Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[geotag277]

Pinion, if you don't want me to ignore it, here is the answer.

If that is the best density Vancouver can do outside of the core, it's embarrassing.

A few tall towers next to skytrain stations, one block away from single family detached housing is pathetic.

Your neat and tidy pictures remind me of this:



You lack a lot of critical thinking skills like most angry internet personalities. LeftCoaster's density numbers speak volumes about how much Vancouver has fallen off a cliff as a Canadian leader in urban planning.

[Pinion]

.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Pinion, if you don't want me to ignore it, here is the answer.

If that is the best density Vancouver can do outside of the core, it's embarrassing.

A few tall towers next to skytrain stations, one block away from single family detached housing is pathetic.

Your neat and tidy pictures remind me of this:



You lack a lot of critical thinking skills like most angry internet personalities. LeftCoaster's density numbers speak volumes about how much Vancouver has fallen off a cliff as a Canadian leader in urban planning.

You should give up while you’re behind. As Leftcoaster and Pinion have pointed out you clearly don’t really know what’s happening in Vancouver.

[speedog]

Bbkind of an odd debate and an answer to this might provide some clarity - does the city of Vancouver have any say on or dontrol of multi-family developments in Burnaby or Surrey or Coquitlam or Richmond or North Vancouver or any other of the municipalities that make up the greater Vancouver area?

For Calgary, I do not believe the city of Calgary has any say on anything being developed/built with respect to multi-family outside of it's borders. Not sure if what goes on up in Edmonton as it's setup is much more similar to Vancouver's as opposed to Calgary's current uni-city setup.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pinion

These photos may look familiar from the last time you ignored the replies to your repeated and preposterous idea that Vancouver is running out of space/isn't building towers. I could post several more impressive condo clusters from other town centres in the region if you like.

It's kind of strange that those towers would find themselves scattered like that over the suburbs while the more central areas are still full of detached SFHs, no?

At first sight, it doesn't match what I'm used to in larger cities. Normally you'd expect density in the neighborhoods closer to the core (rowhouses and towers) while detached homes are something you'll find in outer neighborhoods and suburbs.

I think that's one of geotag's main points, Vancouver hasn't done much rezoning of the central neighborhoods to allow for more density.

[lio45]

For example, my sis works at McGill, is car-less, and takes the subway to go places. When they shopped for property SFHs weren't even on the table: there's none in the inner neighborhoods. (They ended up buying a condo in Verdun.)

I recall being shocked by an aerial of Calgary's downtown showing detached SFHs within walking distance of the CBD skyscrapers. (For the record, I also recall my shock creating a minor SSP shitstorm from angry Calgarians.) Looks like it's simply a symptom of the very rapid way the Western cities grew, and lagging zoning and NIMBYism. There are reasonable explanations for that situation, it's just something we out East aren't really used to because older cities that have been big for a long time have pushed such low-density housing progressively away from the core over the centuries. It's just... exotic, from my POV, to see little bungalows and the Bow tower in the same shot.

[geotag277]

Wow, now we are comparing Vancouver to Portland, in order to be able to show Vancouver is doing well with density? This is some bizarro world stuff now. Portland is a city of a half a million people, with a metro area around Vancouver's size except that metro area is contained within 17,000+ KM2 compared to Vancouver metro's less than 3000 KM2. What's next, comparing Vancouver to Kansas City? Anyone can see this is absurd.

I notice you gave a wide angle aerial view of Portland as your example to show how "flat" Portland is, and then to "prove" Vancouver is doing well with density you gave upward angle, narrow angle shots showing very limited space.

Why not give an aerial view of Vancouver like this?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's kind of strange that those towers would find themselves scattered like that over the suburbs while the more central areas are still full of detached SFHs, no?

At first sight, it doesn't match what I'm used to in larger cities. Normally you'd expect density in the neighborhoods closer to the core (rowhouses and towers) while detached homes are something you'll find in outer neighborhoods and suburbs.

I think that's one of geotag's main points, Vancouver hasn't done much rezoning of the central neighborhoods to allow for more density.

Tall towers scattered around haphazardly around train station stops is not a sustainable urban density plan. It was absolutely absurd LeftCoaster pointed to the "tallest towers being made in the last 10 years" as a sign that Vancouver is doing well.

How exactly are things like Shangri La and Trump tower helping Vancouverites with a housing strategy ?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's kind of strange that those towers would find themselves scattered like that over the suburbs while the more central areas are still full of detached SFHs, no?

At first sight, it doesn't match what I'm used to in larger cities. Normally you'd expect density in the neighborhoods closer to the core (rowhouses and towers) while detached homes are something you'll find in outer neighborhoods and suburbs.

I think that's one of geotag's main points, Vancouver hasn't done much rezoning of the central neighborhoods to allow for more density.

