It’s been a few years since I was there but last I was it had the very common tourist pattern of expensive vacation homes near the water for wealthy part time occupants and reasonable housing further away for permanent residents.
Frankly that area was better than many tourist areas where workers have to commute long distances to live in crap apartments or worse dormitories.
And of all the tourist spots in the Okanagan, Kelowna is not a top destination - it's the smaller cosy towns with the corner store and 2 acre lots on the hills overlooking the lakes. Those cost $2M+ and seem a bit more justifiable to me at least. It's like comparing Tahoe, CA to say Tracy, CA.
And I have a family member who owns a 2 bed condo in a small town further south and the price has gone from $300k to $500k. For a plain condo built in 90's in a town of 25,000 filled with people over 60 years old.
It's nuts.
Let’s say half that - 2,750 homes needed.
Last year Kelowna built 3,200 new homes alone.
https://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/news/article_bb3f2eae-8ac...
Kelowna grew 14% over 5 years? So 2.7% a year? Or 5,500 people per year?
Kelowna is a tiny town in the middle of BC. Jobs are scarce. Vast swaths of undeveloped land surround the town. Wages are pretty typical, yet a modest house is $1,000,000. Does that make any sense?
Your list has Kamloops. Have you been to Kamloops? It's an old saw mill town. Again, lots of room to build. Houses are $800,000 to $1,000,000.
You can buy a small house, within San Francisco city limits for $1.5M. This is where wages are 2x that of Canada. Mortgages are 30-year fixed and there is no room to build any more houses and it's surrounded by water on 3 sides.
So why would Kelowna cost just 33% less than San Francisco? I could see arguing downtown Toronto and Vancouver are "pricey" but not ridiculous, but Kelowna?
And your list has Edmonton! One of the fastest growing cities! But wait, it's actually one of the cheapest too. What's going on?
Like I said, bloodbath.