Chinese Investors Driving Up Metro Housing Prices

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I got to say, I am so happy I am not there to vote in the next election, because honestly this seems like a lose lose situation now.

Just vote for the green party then...Get out and vote for cripes sake.

Originally Posted by Vin

Let's be honest with ourselves, shall we not?

You cannot compare this to the Trump or Brexit 🞵🞵🞵🞵. The City is emptying out due to the influx of foreign capital! Stop with the red-herrings....

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Actually, I'm thinking more that there should be way more high density family type dwellings (3 to 4 bedrooms, or as Casper suggested) all over Vancouver's SFH neighbourhoods so that people do not have to covet SFHs so much. That would make single family houses less desirable in the longer run, and definitely bring prices down.

Okay, let's assume that tomorrow every SFH in Vancouver gets miraculously torn down and replaced with a townhouse or apartment. Prices drop significantly for a few months.

What makes you think that prices would stay low? The problem is being unable to afford a place to live, period. Due to the lack of oversight and/or regulation, speculators are free to flip and re-flip the new (albeit smaller) units until they're equally unaffordable.

And now that we've completely abandoned Transit Oriented Development, Vancouver is filled with ad-hoc mid/high-rises and superdense neighbourhoods all over the place, without adequate rapid transit coverage. Given said gaps in our Skytrain and B-Line network, that means all those new residents are drivers. As it is, we're only the 43rd biggest city in Upper North America and yet the 2nd most congested - now, lacking the road space for all the new vehicle traffic, we might make 1st.

Vin, you got to stop with this Densify Everywhere garbage. It isn't going to magically transform Vancouver from "podunk with delusions of grandeur" to "world city." Hell, it doesn't even work in SimCity 4 - why the everlasting 🞵🞵🞵🞵 would it work here???

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Vin, not to contradict, but do you really imagine that if SFH zones were rezoned to allow for mid-to-highrise developments, thereby providing for more dwelling places,
that the monster housing price bubble would deflate?
It might abate for a short period, but I'm sure that it would reinflate again to previous levels, as the constant inflow of investor money can find
its way around laws and regulations in the loopholes that exist.
Nice idea, but rather "dreamsville," IMO. Excuse me.

My first response above ^^^^^^^^^

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, let's assume that tomorrow every SFH in Vancouver gets miraculously torn down and replaced with a townhouse or apartment. Prices drop significantly for a few months.

What makes you think that prices would stay low? The problem is being unable to afford a place to live, period. Due to the lack of oversight and/or regulation, speculators are free to flip and re-flip the new (albeit smaller) units until they're equally unaffordable.

And now that we've completely abandoned Transit Oriented Development, Vancouver is filled with ad-hoc mid/high-rises and superdense neighbourhoods all over the place, without adequate rapid transit coverage. Given said gaps in our Skytrain and B-Line network, that means all those new residents are drivers. As it is, we're only the 43rd biggest city in Upper North America and yet the 2nd most congested - now, lacking the road space for all the new vehicle traffic, we might make 1st.

Vin, you got to stop with this Densify Everywhere garbage. It isn't going to magically transform Vancouver from "podunk with delusions of grandeur" to "world city." Hell, it doesn't even work in SimCity 4 - why the everlasting 🞵🞵🞵🞵 would it work here???

THAT'S WHAT I SAID, IN ESSENCE, IN MY FIRST RESPONSE TO VIN, IN ALL POLITENESS.

[Tfreder]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, let's assume that tomorrow every SFH in Vancouver gets miraculously torn down and replaced with a townhouse or apartment. Prices drop significantly for a few months.

What makes you think that prices would stay low? The problem is being unable to afford a place to live, period. Due to the lack of oversight and/or regulation, speculators are free to flip and re-flip the new (albeit smaller) units until they're equally unaffordable.

And now that we've completely abandoned Transit Oriented Development, Vancouver is filled with ad-hoc mid/high-rises and superdense neighbourhoods all over the place, without adequate rapid transit coverage. Given said gaps in our Skytrain and B-Line network, that means all those new residents are drivers. As it is, we're only the 43rd biggest city in Upper North America and yet the 2nd most congested - now, lacking the road space for all the new vehicle traffic, we might make 1st.

