Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting - Page 280

logan5 · #**5581** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 5:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

Victoria is a ripple effect. Not only that it's probably the SECOND most popular city for wealthy Chinese in Canada, behind Vancouver. Victoria is very much tied to Vancouver and allways has been. As for the ripple effects they are very real.

Your land constraint arguments simply don't hold water. Land constraints lead to market premiums for land intensive housing forms, and the market naturally adjusts by building less land intensive housing, like smaller lots. That has all happened a long time ago in Vancouver. What is happening now is a simple speculative bubble fueled by two things, foreign cash being the most important one, and low interest rates being the most dangerous one. And regardless Vancouver nor Victoria is even close to being out of land, and especially not close to runing out of places to build cheap family friendly condos and townhouse.

On the subject of lot size in Metro Vancouver... Most lots in the Metro area are 50 to 60 feet wide. Absurdly large.

Because of the inaction by municipalities throughout Metro Vancouver, we have become a prime target for rich investors. Subdivide lots and increase density where appropriate and you will sour the milk.

dleung · #**5582** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 5:31 AM**

In related news lol, the Lingyen Mountain Temple expansion project in Richmond BC is finally given city approval after getting downsized twice. Here's the original mini Forbidden City (2005 proposal). Existing temple on left

Public outcry forced them to lower the height (2010)

Twice. (Highest grid line is original height, black silhouette is 2010 proposal, coloured elevation is 2014 proposal)

It wasn't enough, and they were forced to shrink the overall footprint:

http://www.richmond-news.com/news/major-temple-expansion-gets-green-light-by-council-1.2273401

Underground parking for 385 cars. Only with Metro Vancouver land values would a suburban religious building situated on farmland at sea level have underground parking

csbvan · #**5583** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

On the subject of lot size in Metro Vancouver... Most lots in the Metro area are 50 to 60 feet wide. Absurdly large.

Because of the inaction by municipalities throughout Metro Vancouver, we have become a prime target for rich investors. Subdivide lots and increase density where appropriate and you will sour the milk.

But most lots in Vancouver are 25-33 feet.

logan5 · #**5584** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by csbvan

But most lots in Vancouver are 25-33 feet.

Metro Vancouver.

dleung · #**5585** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 5:52 AM**

May 2016 house prices

http://www.rebgv.org/home-price-index

csbvan · #**5586** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by logan5

Metro Vancouver.

I know, I wasn't contradicting you. I was just stating that the lots in the city itself are generally 25-33.

logan5 · #**5587** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:12 AM**

ah. gotcha

Architype · #**5588** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:41 AM**

^ The Sunshine Coast is still a real deal.

whatnext · #**5589** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 9:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotag277

The chart shows a multi-decade trend. Your one year results are cute, but multi family has good and bad years over those two decades, some years are very very good, some years are flat. The trend is that multi family is stable relatively flat, while single family detached housing is a run away train.

Foreign capital is not the explanation why.

It's laughable the way someone in Calgary keeps trying to dismiss the comments of forumers who actually live in Vancouver.

Why don't you try commenting about Cowtown's RE market, you'd leave yourself with a shred of credibility.

whatnext · #**5590** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 9:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleung

In related news lol, the Lingyen Mountain Temple expansion project in Richmond BC is finally given city approval after getting downsized twice. Here's the original mini Forbidden City (2005 proposal). Existing temple on left

Public outcry forced them to lower the height (2010)

Twice. (Highest grid line is original height, black silhouette is 2010 proposal, coloured elevation is 2014 proposal)

It wasn't enough, and they were forced to shrink the overall footprint:

http://www.richmond-news.com/news/major-temple-expansion-gets-green-light-by-council-1.2273401

Underground parking for 385 cars. Only with Metro Vancouver land values would a suburban religious building situated on farmland at sea level have underground parking

Gotta have somewhere for those little princesses to park their Bimmers so they don't get their Jimmy Choos wet.

casper · #**5591** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 11:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gotta have somewhere for those little princesses to park their Bimmers so they don't get their Jimmy Choos wet.

The original proposal looked impressive. Especially for a complex to be built with private funds. To bad it was reduced the way it was.

Underground parking is a positive and reflects a responsible way of better integrating the building into the community. Image the alternative, a big sea of surface parking lots around a church.

kwoldtimer · #**5592** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 12:51 PM**

I'm confused. Does that project include a housing component?

geotag277 · #**5593** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

It's laughable the way someone in Calgary keeps trying to dismiss the comments of forumers who actually live in Vancouver.

