Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The number of vacant homes in the US is about 12.2% of the housing stock, which is a reasonably believable number.
On the other hand, in Canadian cities, even in the “poor” areas, abandoned homes seem to be very uncommon, and I would have expected this to be reflected in official numbers. However, when I looked at the Canadian Census, I was surprised.
Total private dwellings: 15,412,443
Private dwellings occupied by usual residents: 14,072,079
It seems that there are about 1,340,364 unoccupied homes in Canada, or about 8.7% of the total housing stock. While this is below the US number of 12.2%, it is not that much less. I would have expected the difference to be much greater. Does anybody have an explanation for this?
(Just to clarify, it seems that the US Census designation of “occupied housing unit” is the same as the Canadian designation of “dwellings occupied by usual residents”, the US census glossary defines “occupied housing unit" as “A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or group of people living in it at the time of enumeration”)
It seems that there are about 1,340,364 unoccupied homes in Canada, or about 8.7% of the total housing stock. While this is below the US number of 12.2%, it is not that much less. I would have expected the difference to be much greater. Does anybody have an explanation for this?
(Just to clarify, it seems that the US Census designation of “occupied housing unit” is the same as the Canadian designation of “dwellings occupied by usual residents”, the US census glossary defines “occupied housing unit" as “A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or group of people living in it at the time of enumeration”)
I'm guessing some part of the explanation for unoccupied homes in Canada may be because of snowbirds, international investors, summer or winter vacation homes that are owned and temporarily occupied by Canadians or citizens of other countries for only 6 or less months of the year and are not the usual place of residence at the time of enumeration.
I'm guessing some part of the explanation for unoccupied homes in Canada may be because of snowbirds, international investors, summer or winter vacation homes that are owned and temporarily occupied by Canadians or citizens of other countries for only 6 or less months of the year and are not the usual place of residence at the time of enumeration.
.
I have no doubt at all that many of the "empty" US homes are also frequently unoccupied vacation homes and vacation rentals, not abandoned. Not saying there are not abandoned buildings in some areas, not at all, but although there are many, many vacation homes and rentals in coastal Southern California, the percentage of empty, abandoned homes is probably near 0%.
Usually, there are a lot of older, poor people who can't move and the homes eventually go into long-term foreclosure and disrepair. Some of the abandoned properties become nests for drug users, and no wants to move there. Baltimore has long been known for that.
Another sector in Canada that MIGHT contribute....
Summer cottages in the winter, northern lakeside fly in fishing lodges that are uninhabited in winter. Summer kids camps, closed in winter. Small northern towns that used to have industries that moved out, leaving dozens of empty " company owned " houses . Abandoned villages in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the people moved to bigger more convenient towns.
Towns in Manitoba, Saskatchewan , and Alberta, where the elderly have sold up and moved to a bigger place with better health care and social services. Their house might still be there but its not occupied because the local rural economy is depressed. Younger families are unlikely to buy those houses.
Here in Toronto, a vacant house is super rare. Even run down ones that were built in the late 1880's are being bought to be gutted and renovated, or the building is torn down and a new house is built on the lot.
A recent development is to buy churches that have a small congregation who want to sell it. The building will be converted into small apartment units by a developer. This increases the cities population without an increase in the number of actual buildings.
I believe the main point, that some posters here are basically saying, is that unoccupied does not equal abandoned. It may just mean that the home is for sale or rent, or someone's vacation home, but is still being maintained, so the numbers for unoccupied homes are not necessarily reflective of the number of abandoned and boarded up structures.
It still begs the question however, why unoccupied homes in the US are more likely to be abandoned and boarded up whereas in Canada they are much less likely. After doing some more research, I think the best explanation is that because of lower lending standards, especially before the financial crisis, homes in the US are much more likely to be foreclosed on. Once the house is in foreclosure, it is in a sort of "limbo" state where it may not be maintained by the owner or the bank, and will eventually deteriorate beyond repair, as foreclosure can be a long, drawn-out process.
Here is a paper from the Cleveland Fed that talks about the difference between lending standards in the US and Canada, and the effect on foreclosure rates.
Another sector in Canada that MIGHT contribute....
Summer cottages in the winter, northern lakeside fly in fishing lodges that are uninhabited in winter. Summer kids camps, closed in winter. Small northern towns that used to have industries that moved out, leaving dozens of empty " company owned " houses . Abandoned villages in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the people moved to bigger more convenient towns.