Vin, you got to stop with this Densify Everywhere garbage. It isn't going to magically transform Vancouver from "podunk with delusions of grandeur" to "world city." Hell, it doesn't even work in SimCity 4 - why the everlasting 🞵🞵🞵🞵 would it work here???

No one is arguing that densifying will keep prices low, but as we've seen when comparing historical price increases between SFH and condos/townhouses, SFHs always increase at a much higher rate than the latter, and that's no coincidence. So if our goal is to slow down price increases, then stopping densification is not the answer. You can look to the Bay Area to see what happens when residents think stopping densification will solve problems. (Hint: it doesn't)

Plus, investing in condos != investing in SFHs. Investors on the westside aren't buying the house, they're buying the land. That's why we've seen 2 bedroom crackshacks selling for millions. Do you really think an Investor who bought a 2.5 million house in Point Grey would be just as happy with buying 5 condos at 500k each? I'd argue they wouldn't, but that's just my opinion.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tfreder

So if our goal is to slow down price increases, then stopping densification is not the answer. You can look to the Bay Area to see what happens when residents think stopping densification will solve problems. (Hint: it doesn't)

Absolutely. Yet we can't build-build-build everywhere like Vin suggests. It's not just the NIMBYs and "Simple Life" environmentalists - there are good reasons why growth is being staggered.

Originally Posted by Tfreder

Plus, investing in condos != investing in SFHs. Investors on the westside aren't buying the house, they're buying the land. That's why we've seen 2 bedroom crackshacks selling for millions. Do you really think an Investor who bought a 2.5 million house in Point Grey would be just as happy with buying 5 condos at 500k each? I'd argue they wouldn't, but that's just my opinion.

They wouldn't be as happy, but they'd still be making more money than in entry-level marketing. Besides, condos (being smaller) are a whole lot easier to maintain.

As for the land speculators, they're fleeing a feared market implosion back home and buying stock in a foreign market, locals be damned. I doubt they see the difference between one big stock and five small ones, so long as their money is "safe."

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

The following article presents a more accurate picture of what is happening in Vancouver right now; same thing why the Brits chose to "Brexit", and why Trump is so popular in the more rustic belt states of the U.S.: The growing insecurity and a fear of competition.


http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/is-racism-part-of-the-housing-issue-of-course-it-is

Pete McMartin: Is racism part of the housing issue? Of course it is...

McMartin's writing has become increasingly irrelevant over the last few years, but for that matter so has Postmedia and all their publications. But then again, the flagging publication he writes for makes what little revenue they retain from a big chunk of real estate advertising, so no surprise he spews out that pablum.

If you want an non-biased view from more impartial source, read the article I referenced earlier:

...The lessons of the past go some way to explaining Vancouver’s almost religious embrace of multiculturalism, says David Ley, a UBC geography professor and wealth migration expert. “I think it’s very much part of the Canadian psyche to want to avoid these discussions,” he says. “We’re a polite and tolerant society that has been thoroughly schooled in the virtues of multiculturalism.”

Unfortunately, this also amplifies the uneasiness around the affordability discussion.

“It’s frustrating,” says Justin Fung, an activist with Housing Action for Local Taxpayers, a local advocacy group. “[The crisis] is a policy issue, it’s a social justice issue, and up until now, everyone is saying, ‘We’re nice, we can’t talk about this.’ Well, if you can’t even talk about where the money is coming from, you can’t do anything about it.”....

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/...acism-meets-real-estate-british-columbia

I also find it odd that the solution people throw out for the insane rise in SFH prices is to build more multi-family dwellings. The market is sending the clear message of what people want: single family houses. Allow suburban sized lots in all neighbourhoods to be split into smaller SFH lots. Take a good look at orphaned pockets of the ALR. Granted it doesn't give the tall erections some mindlessly seem to clamour for, but it's what the people want.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, let's assume that tomorrow every SFH in Vancouver gets miraculously torn down and replaced with a townhouse or apartment. Prices drop significantly for a few months.

The vast majority of residential land in Vancouver is single detached, so your scenario would provide capacity for 400 000 (give or take) new residents. It would take at least a decade for that capacity to be used up. Consequently, prices would drop for at least that decade.

That miracle won't happen, but you can up-zone and sub-divide on a large enough scale so that panic buying and bidding wars are eliminated. If a home buyer knows that they have an opportunity at a potential other hundred thousand homes, they aren't going to compete with other buyers and home prices drop.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Okay, let's assume that tomorrow every SFH in Vancouver gets miraculously torn down and replaced with a townhouse or apartment. Prices drop significantly for a few months.

