Listen to “What Can We Do to Get More Housing in Toronto?” on Spreaker.
Guest Speaker: Murtaza Haider
Associate Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University in Toronto , Director of consulting firm, Regionomics Inc. and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post.
- What the Toronto market can learn from other cities around the world with respect to housing
- Are our city officials are doing enough to increase the housing supply through permits and innovative thinking like condos in houses & laneway housing?
- Is the city doing enough to ensure our infrastructure can keep up with the pace of condo development in the 416 with respect to transit & sewers?
- Murtaza’s advice for first-time home buyers
- Purchasing now before prices get too high vs. waiting for reprieve in the market
- How that will ease the housing supply in Toronto
- Should developers be able to build taller buildings in order to meet the housing demands we face in Toronto?
- What city officials should be doing to build better transit for people making decisions based on transit infrastructure
- Where the transit should go
Davelle: Welcome to the Morrison Report. I wanted to create a podcast that would give people insights into the Toronto real estate market. You can follow me on Twitter @DavelleMorrison, and on Instagram as davellemorrison. And you can like my business page on Facebook.
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Today we have with us Murtaza Haider. He’s the associate professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University, in Toronto. He’s also the director of consulting firm Regionomics Inc., and a regular contributor to the Huffington Post. Welcome, Murtaza.
Murtaza: Thank you.
Davelle: Thank you so much for joining us.
Murtaza: Pleasure. Thank you.
Davelle: Awesome. Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your background, and what you do?
Murtaza: Sure. I am an academic, and I teach at Ryerson University’s business program. I’ve been researching real estate markets since the mid-90s. I wrote a Master’s and a Ph.D. dissertation on housing prices and housing growth forecasting models. Became a professor of land development and infrastructure at McGill University after my degree was done at the University of Toronto. And then came back to Toronto from McGill in mid-2006 – around that time – and started teaching real estate economics at Ryerson University. I usually do research in housing markets. Real estate markets. And also I’m a demand forecaster. I do studies on transportation.
Davelle: Awesome. Wow. You sound really smart. I know we’re going to-
Murtaza: I think people believe that, but that’s not the truth.
Davelle: We’re going to learn a lot from you today.
Can you tell us – I guess sort of an overview – what do you think about the Toronto real estate market? And what do you think we can learn from other cities around the world, with respect to housing?
Murtaza: Well, the housing market in Toronto is a very robust market. And it is surprising to me to see people complaining about the market as it grows. I think they haven’t experienced a decline in housing prices and sales since – I think – 1989. 1990. So most of those who may be not very pleased with the rapid rise in prices may have forgotten the lessons they learned in the early 90s or late 80s. It’s a robust market. It’s growing, maybe, faster than most people would like it to grow. But it’s a growing market, and that’s a good thing.
What can we learn from cities like Toronto? And I say “cities like Toronto” – these are the cities that are actually global cities. They are not being desired just by those that live there, but there’s a global demand for – or a global desire to live in – those cities. So you can compare Toronto to London. And New York City. Or Sydney. And the thing that you will learn about these cities is that they generate their demand for real estate not just by those who live there – or those who live in the country – but there’s a global desire to live there. And hence, you see buyers not just from the city, but also from around the globe, investing in real estate. What we can see about this – what Toronto should know – is that it will continue to be a very desirable place. And that its prices may continue to grow – and not grow at the rate it’s growing at now for a long term – but the prices will continue to grow. Because, just like London, and just like New York City, Toronto is a very desirable place to live.
Davelle: Yeah. It is. I mean, I certainly love it. And I know when I travel around to other cities, I can certainly recognize why I love Toronto, and why I think it’s a great place to be.
So, you kind of highlighted about the fact that our market has been in demand, and we’ve seen growth for so many years. When do you think that growth might end? That’s always sort of the million-dollar question. Everybody thinks, “When is that correction going to happen?” Because we have seen so much of an increase for so long. Economically speaking, we know that all markets are cyclical. So, when does the cycle change for Toronto, do you think?
Murtaza: Well, first thing is, if I could predict that, I wouldn’t be just sitting here. I’ll be in a lot better place somewhere doing a lot more trading and forecasting. It’s difficult to forecast, especially into the future.
