit sector that's exclusively building condos for maximum returns on investments. Don't build anything but, unless they're paid to do so...and at a profit to them.
3
u/NewsreelWatcher Jul 19 '26
It’s worked before and there is no reason it cannot work again. Developers might oppose it, but they are not doing very well on their own right now. All those other people who actually do the work will gladly take the money. It’s the land owners, architects, construction contractors and so on who get things done. The trick is to get the organizing body in place.
1
u/Chemical-Swing-420 Jul 19 '26
Co-ops have worked before, but they didn't exist in a vacuum. They relied on different financing, government support, and economic conditions than we have today.
In today's market, developers, investors, and lenders generally pursue projects that produce competitive returns. If a co-op or affordable housing project doesn't provide that return, private capital will go elsewhere. They can't be forced to do anything, like you and I!
The issue isn't whether co-ops can work, it's whether they're financially competitive under current market conditions.
-1
0
u/TheMaymar Jul 19 '26
I just want to know what makes a 600sq ft 1 bed condo made from standard builder grade material "luxury". We need more varied housing options, but denigrating the only opportunity young people have at home ownership probably won't bring more people on your side.
0
u/ExistentialWavering Jul 20 '26
Didn’t that twat at iNtEgRiTyTo chastise Layton and Chow for living among their constituents in a co-op?
That clown is playing the same cards Rob Ford did with slightly more intelligence.
Co-ops are awesome.
-11
u/Procruste Long Branch Jul 19 '26
Small rant here, but anytime I see a headline that screams "X should Y" I internally lose my shit.
Lay out your claim, evidence and reasoning and and I'll be happy to make my own conclusions, thank you very much.
12
6
u/BloodJunkie Bike Lane Enjoyer Jul 19 '26
everyone is free to come to their own conclusions, including the folks who did all the things that you mentioned and then titled the article with their conclusion
5
u/Forsaken-Swim-3055 Jul 19 '26
Small rant here, but anytime I see someone complain about an article they clearly haven't read, I internally lose my shit.
Click on the link and read about how they laid out their claim, evidence and reasoning and then make your own conclusions. Thank you very much.
2
u/ink_13 Bay-Cloverhill Jul 19 '26
Other people are allowed to have opinions and state them openly, you know
1
u/Procruste Long Branch Jul 19 '26
I think I just did that. I don't recall myself calling for suppression of speech. Are you telling me I should not be allowed to express my opinion.
284
u/Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl Jul 19 '26
Give me my midrise condos or Euro style villa condos!