What makes you think that prices would stay low? The problem is being unable to afford a place to live, period. Due to the lack of oversight and/or regulation, speculators are free to flip and re-flip the new (albeit smaller) units until they're equally unaffordable.

And now that we've completely abandoned Transit Oriented Development, Vancouver is filled with ad-hoc mid/high-rises and superdense neighbourhoods all over the place, without adequate rapid transit coverage. Given said gaps in our Skytrain and B-Line network, that means all those new residents are drivers. As it is, we're only the 43rd biggest city in Upper North America and yet the 2nd most congested - now, lacking the road space for all the new vehicle traffic, we might make 1st.

Vin, you got to stop with this Densify Everywhere garbage. It isn't going to magically transform Vancouver from "podunk with delusions of grandeur" to "world city." Hell, it doesn't even work in SimCity 4 - why the everlasting 🞵🞵🞵🞵 would it work here???

Imagine another scenario: Let's say all the high-rise or high-density condos in Vancouver, heck, even West End apartments never got built. Throughout Vancouver there is nothing but SFHs and townhouses. Do you think so many of us can still afford to own or rent in this city? If every single person is now vying for those SFHs in Vancouver, what kind of pricing would we see today?

Funny, if proposing more high density neighbourhoods is garbage, I guess there must be many dumb decision makers outside Vancouver trying to densify almost every Skytrain or transit nodes they can find. Density is already working and making housing more affordable in Vancouver, albeit in limited places, if you're still blind to it.

With an increasing amount of high density neighbourhoods, it becomes justifiable to have mass transit expanded as more people would be using it. A spread out low-density city is what creates urban sprawl, large number of passenger vehicles and limited transit use in the first place. I seriously can't believe you think that still works if Vancouver continues to grow.

[Vin]

delete

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Absolutely. Yet we can't build-build-build everywhere like Vin suggests. It's not just the NIMBYs and "Simple Life" environmentalists - there are good reasons why growth is being staggered.

Yup there are good reasons why growth is being staggered: to spur the increase of property values and for speculators to make their loads. If that's what you want, then so be it. Maybe you fail to realize that Burnaby has way more parklands and green space, parks with lakes, forested lands, etc, especially around the high density neighbourhoods. Vancouver's densification also means more places in the suburbs can remain undisturbed as more developers shift their attention back to this city.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Funny, if proposing more high density neighbourhoods is garbage, I guess there must be many dumb decision makers outside Vancouver trying to densify almost every Skytrain or transit nodes they can find.

Exactly - between your "develop everywhere" attitude and the "develop nowhere" attitude is a "develop certain areas" middle ground where City Council and most of this forum lies. Just because many of us strongly disagree with rapid, uncontained development doesn't make us NIMBYs... though I can understand that at your end of the spectrum, it's hard to spot the difference.

As you've kindly observed, the City's TOD strategy involves zoning high-density corridors around arterial roads, and planning Skytrain/LRT/etc lines and apartments along them - often at the same time. Building mid/high-rises before the rapid transit puts the cart before the horse; the only way the residents will be getting around is by car, which would add to our already-horrible traffic. Currently, we can't even find the funding for two extensions down Broadway and Fraser Highway, and still you want to develop the entire West Side!

It's not like the entire city is frozen in time; one can barely walk ten blocks without seeing a construction site as it is, AND we're only going to see more of them over the next decade. The current level of growth is manageable, if not ideal.

Originally Posted by Vin

Yup there are good reasons why growth is being staggered: to spur the increase of property values and for speculators to make their loads. If that's what you want, then so be it. Maybe you fail to realize that Burnaby has way more parklands and green space, parks with lakes, forested lands, etc, especially around the high density neighbourhoods. Vancouver's densification also means more places in the suburbs can remain undisturbed as more developers shift their attention back to this city.

You'll notice that Burnaby concentrates development at transit hubs just like Vancouver proper, instead of randomly building everywhere.

Being too lax with housing regs is just as pro-developer/landowner and anti-everybody as being too restrictive; one only needs to look at Surrey's abortion of a cityscape to understand that zoning without a plan and letting developers run roughshod is a bad idea.

