Metro Vancouver has (most likely) reached 3 million residents

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Adjusting for inflation would actually make the numbers look better for more recent prices.

I know, that's why I noted it. I haven't seen a recent chart showing what removing inflation does to the data.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by djmk

Fast forward 12 years and the Boomers are approaching 80. Boomers are the problem. Not Immigrants

We're trying hard to make sure our population pyramid looks like this:

https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/2023/

And not this:

https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2023/

But some people seem to think we're trying to look like this for some reason:

https://www.populationpyramid.net/africa/2023/

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by djmk

Trudeau? Below is a link to Harper's speech in Davos he made in January 2012.

https://globalnews.ca/news/204186/fu...conomic-forum/

I'm not a fan of Harper either, but immigration levels under his tenure were far lower than they are today. Housing prices in Canada were still rising during his time in office though, in no small part because we were not building sufficient housing then, and we aren't doing so now.

At any rate, immigration should be tied to net new housing. Immigrants need somewhere to live, and immigration should not come at the cost of lowering this country's standard of living. If you think bringing in more people than we have housing won't put pressure on housing prices, you are mistaken.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Hahaha no, but it's funny you think that. Unless of course you seriously think the Coquitlam Centre Cactus Club is Red Scorpions territory and you shouldn't go there if you're wearing Punjabi Mafia colours. I know people who in high school avoided walking down certain streets in East Vancouver after dark because you might walk through the wrong gang's territory and basically be asking for a fight if you weren't careful. Times are very much different now. There were "rough" schools back then. Pretty sure a "rough" high school now just means the academic performance is a bit lower...

True, the overt "territory" thing is not the same likely due as much to technology as anything else. But those involved in gang activity are more likely to live in the suburbs now as that's where you find the cheaper housing. Gangs will always find more fertile ground where there are young men struggling to fit into society.

[GenWhy?]

For me say 15 years ago I had a very naive urbanist perspective about Vancouver proper.

That false sense of urbanism I had before I moved here is finally now becoming a real lived thing. So IMO Vancouver has greatly improved over the years.

I don't venture out into Surrey or parts of Burnaby much, but I imagine it's a lot more noticeable out there with various growth related challenges.

[djh]

Originally Posted by giallo

According to the newest Statscan data, Vancouver reached 2,971,853 at the end of 2023, growing by over 120,000 people in a single year. By that metric, Vancouver has already surpassed 3 million people in 2024.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=1710014801

I noticed that "growing by 120k+ people in a year" note too.

When I looked into it a little bit, though, I do wonder if it's in the StatsCan definition of "population":

The Census of Population aims to produce counts for the total population of Canada. This ‘target population’ consists of: Canadian citizens (by birth or by naturalization); landed immigrants (permanent residents); and (since 1991) non-permanent residents. (Non-permanent residents are persons who have claimed refugee status [asylum claimants], or persons who hold a work or study permit and their family members living with them). All such persons are included in the population provided they have a usual place of residence in Canada (see Where are people counted?).

(emphasis mine).
So looking at those categories, most surveys would happily include the first two (citizens, and landed immigrants), but when you're talking about non-permanent residents , work or study permit people, AND their families...phew, that could really skew the numbers. Many of the people in those groups are "passing through" - they're here because they have to be here for a certain amount of time for whatever reason, and then they intend to leave. So that may have been a big part of why we had such a big jump in the "population" last year. When you account for them, perhaps the real number of "Canadian" population is a lot less.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by djmk

Fast forward 12 years and the Boomers are approaching 80. Boomers are the problem. Not Immigrants

The oldest boomers are approaching 80, but the youngest are only just 60, and many of them are still working. Harper is a boomer - he qualified for his OAS and the bonus $100,000 ex prime ministers get a couple of weeks ago.

In 2001 there were 758,700 occupied dwellings in Metro Vancouver, and households with a Boomer as a head of household lived in 47% of those dwellings (360,000 households)

(That's the 'boom' part of boomer - a lot of families catching up with having kids after the war).

Single family dwellings made up 44% of the stock (330,000) – and Boomers didn't occupy a massively bigger proportion of those either – 53% of SFDs had a Boomer as a head of household (175,000).

Fast forwards 20 years to the 2021 census, when the Boomers were 20 years older. Now there are 1,043,300 occupied dwellings, (so 285,000 were added in 20 years).