Murtaza: When will it change? Nobody knows. There are reasons to believe it will continue to grow, both in terms of sales and in prices. But at a slower rate. Not the same 20% a year on year increase. I have read – and I have heard on television – over the past ten years, many pundits who have come and said, “Next year it’s going to flop.” And they’ve been proven consistently wrong. But that has not deterred the naysayers from making erroneous forecasts about Toronto’s housing market.
The reason for its growth – of sustained growth – are, A, demographic. There’s a greater demand. The city continues to grow. Toronto as a city grows by about four and a half percent. The overall Toronto region grows by six percent. And even though I see growth slowing down in the nine-to-five regions – the demographic group – but there’s enough growth to sustain both an increase in the number of sales, year over year, and increase in prices. When will that change? I think the biggest shift will be seen when you have a significant change in interest rates.
When the market’s rates hit five percent – or seven percent – then this kind of growth in prices and sales that we see now … You will see that slowing down or even reversing in direction. But when you have market’s rates sitting around two – two and a half – percent, then the economy gives clear signals to the agents to borrow money. Because it makes sense to borrow money at such low rates. And until that demographic shift changes, and this market price signals change – that is, interest rates increase considerably … Until that happens, I don’t see or expect a big shift in the way Toronto’s residential real estate market is evolving.
Davelle: Got it. That makes sense.
Do you think our city officials are doing enough to increase the housing supply with respect to permits? And innovative thinking, like condos and houses? Or laneway housing?
Murtaza: My fear is that … Well, you talk about city officials. It’s not a generic thing. It’s not an homogenous product. You have those who are responsible for economic development. And then there’s those who are responsible for urban planning. So, if I were to look at those who are responsible for economic planning or budgeting of the city, they should be pleased with the growth in housing prices. Because the revenue the city earns comes from, primarily, property taxes and land transfer taxes. If the increase in property prices slows down – or even reverses – it would hurt the city’s revenue. So those officials responsible for the dollars and cents of the city … I wouldn’t expect them to be complaining about the increase in housing prices. They would be very concerned about the alternative scenario, when this growth starts to slow down. And the city’s revenue would suffer from it.
The other set of officials are the urban planning staff that is responsible for the urban design, and look and feel of the city. And they’re also responsible for clearing the application for new development. I think that group, perhaps, needs some help. They may be in denial of understanding how the real estate markets work, judging by some of the tweets of some of the people that work there. They’ve been arguing that there has not been, first, a shortage of supply of new housing in the city. Then I learned from the tweets that, in fact, if you build more housing, that wouldn’t have any impact on prices. So there’s a fundamental lack of understanding of how the real estate markets and how the urban economics work. And until that education happens with those responsible for the planning process, they may not even see this as a problem. Because their tweets certainly are not mindful of how the real estate markets in reality function. They actually don’t understand the relationship between demand and supply.
If you were to argue that if you build new homes, rich people will buy it, and it would not affect the affordability of housing, that’s shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how the filtering mechanism in housing markets work. Even when you build higher price homes, it creates a chain of trade that start from the top and go all the way to the down. Creating more supply of housing at all levels of prices. Not just at the very top. And that’s why it’s called the “filtering model”. And [inaudible 00:09:23] unless you have staff that actually understands this, and they have taken a course, or have practiced urban economics – or real estate economics – that realization would not happen. Because denying that supply is not contributing to price inflation, or not understanding what role supply – housing supply – or construction of new housing plays in promoting affordability. That, and lack of understanding, is detrimental for the growth of the city.
Davelle: I would definitely agree. Absolutely. Yeah. I would agree 100%. Because I certainly see there is an issue with the supply – obviously – when the prices keep going so high. Because there isn’t enough product.
Murtaza: Yes. So if you have part of the city staff that argue that supply has no bearing on it, then I start to get worried about it. Because I don’t know what books they are reading, or who is advising them.
Davelle: Yeah. You’re right. That makes a lot of sense.
Do you think the city is doing enough to ensure that our infrastructure can keep up with the pace of the condo development in the 416? Especially with respect to transit, and even the sewer system? I’ve heard, for example, there isn’t enough water pressure at some of the downtown condos, for example.