[twoNeurons]

Love that article about racism... So true. We all want to point the finger out to China... and any report that doesn't support our feelings is obviously faked.

Gimme a break.

Housing in Vancouver is still a Vancouver issue. Is there foreign money here? Of course! Has there always been? Yes! Was foreign money held by Asians? No! It was whites! Filthy Foreign White people!

/sarcasm.

Foreign money does NOT move the needle, it only provides an impetus for the public to latch on to. It provides the WHY. Whenever there's a disaster, the FIRST people want answered is "WHY" did this happen to me! This is no different. It's a relative disaster for young ones getting into the market, and they're mad, upset and looking for someone to blame.

As for densification of SFH, sometimes I wonder how many of you actually LIVE in the SFH area of Vancouver. I've said it time and time again, there are very very few SFHs purchased in the last 15 years. EVERY single house being built today has a minimum of 2 suites. One legal, one finished after inspection. The majority have laneway houses ( where permitted ). These are NOT SFHs. They're mini-fiefdoms. Micro-castles with 4 to 5 families in them.

In short, they're quite dense already. Does it 🞵🞵🞵🞵? YES! Absolutely. Do we need to build high-rises? No. We need adequate stock of 3-4 bedroom townhouses. There is almost NOTHING in this city of that size that can be purchased. The only way to raise a family in this city is to go gung ho, and buy a SFH... while keeping 2 units rented.

Curious what one of these beasts looks like? Look no further than 2489 Lillooet. 2 units in the basement, 2 units on the ground level and a laneway house. How do I know this? I had a friend who lived in the basement unit a while ago.

And if you do the math... if you're bringing in $6000 in rent each month.... what's a $1.2M
mortgage?

As it happens, she ( landlord ) was shut down and some tenants had to leave. Apparently she has other properties.

That's a somewhat extreme case, but I'm telling you, "innovations" like laneway houses have allowed Vancouver to maintain the status quo and made SFHs overpriced.

I get that Vancouver legalized a suite in a house because it was easier to regulate, but if instead of laneway houses and taking a soft stance towards 2nd suites ( seriously, inspectors KNOW they're building it ) they allowed houses to PAINLESSLY be upzoned to multi-family fee-simple townhouses and the like, you would have seen far fewer monster houses, more family friendly buildings, and a more livable community.

Instead of a bunch of mouldy basement dwellers, people would have a place of their own. It is possible to make 3 bedroom and even 4-bedroom ( smaller rooms ) 2-level townhouses with about 1300 sq. ft. You just need to accept that every room won't have its own bathroom and the rooms will be smaller.

These places are usually about 15' wide. 10 houses in East Van take up about 330' ( 100m ). That's about 20 townhouses. Bulldoze 5 houses and you get 10 nice and spacious units that would sell for a decent price.

Throw in incentives and tax breaks for developers who consolidate and you've got yourselves a path towards a city with a variety of REAL housing that families can live in without building high rises and ticking people off who are in SFH territory. Interspersed here, you could build a few low-rises.

[retro_orange]

Another interesting take http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/07/12/Chinese-Buyers-Vancouver-Home-Prices/

How Chinese Buyers Are Driving Up Home Prices
Government stats show foreign purchasers buying up real estate equal in value to all new home construction.
By Bill Tieleman, Today, TheTyee.ca

"Buy land; they're not making it any more." -- Mark Twain

Chinese and other foreign investors buying up homes are spending an amount almost equal to the value of all new housing being built in Metro Vancouver, creating skyrocketing prices that are driving local people out of the market.

That conclusion is easily drawn from last week's B.C. government release of new statistics on foreign housing purchases.

While woefully inadequate, they still show that the new supply of housing built each month effectively disappears from the market as foreign buyers -- mostly Chinese -- scoop up real estate of equivalent value.

And, as Twain says, they aren't making land anymore. It's like exporting a non-renewable resource.

The Metro Vancouver ramifications are enormous:

• Insanely high housing prices, up 32 per cent this June over June 2015, for an average price of $917,800.

• Phenomenally low rental vacancy rates that mean rents are consequently going through the roof, with Vancity Credit Union reporting young workers are being priced out of the Vancouver rental market.

• A development and home construction industry that has become dependent on Chinese foreign sales and escalating prices to prosper, meaning any ownership restrictions could seriously hurt employment and the B.C. economy.