It is odd but Vancouver is built like that on purpose and I kinda like it. In theory it should lead to better traffic since everyone isn't going the same way, and it allows more people to live near fast transit. i.e. I don't actually like living in the City of Vancouver, I think it's a traffic and crime infested overrated city full of rude, inconsiderate and arrogant people. But I do like the north shore, and I can do/get everything I need without crossing the inlet.

Geotag's point is that prices are high because Vancouver is not building densely enough and we're running out of space. It is true that the City of Vancouver proper (ie a tiny portion of the metro) refuses to upzone areas close to downtown. It's also true that as soon as you hit Burnaby (i.e. 15 minutes from downtown) you get 50+ storey condos basically right on the municipal border.

His argument is dead wrong and deflecting from the fact that Chinese money laundering is the issue.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Wow, now we are comparing Vancouver to Portland, in order to be able to show Vancouver is doing well with density? This is some bizarro world stuff now. Portland is a city of a half a million people, with a metro area around Vancouver's size except that metro area is contained within 17,000+ KM2 compared to Vancouver metro's less than 3000 KM2. What's next, comparing Vancouver to Kansas City? Anyone can see this is absurd.

I notice you gave a wide angle aerial view of Portland as your example to show how "flat" Portland is, and then to "prove" Vancouver is doing well with density you gave upward angle, narrow angle shots showing very limited space.

Why not give an aerial view of Vancouver like this?

I've said many times that the City of Vancouver proper (i.e. one of 20+ municipalities making up Metro Vancouver) is poor at densifying outside of the downtown peninsula. We agree there. That's a tiny part of the metro though. You conveniently didn't show the VAST amount of land to the east that is peppered with towers and urban skylines. And of course you did because that would invalidate your point as usual.

Also lol if you think that shot of Vancouver doesn't still show that Vancouver is much more densely built than Portland, even without showing Metrotown, Brentwood, etc.

This view of the suburbs makes you look a little silly, not that you need the help:

[geotag277]

Actually my point was that Vancouver metro's housing strategy has been failing the people of Vancouver for decades, and a big part of that is failing to densify outside of the downtown peninsula (wow, we actually agree about something).

I have also long generally advocated for completely restricting foreign investment, except in cases where they simply cause unnatural unhealthy effects on the market (such as foreign buyer taxes redistributing demand from SFH to condo/townhomes and pricing even more people out of home ownership).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by speedog

Bbkind of an odd debate and an answer to this might provide some clarity - does the city of Vancouver have any say on or dontrol of multi-family developments in Burnaby or Surrey or Coquitlam or Richmond or North Vancouver or any other of the municipalities that make up the greater Vancouver area?

For Calgary, I do not believe the city of Calgary has any say on anything being developed/built with respect to multi-family outside of it's borders. Not sure if what goes on up in Edmonton as it's setup is much more similar to Vancouver's as opposed to Calgary's current uni-city setup.

Nope the Metro area of Vancouver is balkanized into all kinds of small little fiefdoms each out to protect their own turf. if Toronto is the poster child for the ills of amalgamation, Vancouver is for the ills of not amalgamating at least some municipalities.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Tall towers scattered around haphazardly around train station stops is not a sustainable urban density plan. It was absolutely absurd LeftCoaster pointed to the "tallest towers being made in the last 10 years" as a sign that Vancouver is doing well.

How exactly are things like Shangri La and Trump tower helping Vancouverites with a housing strategy ?

LOL. why don't you post some pics of Calgary to show how much better they are doing?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rbt

If the federal government couldn't track it for the statistics, how do they expect the federal government to prevent it?

The feds have said the %age of purchases they can prevent via enforcement (the ones they know about).

Even taking out 2% of the real estate market on the supply side would have pretty big effects on the entire market. You are also talking about 20% of condo sales in places like the City of Vancouver and Richmond, which would have pretty big implications for the viability and timeframes of a lot of projects in those areas.

Perhaps the biggest impact to the market is the psychological effect within the domestic Vancouver resident's mind. We saw this after people were spooked with the SFH market and instead decided to invest in condos and townhomes after the foreign buyer taxes.

In any case, it's probably a good idea at this point for Vancouver to simply shut foreign investment down, but assuming it will be a panacea to fix the structural failings of Vancouver's urban planning strategy is a pipedream.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Also lol if you think that shot of Vancouver doesn't still show that Vancouver is much more densely built than Portland

Again, the fact you are using Portland as your bar for density is some next level crazy.

Originally Posted by Pinion

even without showing Metrotown, Brentwood, etc.

The fact that you can only name two areas outside of downtown that have any towers of significance, and both are on skytrain stations, speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by Pinion

This view of the suburbs makes you look a little silly, not that you need the help:

Folks - this is the best Vancouver can do outside of downtown, a couple of tall towers next to a skytrain station, and illustrate exactly why Vancouver's urban planning strategy is embarrassing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's kind of strange that those towers would find themselves scattered like that over the suburbs while the more central areas are still full of detached SFHs, no?