Murtaza: Well, here’s what I want you – and the listeners – to do. At around 8:00 or 8:30, just walk down to Union Station near Bay St. and Front St. and see the flood of people coming out of Union Station. And see if there’s enough walkways or sidewalks to contain that flood of commuters coming out of Union and walking towards the downtown core. There’s one thing worrying about what’s in the infrastructure buried underground. You can actually look at how the city is now reaching its capacity by looking at the rush. In the path – underground path – you can’t walk without having your shoulders bruised every three steps. You can’t walk on the sidewalks anymore, now, given the heavy flux of people. There are about half a million people who work in downtown Toronto. In the core of Toronto.
And then if you continue to increase, the very superficial, easy-to-fix infrastructure – that is, sidewalks and whatnot – is insufficient. What is difficult to fix are the sewers and the storm sewers, and the water supply and water main pipes. That, given the age of the city of Toronto, must be very old in places they have not been replenished or improved. So, the shorter argument of saying this, is, that I think – in the downtown core – we have reached capacity in terms of the infrastructure.
We also have reached capacity in terms of transit infrastructure. 70%-75% of those who work in downtown Toronto and arrive there in the morning peak period arrive by public transit. 75%. You can’t take it to 90%. The return in increasing more ridership to transit would be very difficult above and beyond 70%, 75%. You can increase transit ridership to maybe 10% of the people arrive by transit. You can double it to 20%. Maybe triple it to 30%. But in the downtown core, where you have 75% – or so – people arriving already by public transit, you can’t add more to it. Because it gets really difficult at that very high level of saturation. So, transit infrastructure is at capacity. The sidewalks are at capacity. I’m quite confident that the underground infrastructure is old. And if it has not been replaced, it lacks redundancy, and probably some lack of knowledge at the state of good repair of that infrastructure. Having said that, adding more to downtown core and hoping that you can build your way out of it would be wishful thinking. And it would create living there a little bit more congested. A little bit less enjoyable.
I understand people argue, though – downtown living is coming back. But I think it has come back. It was there ten years ago. Now, every additional person who arrives in downtown Toronto would have less per square footage of space. Social space, for them. You don’t have parks, you don’t have recreational grounds. And one thing that – as a parent of two young sons – my own life is defined by carrying hockey bags, and running back and forth to soccer fields. And taking these large equipment bags to hockey arenas. I must say, I’ve never seen anyone carrying hockey bags on TTC. I must say I’ve never seen anyone walking around with big hockey bags in downtown core.
Murtaza: Which tells me that you don’t have that kind of space. Stop convincing yourself with the false argument that downtown core living is good for children, and people are having a blast. If they are, then how come my life, surrounded by other similar aged parents carrying heavy hockey bags, that I see in the suburbs … And I don’t see those parents or those children dressed up in their hockey gear in downtown. That’s a false image that some in the city want you to believe. And you have less square footage and social space available to you, if you were to go there now. Given that we have done a great job building residential towers and bringing in singles – or at best, couples – to that. That place is an ideal place to have a wonderful life in the earlier stages of your life. When you’re starting off. But at the same time, we have built [inaudible 00:15:21] to what I think is reaching capacity, if not beyond.
Davelle: That’s very interesting. What would you say about Yonge & Eglinton? I happen to live at Yonge & Eglinton. And so, yes, there are people with hockey bags around Yonge & Eglinton. But in terms of a transit capacity, I certainly see that on the platform at rush hour, it’s pretty busy. And in the next ten years, Yonge & Eglinton is certainly going to get a lot more condos being built. So I sort of wonder at what point is that going to become emergency? That there isn’t enough transit at Yonge & Eg? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Murtaza: So, Yonge & Eglinton is another interesting place. Now, you see that they were at the four corners of the … Yonge & Eglinton are now being spoken for. And high-rises have already shown up. And if not, they are in the process of being built, and are along the corridor. And then you see how much true capacity there is for commuting, and how much underground infrastructure capacity there is to service new residents. And then, at the same time, how much social space in terms of restaurants, and recreation, and parks, and other space that one needs to have a meaningful life. Other than going to your work in the subway.
I think at some point we have to realize that that space gets narrower and narrower and narrower, and smaller and smaller. And then you ask yourself, “Is it the time where the fundamental structure of the neighborhood is changing?” You may have a family-oriented neighborhood. That used to be the case at Yonge & Eglinton. But if you keep putting towers there, then the inherent character of the neighborhood will change. You would have singles, or younger singles, or younger cohorts without children. And they would demand different kind of services than those demanded by parents. And you will see a shift in the social fabric. Is it a good or a bad thing? And the answer is, it’s neither the good nor bad. It’s part of evolution.
