Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[geotag277]

I already responded to left coaster, and he ignored me, as he usually does, because you and him are Chadillac style boosters, with no sense of nuance. Pulling two context-less numbers out of the air and declaring victory is absurd.

Anyway, getting back on topic:

http://business.financialpost.com/real-e...-in-2017-with-sales-hitting-10-year-high

Huge sales growth for Montreal, exceeding 20%, with condo sales exceeding 35% growth, combined with moderate price increases of 6% (much of which involving single family homes).

It seems their multi-family development plan is helping to offset price increases, but perhaps not enough.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You mean, time to escape because I no longer have a leg to stand on after LeftCoaster destroyed my argument?

Hahaha

Quick! Deflect deflect. Change the topic!

Look at Montreal!

[WhipperSnapper]

Base population are utterly meaningless. I know Calgary was adding a ton of people during the boom years, IIRC, eclipsing 45,000? How many was Vancouver adding at the time and how do those raw growth numbers compare to multi-family housing starts?

Sorry, if this was already addressed. To me, it feels as definitive as to who was building more as you can get through basic stats.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Base population are utterly meaningless. I know Calgary was adding a ton of people during the boom years, IIRC, eclipsing 45,000? How many was Vancouver adding at the time and how do those raw growth numbers compare to multi-family housing starts?

Don't bother. He doesn't want to discuss 'random numbers', he just wants to ramble on then try to change the topic when he's proven wrong.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Base population are utterly meaningless. I know Calgary was adding a ton of people during the boom years, IIRC, eclipsing 45,000? How many was Vancouver adding at the time and how do those raw growth numbers compare to multi-family housing starts?

Sorry, if this was already addressed. To me, it feels as definitive as to who was building more as you can get through basic stats.

Looking at any one number is fraught with problems. Looking at population in isolation from population growth is problematic because larger populations tend to grow less. Looking at population growth itself is also problematic because, especially with Calgary, births dominate our growth and babies don't need to buy houses.

Part of the problem with Vancouver is they have been behind for so long on multi-family. Price growth rates reflect that.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Looking at any one number is fraught with problems.

Especially when that one number is exactly what you were talking about and it proves you definitively wrong.

Once again, you had no problem referencing those numbers when you thought they helped you.

And no babies don't buy houses, but their parents sure do. Upgrading one's housing to accommodate family growth is a huge driver of housing. Jesus man this is mickey mouse shit.

[geotag277]

I'm sorry if I offended you LeftCoaster, but you are quickly descending into a juvenile mess in this thread. I already explained why the numbers were different, and why one set and even the other set could prove my point, by adding context (recession), population details (babies, recession, growth rates), and so on.

If you don't accept my arguments, that's fine. But you are behaving like a toddler right now.

[WhipperSnapper]

I didn't account for babies. However, anyway you look at it will be fraught with problems. Multi-family is far too generalized should you find a balanced measurement. The basis of your argument is land use. Multi-family includes developments that may be less than 1 time coverage to developments that are more than 10 times that number. The unit makeup may not be all that different either.

[geotag277]

Agreed. I will look for more detailed housing start data to build a better picture. I think it could elucidate the conversation by considering types and breadth of just the multi-family umbrella across cities, and their growth rates.

It would be an interesting exercise for sure.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I'm sorry if I offended you LeftCoaster, but you are quickly descending into a juvenile mess in this thread. I already explained why the numbers were different, and why one set and even the other set could prove my point, by adding context (recession), population details (babies, recession, growth rates), and so on.

You said places like Calgary's multifamily were putting Vancouver to shame.

I posted stats that said Vancouver's multifamily construction is roughly 5 times more than Calgary's.

You claim that is a random number and not relevant.

Even the old stats, during Calgary's boom they were adding nearly the same amount of people per year as Vancouver yet it's multifamily U/C was still half. How is that putting it to shame?

I don't know how any of this can even remotely be construed to putting Vancouver to shame, but you're the mature one here I guess so you must know when you're wrong....

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Even the old stats, during Calgary's boom they were adding nearly the same amount of people per year as Vancouver yet it's multifamily U/C was still half. How is that putting it to shame?

Does it make you feel somehow better to continually pretend like I didn't already answer these questions?

Like WhipperSnapper suggested, the most productive way forward is to do a bit more data analysis, because these numbers on their own don't say as much as we might otherwise assume. That is true for my arguments and yours. I would tend to agree with that approach.

[LeftCoaster]

But you haven't answered the question, that's the whole point.

We don't need more data.

Vancouver added double the multifamily housing when the two cities were growing at the same absolute pace.

Vancouver is adding 5 times the multifamily housing now that it is growing slightly faster.

Where is the argument that Calgary is putting Vancouver's multifamily to shame?

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Hahaha

Quick! Deflect deflect. Change the topic!

Look at Montreal!

And always depart by accusing those with counter arguments as “dick measuring”

The oldest play in the book!

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Where is the argument that Calgary is putting Vancouver's multifamily to shame?

Calgary is half the size.

The 4x numbers were compared while Calgary was in an incredibly deep recession and basically only adding population through babies.