Towns in Manitoba, Saskatchewan , and Alberta, where the elderly have sold up and moved to a bigger place with better health care and social services. Their house might still be there but its not occupied because the local rural economy is depressed. Younger families are unlikely to buy those houses.
Here in Toronto, a vacant house is super rare. Even run down ones that were built in the late 1880's are being bought to be gutted and renovated, or the building is torn down and a new house is built on the lot.
A recent development is to buy churches that have a small congregation who want to sell it. The building will be converted into small apartment units by a developer. This increases the cities population without an increase in the number of actual buildings.
Aside from a mining town like Flin Flon, I'm not aware of a depressed rural economy. We've always had a pretty stable economy - no booms, no busts. Certainly no one in my area is forced to abandon their home to move for better health care. Even small towns like Morden/Winkler have an MRI machine.
Some years ago my RCMP brother was posted in a town near the Sask/Man border and looking to buy a place. I would have thought it qualified for "the middle of nowhere" but he said places were hard to find and expensive.
Young people are staying and city people are moving here to raise their families. I'm not aware of any abandoned homes anywhere near my area. There has also been a lot of immigration over the past years and many of those people are staying put, not moving to the city. The population is growing, new houses are being built, new businesses springing up and I've heard nothing about a stagnant economy here.
Rural agriculture land prices keep increasing. That has been true of Saskatchewan as well.
The United States has more urban blight, and historically had more rural settlement than Canada. The U.S. was the second industrialized country, and now it is the largest post-industrial economy. Even so, I think you are very naive if you think that Canada lacks a 'rust belt.' Southern Ontario and rural Canada have a lot of blight that mirrors some of the post-industrial areas of the United States that you identified. The United Kingdom and France do as well.
The United States has more urban blight, and historically had more rural settlement than Canada. The U.S. was the second industrialized country, and now it is the largest post-industrial economy. Even so, I think you are very naive if you think that Canada lacks a 'rust belt.' Southern Ontario and rural Canada have a lot of blight that mirrors some of the post-industrial areas of the United States that you identified. The United Kingdom and France do as well.
Actually, I think the "Canadian Rust Belt" of Southern Ontario is one of the best examples of my point. The cities of Windsor, Chatham, and Sarnia are not littered with thousands of boarded up homes and empty lots from demolished homes. They look nothing like Detroit, Youngstown OH, or the rest of the American Rust Belt.
Furthermore, the phenomenon I was describing is not limited to the Rust Belt, although it is certainly more pervasive there. One can find neighborhoods filled with abandoned homes in most of the eastern half of the US. I brought examples from Birmingham AL, and Kansas City MO, and I could have just as easily found plenty of neighborhoods with the same level of blight in Jackson MS, Port Arthur TX, Macon GA, or any number of other cities that are not part of the Rust Belt. That was why I was looking for an explanation for the difference between the US and Canada as a whole.
One observation though, is that this phenomenon seems to be absent in the Western US, specifically California, Oregon, and Washington. Even "poor" cities such as San Bernardino CA (median household income $41,027) and Yakima WA (median household income $42,092), although they definitely may have rough patches, are missing the blight of abandoned homes found in other US cities. Maybe this is because of higher property values?
Last edited by disluckyperson; 02-21-2019 at 07:54 AM..
Actually, I think the "Canadian Rust Belt" of Southern Ontario is one of the best examples of my point. The cities of Windsor, Chatham, and Sarnia are not littered with thousands of boarded up homes and empty lots from demolished homes. They look nothing like Detroit, Youngstown OH, or the rest of the American Rust Belt.
Furthermore, the phenomenon I was describing is not limited to the Rust Belt, although it is certainly more pervasive there. One can find neighborhoods filled with abandoned homes in most of the eastern half of the US. I brought examples from Birmingham AL, and Kansas City MO, and I could have just as easily found plenty of neighborhoods with the same level of blight in Jackson MS, Port Arthur TX, Macon GA, or any number of other cities that are not part of the Rust Belt. That was why I was looking for an explanation for the difference between the US and Canada as a whole.
One observation though, is that this phenomenon seems to be absent in the Western US, specifically California, Oregon, and Washington. Even "poor" cities such as San Bernardino CA (median household income $41,027) and Yakima WA (median household income $42,092), although they definitely may have rough patches, are missing the blight of abandoned homes found in other US cities. Maybe this is because of higher property values?
You are missing the role that race can play in all of this in the U.S. context. Read up on "white flight."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