Government data flawed, but revealing

First, look at the government numbers released by Finance Minister Mike de Jong last week.

De Jong deliberately directed media attention to the apparently low percentage of foreign housing buyers, even though the statistics came from just three weeks of June data that suspiciously did not include the final day of the month, when most sales go through.

Nor was that information definitive. The government counts on buyers to declare their nationality voluntarily; it doesn't consider whether the real owners are using family members or others representatives to buy housing; nor does reveal whether a buyer with permanent residency actually works or pays taxes in Canada.

These flawed statistics are challenged by estimates like that of the National Bank of Canada stating that Chinese buyers may have spent up to $12 billion on Metro Vancouver real estate last year -- one-third of all sales.

Regardless, the B.C. stats show that from June 10 to 29 the value of Metro Vancouver house sales to foreign nationals was $351 million, or 6.5 per cent of the total of $5 billion in sales.

The overwhelming majority of sales -- 234 out of 284 -- are to Chinese nationals. Citizens from Korea and Taiwan were second at just five purchases each.

If that $351 million over 20 days is extrapolated to an entire year, the estimated value of foreign residential sales would be $6.4 billion, far less than the National Bank's estimate, but still huge.

Compare that to the value of new building permits per year in Metro Vancouver -- roughly $6.5 billion in 2015, Statistics Canada figures show.

That means foreign buyers' purchases are virtually equal to the value of new building permits in Metro Vancouver each year.

It's about money, not race or nationality

Pointing that out is not racist. It's a factual observation based on the B.C. government's incomplete but still indicative data collection.

As Ian Young, the South China Morning Post's Vancouver correspondent, noted, the issue is money, not race. "Why would you think that someone was better defined by the colour of their skin than the colour of their money?" asks Young, who is of Chinese origin himself, raised in Australia and Hong Kong.

If foreign investment is equal to all new construction, is it any wonder prices are going through the roof?

The important number is not the 6.5 per cent of sales to foreign buyers -- it's the ratio of foreign investment to new construction.

To be clear, foreign buyers are not snapping up all the new homes. But their purchases have a value greater than all the new construction.

And if foreign nationals don't occupy or rent their new homes, the rental market shrinks. Even those who can't possibly afford to buy their own home in Metro Vancouver are screwed.

The Vancity report "Rent Race: The Growing Unaffordability of Rent in Metro Vancouver" makes for depressing reading.

"We have made an assumption that the rental market is there for people who can't afford to get into the housing market as an owner," Vancity community investment vice-president William Azaroff says. "What we're saying is: 'Hmm. Not so fast. That's not true.'"

With average Metro Vancouver rents of $1,144 per month and vacancies at less than one per cent, younger and lower-income households are in deep trouble.

And Vancouver city is even worse, with an average rent of $1,233 late last year, and a vacancy rate of 0.6 per cent.

So forget the nationality of homebuyers and ask why anyone would let another country's citizens make homes unaffordable?

Ridiculous? That's why I repeat my call for a six-month ban on the foreign purchase of B.C. homes to find longer-term solutions and stop the insanity.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Love that article about racism... So true. We all want to point the finger out to China... and any report that doesn't support our feelings is obviously faked.
Gimme a break.
Foreign money does NOT move the needle, it only provides an impetus for the public to latch on to. It provides the WHY. Whenever there's a disaster, the FIRST people want answered is "WHY" did this happen to me! This is no different. It's a relative disaster for young ones getting into the market, and they're mad, upset and looking for someone to blame.

I almost feel as if this is the whole climate change debate again. We have people within the real estate industry even suggesting that foreign money is flooding into the Vancouver Real-Estate market. You have the price-to-income ratio that suggests something is askew and you are ready to totally disregard the effect foreign investors are having here? This is not an issue of racism, it is an issue of class and the plethora of foreign money coming from other countries (yes, even those in Europe). Yes, demand and a low interest rate are causing demand in lower end townhomes and condos, but the large spike in luxury property sales coinciding with the surge of foreign investors exploiting the Quebec program is damning evidence…That alone has a trickle down effect in the housing market.

Identity politics is trendy right now, so I would expect people from all quarters to come out and scream "racism" as a red-herring to detract the focus from an obvious class-based issue.