Households with a Boomer as a head of household now lived in only 34% of those dwellings (354,000 households).

Single family dwellings now only make up 28% of the stock (288,000) – and households with a Boomer as head of household now only occupy 43% of them (123,000).

So there are slightly fewer households with a Boomer as head of household, and over 50,000 fewer Boomer households occupying SFDs.

So over 20 years many have downsized and moved to other types of housing (and a few have moved to Kelowna or Parksville). The problem is there’s quite a lot of them (which isn’t their fault – blame their parents), so the population bulge they represent is taking time to move through the age pyramid. It won't be very long before the homes they're occupying are available - they're already dying off, or moving away.

[Metro-One]

It sure is great that our housing stock, highway infrastructure and transit system has kept pace with the growth… oh, wait…

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

In 2001 there were 758,700 occupied dwellings in Metro Vancouver, and households with a Boomer as a head of household lived in 47% of those dwellings (360,000 households)
...
Single family dwellings made up 44% of the stock (330,000) – and Boomers didn't occupy a massively bigger proportion of those either – 53% of SFDs had a Boomer as a head of household (175,000).

Fast forwards 20 years to the 2021 census, when the Boomers were 20 years older. Now there are 1,043,300 occupied dwellings, (so 285,000 were added in 20 years).

Households with a Boomer as a head of household now lived in only 34% of those dwellings (354,000 households).

Single family dwellings now only make up 28% of the stock (288,000) – and households with a Boomer as head of household now only occupy 43% of them (123,000).

So there are slightly fewer households with a Boomer as head of household, and over 50,000 fewer Boomer households occupying SFDs.

So over 20 years many have downsized and moved to other types of housing (and a few have moved to Kelowna or Parksville). The problem is there’s quite a lot of them (which isn’t their fault – blame their parents), so the population bulge they represent is taking time to move through the age pyramid. It won't be very long before the homes they're occupying are available - they're already dying off, or moving away.

The main issue is that in 2001 the houses with Baby Boomers as HoH were generally familes of 4+. Nowadays those same houses are probably on average occupied by <2 individuals. So we might have increased our housing stock by 285,000, but we also had around that many children move out of mom and dad's house in that time. I recall an opinion piece I read a little bit ago; Vancouver never had an empty home problem, but it certainly has an empty bedroom problem. Right now a retired baby boomer who never saved anything for retirement but fully owns a house in Vancouver has the right to pay zero property tax and withdraw on average around $1500 a month from the government in OAS + CPP payments. All in the interest of making sure they "don't lose their homes".

Heaven forbid we do anything that might make these poor seniors have to sell their two million dollar 3000 sqft houses. Property tax deferral is as much if not more of a cancer in the housing crisis as rent control is, but both are sacred cows it seems.

So yes, Baby Boomers are unfortunately a problem (as will be all seniors that follow them).

To give a little bit of reference, Chip Wilson is 69 years old. He's a baby boomer through and through. His house on Point Grey Road is assessed at $81,765,000. His property taxes should be $242,693 per year, but because we don't want poor seniors like him to lose their homes, we give him the option to pay zero property tax. Wouldn't want him out on the street. I wonder how many people are living in his 7 bedroom mansion?

https://www.bcassessment.ca/Property...AwMDBFNVFBNw==

[DevFan101]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Here's a more up to date chart. These are MLS benchmark prices, not adjusted for inflation.



Andrew Hasman

Point still stands that the trends don't show the crisis being Trudeau's fault. It was rising on a very clear upward trajectory for long before he got into office, and then actually levelled off after he got into office and started funding housing more than the previous 3 Prime Ministers combined. Then what changed was Covid and the global crisis in various factors that caused supply chain issues, work interruptions... we had the concrete strike, etc... throw in all the people who moved around during the pandemic and caused a lot of "overheating" of the market, as it were... all of that is why things shot up after 2020... not because of anything Trudeau did. Not because of immigration.