The thing to understand is that when we see high-rise development, we see this either as the builder’s dream to build high-rise, or if you see reluctance by the city to deny a high-rise construction, as a planner’s belief that what is the ideal density for that place. Neither the planners, nor the builders decide what density is the right density. Then how high the buildings should be. Or how high the tower should be. At any given place. It’s the market that decides. No one builds high-rise condos where the land per square foot is cheap. I have never seen a series of high-rise towers in the outer suburbs. Not near transit, not near highways. Why don’t people do that? Because the price of land per square foot is not high enough for the builder to start this very expensive construction.
Murtaza: Places like Yonge & Eglinton, and places like downtown Toronto, and Yonge & Bloor – along the Yonge line – these are the places that have very high land values. Land values that – even globally speaking – are really high, if you were to compare those land values in these choice parcels of land. And it makes absolutely no sense to build anything but the high-rise towers, there. Because that’s what the land price dictates.
The thing to do, in those circumstances, is to be proactive rather than reactive. And the city should look at a 20, 30, 50-year plan to see … Only high-rise will be built, because that’s dictated by the market forces. But the goal is to provide enough infrastructure so that you have neither the sub grade, or above grade infrastructure that runs into capacity issues in the near future. By that, I mean, you have to have enough mobility solutions. So people should be able to move. You should have enough underground infrastructure in terms of sewers and water mains. And at the same time, equally important, is the social infrastructure. Parks. Recreation places. Restaurants. Places where people can be face to face. That kind of infrastructure has to be there as well. Because you don’t simply live in this cubicle that’s called a condominium, and have a urban Nirvana in 500 square feet of space.
Davelle: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
If you were a first-time home buyer, what would you do in this market? Would you purchase something now before prices get too high? Or would you hold off, waiting for a reprieve in the market?
Murtaza: If I’m a first-time home buyer, I would buy now. Because I have no reason to believe that this market is going to slow down or become cheaper. Now, when people say, “The market may slow down,” they’re not saying that the prices will drop. All they’re saying is that the rate and the increase of prices will decline. So, for the first-time home buyers, the question is, “Are you going to buy something which is X dollars today? Or are you going to wait and buy it more expensive tomorrow?”
Murtaza: It’s not going to be any cheaper. So that’s not going to happen. And even if there’s a decline in the number of sales … So, TREB sold, what, 116,000 properties last year? And in the worst case scenario, if that number declines to, say, 90,000 or 100,000 a year from now, does that mean that the prices will decline? And I highly doubt it. I think the number of sales may decline at some point – in the worst case scenario – but the prices may be able to sustain – more likely to sustain – because they’re really sticky.
So, if you’re a first-time buyers, I would say, “Don’t expect the housing prices to decline.” If you can come up with the down payment now – borrow, beg your parents and anybody else who … If you have some inheritance locked up somewhere. Be in the good books of your grandparents and grand-uncles and aunts. Get that money now. And buy the property, because what you have in your favor right now are highly favorable market’s rates. And get the property now. And get the market rate now. Lock it for as long as you can. Because what is not currently – even in the near future – is that these lucrative market’s rates will sustain for a year or two years down the road. And if you can lock them for five years – ten years – then do it.
And there is housing stock that you should look into under $400,000, or between $400,000 and $500,000. As first-time home buyers, try to go for it. See if you can find those units. Stay away from areas that offer height. If you are buying – even at $400,000, or $500,000 – into a place where the per square foot price is over $1,000 – or nearing $1,000 – per square foot, stay away from it. Because someone else is going to make money off you, and get rich off you. Try to find places where dollars per square foot should stay in the ranges, $300-$500, per square foot. Be smart, because the price appreciates on a per-square-foot basis. Not necessarily as a dwelling basis. Especially relevant for condominiums, more so than for low-rise.
So, buy now, get the market’s rates that are more favorable. Do not expect prices to decline this year, next year. And extending the same argument, maybe a year down the road, or two years down the road. I don’t expect the prices to decline.
Davelle: Awesome. That’s great. That’s very good advice.
You know, to ease the supply situation for Toronto housing, many are certainly calling for the government to release some of the protected conservation lands. What are your thoughts on how easing will help the housing supply in Toronto?