I get that Vancouver legalized a suite in a house because it was easier to regulate, but if instead of laneway houses and taking a soft stance towards 2nd suites ( seriously, inspectors KNOW they're building it)

No they aren’t. They shutdown secondary suites that pose immediate hazards or are found during police/fire related incidents. I know an inspector in the City and these extra suites are not ideal and pose significant safety hazards and nuisances to the City. Crowded homes lead to an increase in illegal dumping, tax evasion, strain on residential throughroads/parking etc… In June, a neighboring resident tipped the City off regarding a garage (non-laneway) that was being rented out beside him. The unfortunate matter is that most illegal suites are REPORTED and not found during inspections….neighboring residents opt not to “rat” out their neighbors because they’re all doing the same thing.

Instead of a bunch of mouldy basement dwellers, people would have a place of their own. It is possible to make 3 bedroom and even 4-bedroom ( smaller rooms ) 2-level townhouses with about 1300 sq. ft. You just need to accept that every room won't have its own bathroom and the rooms will be smaller.
These places are usually about 15' wide. 10 houses in East Van take up about 330' ( 100m ). That's about 20 townhouses. Bulldoze 5 houses and you get 10 nice and spacious units that would sell for a decent price.
Throw in incentives and tax breaks for developers who consolidate and you've got yourselves a path towards a city with a variety of REAL housing that families can live in without building high rises and ticking people off who are in SFH territory. Interspersed here, you could build a few low-rises.

Yes I agree with you here, a 1300sq/ft townhome can emulate a SFH and save space and these should be placed in lieu of SFH developments. There are always the downsides though…some property owners are opting to illegally modify their units and subdividing it and violating municipal and strata bylaws in the process.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Exactly - between your "develop everywhere" attitude and the "develop nowhere" attitude is a "develop certain areas" middle ground where City Council and most of this forum lies. Just because many of us strongly disagree with rapid, uncontained development doesn't make us NIMBYs... though I can understand that at your end of the spectrum, it's hard to spot the difference.

As you've kindly observed, the City's TOD strategy involves zoning high-density corridors around arterial roads, and planning Skytrain/LRT/etc lines and apartments along them - often at the same time. Building mid/high-rises before the rapid transit puts the cart before the horse; the only way the residents will be getting around is by car, which would add to our already-horrible traffic. Currently, we can't even find the funding for two extensions down Broadway and Fraser Highway, and still you want to develop the entire West Side!

It's not like the entire city is frozen in time; one can barely walk ten blocks without seeing a construction site as it is, AND we're only going to see more of them over the next decade. The current level of growth is manageable, if not ideal.

In the past, I've mentioned about neighbourhoods like OV, West Broadway and Kitsilano, which are essentially extensions of downtown, to go high density and every single time someone from Vancouver would shoot the idea down, time and again. Those places are not even "everywhere" as purported, I mean, exaggerated by you. And you are suggesting that there is a lack of nimbys lurking around? Come on, try to be honest here, will ya?

Vancouver's skytrain station areas have always been resistant to high density development, and except for Marine Gateway neighbourhood and Joyce/Collingood (which are really nothing to brag about), everywhere else outside downtown still remains low density. Getting one of those skytrain station nodes to go high density is already short of a miracle if a developer can even pull off having a single tower built there, so yeah please stop the hyperbole that I insist on "developing everywhere". I rather cheer on the high density development of Burnaby and other suburbs.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You'll notice that Burnaby concentrates development at transit hubs just like Vancouver proper, instead of randomly building everywhere.

Being too lax with housing regs is just as pro-developer/landowner and anti-everybody as being too restrictive; one only needs to look at Surrey's abortion of a cityscape to understand that zoning without a plan and letting developers run roughshod is a bad idea.

That is so not true at all. Burnaby's concentrated development around so many transit hubs is nothing like Vancouver's, the latter having nimbys continuously trying to stall development, and folks like you claiming that such actions will cause the entire city to go high density. Hyperbolic rhetoric indeed.

[Vin]

If this thread is not about racism, why not read:

BC/Municipal Governments Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

Real Estate Industry Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

Home Owners Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

The Greed of Money Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.


Imagine if there's a thread here in this forum that reads: "Why are there so many white people who are homeless", or "Why do so much of our tax money go to subsidise free-loader white people in social housing". Well, again, this isn't about race: just pointing out a fact or even casual observation of a problem in our society. Well, guess what, I'm sure such threads would've been shut down by the moderators as it would be deemed highly offensive. And I do agree.