What Trudeau has actually done is implement record levels of funding for housing since 2020 to try to combat these effects, but it unfortunately takes years for these housing projects to come to fruition, so we're still waiting for the positive effects of this funding to be seen in the coming years. Sadly, we'll probably see the Conservatives get into office before then and take all the credit for it, while they start defunding everything again to destroy the progress... then when things start sucking again, we'll vote in the Liberals to fix it, and if they can't get it done within a few years before a global crisis totally screws their term over... then we'll blame the Liberals for everything again and delude ourselves into thinking that the Conservatives will fix it, so we'll vote them in right as the Liberals' efforts to fix thing start taking effect, so the Conservatives can take credit for the positive times before ruining things agian... wash, rinse, repeat for the next 160 years again, I guess.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by DevFan101

Point still stands that the trends don't show the crisis being Trudeau's fault. It was rising on a very clear upward trajectory for long before he got into office, and then actually levelled off after he got into office and started funding housing more than the previous 3 Prime Ministers combined. Then what changed was Covid and the global crisis in various factors that caused supply chain issues, work interruptions... we had the concrete strike, etc... throw in all the people who moved around during the pandemic and caused a lot of "overheating" of the market, as it were... all of that is why things shot up after 2020... not because of anything Trudeau did. Not because of immigration.

What Trudeau has actually done is implement record levels of funding for housing since 2020 to try to combat these effects, but it unfortunately takes years for these housing projects to come to fruition, so we're still waiting for the positive effects of this funding to be seen in the coming years. Sadly, we'll probably see the Conservatives get into office before then and take all the credit for it, while they start defunding everything again to destroy the progress... then when things start sucking again, we'll vote in the Liberals to fix it, and if they can't get it done within a few years before a global crisis totally screws their term over... then we'll blame the Liberals for everything again and delude ourselves into thinking that the Conservatives will fix it, so we'll vote them in right as the Liberals' efforts to fix thing start taking effect, so the Conservatives can take credit for the positive times before ruining things agian... wash, rinse, repeat for the next 160 years again, I guess.

Absolutely - house prices in Vancouver, (excluding the Fraser Valley, which has its own real estate stats), started going up just before Harper's government, carried on through the nine years he was PM, and continued upwards in the nine years of Trudeau's government.

In the conservative period single detached went from $612,700 to $1,204,200 and apartments from $288,100 to $430,200.

From October 2015 to now, single detached went from $1,204,200 to 2,040,000 and apartments from $430,200 to $776,500. Prices last month were lower than they were two years ago (without adjusting for inflation), so haven't been increasing in recent years.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Right now a retired baby boomer who never saved anything for retirement but fully owns a house in Vancouver has the right to pay zero property tax and withdraw on average around $1500 a month from the government in OAS + CPP payments. All in the interest of making sure they "don't lose their homes".

Heaven forbid we do anything that might make these poor seniors have to sell their two million dollar 3000 sqft houses. Property tax deferral is as much if not more of a cancer in the housing crisis as rent control is, but both are sacred cows it seems.

So yes, Baby Boomers are unfortunately a problem (as will be all seniors that follow them).

To give a little bit of reference, Chip Wilson is 69 years old. He's a baby boomer through and through. His house on Point Grey Road is assessed at $81,765,000. His property taxes should be $242,693 per year, but because we don't want poor seniors like him to lose their homes, we give him the option to pay zero property tax. Wouldn't want him out on the street. I wonder how many people are living in his 7 bedroom mansion?

Government CPP payments are based on the money you pay into CPP (and the fund is seperately managed from government reveues) - it isn't the same as OAS, it's a pension based on what you, and if you have one, your employer paid in.

You'd have to prove house tax deferral changes many people's situation to the point that they would otherwise have to sell their home. Taxes aren't generally so great that homeowners couldn't pay the taxes if the opportunity to defer them wasn't available.

It's not like it's even taken up that much. Even though it's been around since 1974, in 2021 with at least 784,870 households eligable in BC, (55+ household maintainer) 65,505 B.C. seniors deferred their property taxes in 2020-21.

It's not like the government doesn't get their money back, when the home is sold, (with interest). It was a weird example on your part, but you can rest assured that Chip Wilson isn't staying in his Point Grey house just because he's able to defer his taxes (which it's likely he doesn't do).

(As this really doesn't have much to do with Metro Vancouver reaching 3 million, I'm signing off on this conversation).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You'd have to prove house tax deferral changes many people's situation to the point that they would otherwise have to sell their home. Taxes aren't generally so great that homeowners couldn't pay the taxes if the opportunity to defer them wasn't available.

The point you seem to have missed is that we should not be subsidizing homeowners taking up more land than they need.