Why don't you try commenting about Cowtown's RE market, you'd leave yourself with a shred of credibility.

What's truly laughable is your propensity to wildly flail with ad hominem after ad hominem against anyone who happens to disagree with you. It makes your own arguments seem incredibly weak and shows that you have almost zero critical thinking skills. Attack the argument, not the man. For your own sake.

It is also a fallacy to think that simply by living in Vancouver it qualifies one as some expert who can speak with authority on the situation there. More often then not, those born and raised in Vancouver have a very skewed view and look with rose coloured glasses on the housing situation in Vancouver of their youth. They remember a city the size of Winnipeg or Ottawa, and reflect on how things were different and better back then. They completely neglect to understand or even acknowledge how single family detached housing has generally been unaffordable for residents for a generation, as high interest rates and high taxes made a single family detached home priced at a premium to a Toronto residence out of reach even during the 90s.

Many of these comments here from Vancouver residents themselves are totally out of touch with reality.

cornholio · #**5594** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotag277

The chart shows a multi-decade trend. Your one year results are cute, but multi family has good and bad years over those two decades, some years are very very good, some years are flat. The trend is that multi family is stable relatively flat, while single family detached housing is a run away train.

Foreign capital is not the explanation why.

The chart shows a bubble and is misleading on top of that. It is why the board is using it. This chart is growing and the starting points are not the same, there fore the gaps naturally increase when all things are growing equally. Until 2008 the housing forms in your chart paralleled each other fairly well with singe family housing eclipsing the other forms only marginally. Only after 2008 do we see single family homes accelerate and the other forms stagnate. BUT you know what you don'y see? The last 12 months when the other housing forms picked up as well and begun paralleling single family homes again.

Misleading chart, stop to use it. Use a chart that instead of prices shows year on year growth. Then it can be useful and used for comparisons.

cornholio · #**5595** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

^ The Sunshine Coast is still a real deal.

The Sunshine Coast has a 45 min unreliable ferry running to Horseshoe bay, that costs $12 for walkons and $50 per car. There are no jobs there. The prices are just now approaching 2007 levels when the market there collapsed. Prices there have however shot up by about 50% over the past 12 months, I keep tabs and travel there about two to three times per month. The place is going once again well into speculative territory and it wont last, again. Rinse repeat.

whatnext · #**5596** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 6:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotag277

...Many of these comments here from Vancouver residents themselves are totally out of touch with reality.

LOL seriously bro, give it up.

Funny that while you live in Calgary, you didn't see fit to comment on this RE article:

...“I’d say around seventy per cent of inquiries through our website and by phone are currently out of country buyers,” says agent Mark Evernden. “That’s a big increase. And the biggest chunk of those enquiries is from Chinese buyers.”

Mr. Evernden is currently showing a property portfolio that includes several homes located on Calgary’s prestigious Pump Hill, also known as Millionaire’s Row, and a selection of impressive rural acreages including a $25-million estate once owned by the Ford family of Henry Ford heritage....
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-esta...xury-real-estate-market/article30394062/

casper · #**5597** Posted **Jun 17, 2016, 11:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cornholio

The Sunshine Coast has a 45 min unreliable ferry running to Horseshoe bay, that costs $12 for walkons and $50 per car. There are no jobs there. The prices are just now approaching 2007 levels when the market there collapsed. Prices there have however shot up by about 50% over the past 12 months, I keep tabs and travel there about two to three times per month. The place is going once again well into speculative territory and it wont last, again. Rinse repeat.

What is needed to make the Sunshine Coast attractive is a passenger only ferry service from their into downtown Vancouver. Perhaps that is something positive the government can do (aka commuter rail except as a ferry service). Help create affordable housing options by improving transportation.

whatnext · #**5598** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 1:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by casper

What is needed to make the Sunshine Coast attractive is a passenger only ferry service from their into downtown Vancouver. Perhaps that is something positive the government can do (aka commuter rail except as a ferry service). Help create affordable housing options by improving transportation.

The BC Libs have been floating the idea of a bridge or road which would negate the need for a costly ferry service.

casper · #**5599** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

The BC Libs have been floating the idea of a bridge or road which would negate the need for a costly ferry service.

I would disagree. We don't need more automobiles into the downtown core. We need a way of connecting suburban communities to downtown Vancouver by public transit. Downtown ferries solve that problem.

ssiguy · #**5600** Posted **Jun 18, 2016, 3:34 AM**

I agree with a ferry service and yes it could offer some more affordable options for housing and hence temper some of the rises in Greater Vancouver...........this is why it has not nor ever will be built.