Murtaza: There is a supply site constraint. There’s no doubt about it. And I see very smart people who argue that the supply is not an issue. And I don’t agree with them. Again, my approach is more of an urban economics – urban engineering – approach. And those who argue, “Supply is not an issue,” come from an architecture point of view. Or urban design point of view. But the reality is that the supply of new housing – new units being built – in the greater Toronto area has been constrained. Has not increased. So, as population increase, the number is not increasing. Investment in residential real estate in Ontario has been declining. And, only recently, has started to recover.
Some argue that it is because of the land constraints. That the Places to Grow Act is a contributor. I have a more nuanced response to it. I see the decline in the construction of new housing starting before this act was enforced. So, the things that happened before that. So, one has to look into what caused the decline to start before the act was put in place. And then there are two parts of it. I think there’s the part that restricts construction – residential and otherwise – in certain parts of the GTA. Trying to protect environmentally-necessary areas. They are watersheds. They are green spaces. They are areas that one should protect. I don’t advise that we should look into those areas and try to build on greenfields. Especially with areas that are environmentally sensitive. Watersheds, and whatnot. I’m not in favor of that. But what I am in favor of is allowing us to build in areas that are already earmarked to be built, but do not impose residential density – or build density – constraints that the Places to Grow Act has enforced or has incorporated.
So, they’re two types of constraints. A, you can’t build there on greenfield. And even if you’re building on areas that were designated to be built, you have to build at a certain high density than the builders are willing to build. The problem there is – it’s not the builders – it’s the buyer. The consumer. When you move out 20, 30 kilometers from downtown Toronto and want to live there, you’re not essentially looking for high-rise towers, or high density, or a certain degree of spatial concentration of people and activities. And it’s the consumer’s desire to be maybe a little less congested than what we’re used to in downtown Toronto. Or even in uptown. That’s why they move out. And then forcing those new consumers to be living in densities or concentration of activities that they themselves don’t desire, that’s a misstep.
And I think – if you have to really think about it – you don’t argue to release environmentally-sensitive areas. I don’t think that’s a prudent way to go. I think the prudent way to go is to look at the areas that are already earmarked for development, and see if the development is not happening there because of these arbitrary density requirements set forth in certain planning documents. One of them is a provincial document.
Now, this is something for us to do, so, because I see there has been a decline … Even the population is increasing. But if you think about the region – the Toronto region – so you have Toronto – city of Toronto – with 2.7 million people. And you have the Toronto census metropolitan area with about 6 million people. If you look at the increase in population in the region, if you take Toronto out, the Toronto 2.7 million are out. Let’s just take them out, and just look at what is the increase in population in the rest of the region. And that increase is 7.7%. So Toronto grew by 4.5%, and the region minus Toronto grew 7.7% between 2011 and 16.
Davelle: Wow. That’s pretty significant.
Murtaza: But you also need to know that between 2006 and 2011, the city of Toronto grew by 4.5%. So the rate of growth in the city or Toronto has been consistent since 2006. But the region minus Toronto – between 2006 and 2011 – grew by 14%. So the rest of the Toronto was growing at 14% between 2006 and 2011. That growth rate has declined by half in the last five years. That is, 2011-2016. And you ask yourself, “What are the contributing factors that are resulting in the nine-to-five region’s decline in the growth rate of population?” And I think one of the reasons is the constraints we have put on residential development. Restricting development to certain areas. But, more so, restricting development by forcing the builders to build at densities that consumers don’t want.
That, I think, is a bigger problem than one were to argue to build new developments on environmentally-sensitive lands. I’m not in favor of building on environmentally-sensitive lands. I think we should protect them. We hold this land in trust for future generations, and once you build on it, it’s lost forever. But there are ways to build. There are ways to increase supply. And one of the ways to increase it is, once you have designated areas, you should look at what consumers want to be built. Rather than saying that, “I, as an urban planner, have come up with the arbitrary density threshold, and I think I should enforce that.” So that disconnect between what planners want and what consumers want … If you were to fix that, and you bring the two parties closer together, you would see it increase in housing supply and residential construction in nine-to-five regions. So they can continue to grow.