The 2x numbers were proportional to Calgary -> Vancouver population rates, which indicates that Calgary was building in line with Vancouver on a per capita basis. I would consider this embarrassing Vancouver as Calgary is known as a suburban sprawl city, and Vancouver was once the leader in Canadian urban development.

Finally, the biggest indicator that Vancouver is failing hard and embarrassing itself compared to Calgary is simply affordability metrics across the spectrum - rents, condos, housing prices. Calgary has maintained some of the most affordable housing in Canada, compared to other large cities, by keeping up with affordability. That above all points to a sustainable approach, and Vancouver has failed hard and is put to shame by it.

Again, I largely agree with WhipperSnapper that the most productive path forward is to dig a bit more into the data.

Now if you and Metro One want to continue acting like preteen girls, carry on. But don't pretend I didn't already answer this multiple times. It is making you look ridiculous.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The 2x numbers were proportional to Calgary -> Vancouver population rates, which indicates that Calgary was building in line with Vancouver on a per capita basis. I would consider this embarrassing Vancouver as Calgary is known as a suburban sprawl city, and Vancouver was once the leader in Canadian urban development.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between absolute and relative?

I specifically said absolute. Per capita means nothing here.

Calgary added 49,000 people in 2013, Vancouver added 34,000 in 2013.

Yet despite Calgary growing faster in absolute AND relative terms Vancouver still added twice the multifamily. The fact that the city is twice the size doesn't matter when they're both growing at the same absolute rate, or the smaller one is growing faster!

See why you're wrong yet?

Originally Posted by geotag277

Now if you and Metro One want to continue acting like preteen girls, carry on.

Ahh so this is that much discussed maturity you've been going on about. So nice of you to show all of us how a mature person acts.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Do you honestly not understand the difference between absolute and relative?

I specifically said absolute. Per capita means nothing here.

Calgary added 49,000 people in 2013, Vancouver added 30,000 in 2013.

Yet despite Calgary growing faster in absolute AND relative terms Vancouver still added twice the multifamily. The fact that the city is twice the size doesn't matter when they're both growing at the same absolute rate, or the smaller one is growing faster!

See why you're wrong yet?

I see why you think such an argument is convincing, and yet I am not convinced, and further, somewhat not surprisingly, think my arguments are better than yours. This is how mature adults generally talk.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Ahh so this is that much discussed maturity you've been going on about. So nice of you to show all of us how a mature person acts.

The funny thing about showing your true colors regarding maturity is that the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Take that how you will.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I see why you think such an argument is convincing, and yet I am not convinced, and further, somewhat not surprisingly, think my arguments are better than yours. This is how mature adults generally talk.

What exactly is your argument? I've been using sited stats and facts to back up my position.

You've neglected to post a single statistic and have just been calling me a preteen girl, dismissing stats as dick measuring and a calling me a Chadillac style booster.

I think it's quite clear you were wrong and are not cannot admit it. That's fine, it's not easy to admit when one is wrong.

I think my long and measured posting history here speaks for itself vis a vis my maturity. You're welcome to form whatever opinion of me you see fit.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I see why you think such an argument is convincing, and yet I am not convinced, and further, somewhat not surprisingly, think my arguments are better than yours. This is how mature adults generally talk.

Suppose Vancouver had 0 population growth in 2013 while Calgary had a population growth of 50,000. If Vancouver added twice the multifamily dwellings than Calgary did, then wouldn't that mean that Vancouver is doing a way better job of adding multifamily? I mean, they're not growing so they don't need to add any multifamily dwellings, yet they are!

If Vancouver and Calgary both grew by 50,000 in 2013, and Vancouver added twice the multifamily dwellings than Calgary did, then Vancouver would be twice as good as Calgary at adding multifamily dwellings, wouldn't they?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

What exactly is your argument?

Again, part of my argument was that as cities grow, they need to add multi-family at a greater rate compared to the population, because managing density pressures and limiting sprawl are key goals for urban planning.

Even if Calgary was growing faster in absolute terms, building less multifamily makes sense in the context that it is half the size of Vancouver.

And again, a key part of what I'm saying is that Calgary is known as a suburban sprawl wasteland, and Vancouver was a once mighty leader of Canadian urban development. Calgary being known as a place of ghastly sprawl is a key part of the reason why it is putting Vancouver to shame.

[LeftCoaster]

Sure I agree larger cities should grow multifamily at a faster rate than smaller cities.

So let's create a ratio:

Of the 34,000 residents added in 2013 there were ~20,000 multifamily units U/C. That is the vast bulk. Of the 49,000 residents added to Calgary in 2013 there were only 9,000 multifamily U/C.

That's 0.59 multi family units for each new resident in Vancouver and only 0.18 in Calgary. That means the ratio of new multifamily to new resident is triple in Vancouver than Calgary. That is astounding.

The ratio of multi family units to resident added is so much higher in Vancouver I just can't comprehend how anyone could say it should be even higher, or that it is a shameful level of growth. On the contrary I'd say it is commendably high.