At first sight, it doesn't match what I'm used to in larger cities. Normally you'd expect density in the neighborhoods closer to the core (rowhouses and towers) while detached homes are something you'll find in outer neighborhoods and suburbs.

I think that's one of geotag's main points, Vancouver hasn't done much rezoning of the central neighborhoods to allow for more density.

Largely a function of the cities ages. Vancouver received it's first streetcar line in 1890, just four years after incorporating. Residents were no longer tied by walking or horse distance to their workplace. A single family home, no matter how small the lot, was seen as more desirable than shared housing such as row housing or terraces.

Second, Metro Vancouver adopted the Liveable Region Strategic Plan which was too encourage employment nodes in each municpality, rather than one big downtown core with sattelite bedroom communities.

Do not accept geotag's statements as fact, he knows little of Metro Vancouver.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Folks - this is the best Vancouver can do outside of downtown, a couple of tall towers next to a skytrain station, and illustrate exactly why Vancouver's urban planning strategy is embarrassing.

I didn't name two, I named five, and offered to post more tower skylines within metro Vancouver. I could post another five.

Here's my suburb. How many single family homes can you count? Hint: you'll only see them in the small native reserve in the top right.



Also I didn't use Portland as "the bar for density." I said that's what cities of 2.5 million normally look like and Vancouver has an absurdly high amount of condos for its size, or even for a big city. Try to follow along.

[GlassCity]

The City of Vancouver proper's density falls off from downtown, but there are still smaller multi-family buildings all over too. Towers are not the only way to get density. For example, this is Marpole in south Vancouver:


http://www.vancourier.com/community/vancouver-special/marpole/marpole-then-and-now-1.899071

And this is what surrounds those 'couple' towers in Burnaby for a considerable area (and slowly being destroyed in the name of creating profit towers for foreigners):

https://www.apartmentblocks.ca/apartment-blocks-listings/property/4330-maywood-street-burnaby-3/

And there are many, many other neighbourhoods like that that you won't see from up in the air. In any case, the reason why Vancouver's density peters out while other suburban municipalities have towers of their own is for two reasons. Partially, because they're separate municipalities, each one wants to try and create a 'downtown' for itself, so they zone some areas accordingly.

But also, because the Metro Vancouver municipalities all work in very close partnership with each other, there's something called the "Regional Growth Strategy," that aims to concentrate growth and density in several nodes throughout the region. So instead of density being concentrated at one downtown and slowly diminishing outwards as lio45 brought up, this happens in like 10 different places throughout the region. As Pinion said, it's to be more efficient with transportation infrastructure and also to provide people with more amenities closer to them. Instead of throwing one big density rock in the water that ripple out smaller and smaller, we throw in 10 pebbles.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what more you want from Vancouver. Our sprawl growth is extremely minimal, especially compared to Calgary. Most growth that is occurring is in the form of densification. If we had a higher growth rate, like Calgary, we probably would be building more multi-family housing, and a lot of it wouldn't be towers. Right now our housing starts are already very high, and largely in the form of multi-family. Just because it's not all adjacent to downtown doesn't matter. And it also doesn't mean that Vancouver's 'fallen off' in terms of planning; again, we're building lots, and most of it is dense. Why don't you show us some Calgary examples, because frankly trying to argue that it's ahead of Vancouver in this now is absurd.

This is Calgary:

https://cyclewriteblog.wordpress.com/201...isaster-do-transportation-habits-change/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

...
Anyway, I'm not really sure what more you want from Vancouver. Our sprawl growth is extremely minimal, especially compared to Calgary. Most growth that is occurring is in the form of densification. If we had a higher growth rate, like Calgary, we probably would be building more multi-family housing, and a lot of it wouldn't be towers. Right now our housing starts are already very high, and largely in the form of multi-family. Just because it's not all adjacent to downtown doesn't matter. And it also doesn't mean that Vancouver's 'fallen off' in terms of planning; again, we're building lots, and most of it is dense. Why don't you show us some Calgary examples, because frankly trying to argue that it's ahead of Vancouver in this now is absurd.

This is Calgary:

https://cyclewriteblog.wordpress.com/201...isaster-do-transportation-habits-change/

Indeed, one can only assume geotag's knowledge on Vancouver is informed by a cab ride from the airport to downtown. That might give the impression everything is SFH, though even that is changing.

Her's yet one more refutation of his thesis. Central Richmond, the suburb south of Vancouver:

[IMG]Richmond.jpg-721x406 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Indeed, one can only assume geotag's knowledge on Vancouver is informed by a cab ride from the airport to downtown. That might give the impression everything is SFH, though even that is changing.

Her's yet one more refutation of his thesis. Central Richmond, the suburb south of Vancouver:

[IMG]Richmond.jpg-721x406 by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

Good one. Richmond always gets overlooked because it's buildings aren't tall, but I would argue it's just behind North Vancouver for the most urban feeling suburban downtown.