Targetting an ethnic group that can't even defend themselves here makes hate-mongering all the more easy, doesn't it?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Because its title was from an Vancouver Sun article specifically quoting a real estate agent who said most his buyers were Chinese almost 5 years ago?

[ryanmaccdn]

Love this.... such a deal for New Westminster.

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl...-New-Westminster-British-Columbia-V3M2C8

includes a view of the Scott Paper Factory too!

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Love this.... such a deal for New Westminster.

https://www.realtor.ca/Residential/Singl...-New-Westminster-British-Columbia-V3M2C8

includes a view of the Scott Paper Factory too!

4 kitchens? That's definitely intended for one of those large south Asian families to accommodate their extended family. It's basically a quadruplex. I didn't realize New West allowed 4 suites on a SFH plot?

[Migrant_Coconut]

To the rest of the thread, I apologize in advance for the giant wall of text.

Originally Posted by Vin

In the past, I've mentioned about neighbourhoods like OV, West Broadway and Kitsilano, which are essentially extensions of downtown, to go high density and every single time someone from Vancouver would shoot the idea down, time and again. Those places are not even "everywhere" as purported, I mean, exaggerated by you. And you are suggesting that there is a lack of nimbys lurking around? Come on, try to be honest here, will ya?

First off, the idea is to attack the post and its logic, not the poster. It's a hard habit to break, but it's worth it.

Second, I'm not exaggerating anything. Anybody can view your history and see you wondering if a certain high-rise could be even higher, or advocating towers in Kerrisdale or malls in OV (neither of which are viable) so that the area “feels” urban. Not going to happen, not when there's still plenty of room to grow downtown and along the main roads.

There's a system: first a city zones from low-density to mid-density, then as downtown fills up and starts expanding (and it isn't yet), from mid-density to high-density. You do not jump from low to high, any more than you go from crawling to running without learning to walk.
Regarding OV, Fairview, Mount Pleasant and Kitsilano, they're already growing from low to mid – heck, there's a new townhome being constructed on my block. While a lone Trump or a Shangri-La admittedly grants more prestige and bragging rights, entire block of townhouses and rowhouses accomplish the exact same thing as one tower in terms of densification.

Originally Posted by Vin

Vancouver's skytrain station areas have always been resistant to high density development, and except for Marine Gateway neighbourhood and Joyce/Collingood (which are really nothing to brag about), everywhere else outside downtown still remains low density. Getting one of those skytrain station nodes to go high density is already short of a miracle if a developer can even pull off having a single tower built there, so yeah please stop the hyperbole that I insist on "developing everywhere". I rather cheer on the high density development of Burnaby and other suburbs.

You might want to familiarize yourself with something called Brusselization - or again, just go to Surrey – to understand why lack of planning and out-of-control development is a bad idea. One high-rise sticking out like a sore thumb, another here, another over there, without the demand for them or the services and transport infrastructure to support them? Like I said, it doesn't work in SimCity, and really doesn't work in real life.
Rome wasn't built in a day. Likewise, going from Kelowna to Manhattan isn't a process that happens overnight by changing a few zoning bylaws.

As for Burnaby's “high density?” Let's look at the map together: I see one group of towers around Kingsway and Metrotown (admittedly large, being Burnaby's unofficial downtown and close to a Skytrain station), a small one at Kingsway and Edmonds, and a future group at Brentwood. The rest is low-rises and SFH, just like Vancouver.

Originally Posted by Vin

If this thread is not about racism, why not read:

BC/Municipal Governments Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

Real Estate Industry Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

Home Owners Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

or

The Greed of Money Driving up Metro Vancouver's Housing Price.

Because it's mostly Mainland Chinese money that's flooding the market - the same problem facing residents and citizens in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, America and many other countries along the entire Pacific Rim. All except Canada have imposed regulations (or at least enforced existing ones) in reaction to it, and none have the dubious honour of having the 3rd most expensive real estate in the world. This goes WAY beyond regular market forces.

Vancouver has the same scenery, size and population as Seattle or Portland, and is also twice as densely packed as either one. Yet we face nearly the same housing crisis as San Francisco, and Seattle and Portland don't. It's incredibly disingenuous to attribute the tension solely to skin colour; I for one find it very hard to be bigoted against myself.