Toronto growth rate is going to be 4.5%. 5%. It’s going to grow slower in the future, primarily because Toronto is essentially building high-rises in the past few years. 80, 85% of the new supply of housing in the city of Toronto has been high-rise. Less than 15% was low-rise. So, you see the average household size should be declining in Toronto, given the new housing we are building is smaller than before. So the real growth in population, in terms of number of persons per unit, would be higher in the nine-to-five regions. But that wouldn’t happen if you were to put artificial constraints in terms of the density at which new developments should be built. And also in terms of where the development should go.
Davelle: Got it. That makes a lot of sense, for sure.
You know, a lot of people make their housing decisions based on transit. What do you think our officials should be doing in the city to build better transit? And where should the transit go, do you think?
Murtaza: My biggest frustration now, and has been for the past few years, is how Toronto is building public transit. And I think transit is no longer being built on any consideration for scientific principles. And the focus is, essentially, to build transit to deliver or solidify political fortunes for existing. Political base. So, it’s basically … Someone wants to continue to be the counselor, so they argue, “I need a subway for my residents.” If someone is trying to be the mayor of the city for the next election, they’re promising subways – one stop subways, or “stubways”. So, we’re building transit where it’s not needed. So, extending the subways lines north of Steeles. In neighborhoods that are unlikely to attain higher [inaudible 00:31:03] splits or higher share of transit use. And we are not building public transit where it’s desperately needed as a downtown relief line. Which has been on the books for 40 years, but no one wants to build, because there will be new riders, but not new voters.
So, these are the kind of things that are gridlocking the city. People do buy homes based on considerations for accessibility, not just transit. Transit plays some role in people’s decisions, especially those who would like to commute by public transit. But if you look at the city of Toronto, as the reason 22% of the people commute by public transit to work, but the remaining 78% still take the automobile. So, their decisions – or, I would say 80% – make their decisions not based on public transit alone. So, the lesson here is that, yes, transit matters. Especially to those who would like to commute by transit. And it would make sense to build transit where the demand exists today. Rather to build transit in the hope that in 20, 30 years down the road, people will discover it and start taking it.[00:32:07]
Davelle: That makes a lot of sense, for sure.
Is there anything else you think our listeners should know? Anything else you’d like to share, today?
Murtaza: I think the listeners should know that the increase in housing prices is a much better prospect – is a much better problem to deal with – than a decline in housing prices. Both from personal financial wellbeing, and also for the regional economic wellbeing. Housing prices, when they increase, they create personal wealth. 60-70% of those who live in this region are homeowners, so they see an increase in their welfare as housing prices increase. And so are the municipalities, because their municipal revenue that relies on property taxes and land transfer taxes … That continues to grow. At the same time, exposing difficulties for first-time home buyers who may find it difficult to enter the market. But then, at the same time, you look at the overall welfare. You have to look at what situation makes the city better. And I think a steady increase in housing prices is a better prospect than a decline in housing prices. And therefore, I think the listeners should know that Toronto’s housing market is in a better place now than it was in 1990s. Early 90s, when housing prices were declining.
Davelle: Awesome. That’s great. That’s great information to know. And, lastly, I always ask all of my interviewees whether they rent or own? And which part of the city they live in, and why? So, can you tell us a little bit about your situation?
Murtaza: Yes. So, I own a house, and I live in Mississauga. And I live near public transit. I travel exclusively by public transit. I take the GO Train, and I am always taking public transit. So, why I live here is because I’ve got young children, and they play hockey. And they play soccer. And we are out almost every evening in the hockey arena or in a soccer field. And as I said earlier, I haven’t seen many people carrying hockey bags in a subway or GO Train. And it makes it difficult to do the same kind of lifestyle – active lifestyle – with children in a downtown core. But it is very easy to do in suburban Mississauga.
Davelle: Got it. That makes sense.
How can our listeners reach you, if they have any questions?
Murtaza: They can reach me on Twitter. My Twitter handle is @regionomics. And they can also email me at murtaza – m-u-r-t-a-z-a – @regionomics.com.
Davelle: Perfect. Awesome. Thank you so much for joining us today. It’s been very interesting, and very enlightening. Thanks so much, Murtaza.
Thanks again for joining us for some Toronto real estate market insights. You can visit my website at morrisonsellsrealestate.com, or visit morrisontalksrealestate.com for more episodes of the podcast. Thanks for listening.