Canada's 'housing bubble' deemed close to bursting

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, put me down as someone who doesn't understand why it's strange for Vancouver to still have lots of single family houses. Still seems to me that it's way ahead of the rest of the ~2-3 million population pack. Of course it seriously lags behind Montreal, but that doesn't really strike me as a fair comparison.

Indeed. It’s not like you don’t find SFH within minutes of Manhattan in Queens.

[logan5]

Vancouver is unlike any other major city in North America. Montreal can grow outwards in all directions. Same for Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, etc. Vancouver can only expand in a tightly contained south easterly direction. So no, Montreal is not anywhere near comparable to Vancouver. No city is. Huge land constraints combined with woefully inadequate rezoning = sky high housing prices.

[lio45]

Within minutes if you're a bird, maybe...

[dleung]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah, put me down as someone who doesn't understand why it's strange for Vancouver to still have lots of single family houses. Still seems to me that it's way ahead of the rest of the ~2-3 million population pack. Of course it seriously lags behind Montreal, but that doesn't really strike me as a fair comparison.

Vancouver proper lags behind Montreal Island in percentage of SFH yes.

My preference is for a mild upzoning of desirable SFH areas near transit to allow for small towers on each 60' lot, around 6 stories, containing about 4 stacked townhouses. Permitted only as a 30' wide tower with 15' side setbacks, and only if 40' trees and hedges are planted as buffer from adjacent properties. These won't be cheap, but geared as an alternative to the SFH, with roughly 2x the buildable area as before but with 4x the number of households. Sketches to come later

[lio45]

Originally Posted by logan5

Vancouver is unlike any other major city in North America. Montreal can grow outwards in all directions. Same for Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, etc. Vancouver can only expand in a tightly contained south easterly direction. So no, Montreal is not anywhere near comparable to Vancouver. No city is. Huge land constraints combined with woefully inadequate rezoning = sky high housing prices.

Huge land constraints + woefully inadequate rezoning + gazillions of Chinese money injected into the real estate market = sky high housing prices.

The third one is likely the greatest in importance, but the other two are obviously contributing to a "perfect storm" of factors.

Also, by "woefully inadequate rezoning", you're agreeing with those of us who find Vancouver's inner-city neighborhoods to be surprisingly SFH-heavy for a city of that size with such development constraints, right...?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by lio45

Huge land constraints + woefully inadequate rezoning + gazillions of Chinese money injected into the real estate market = sky high housing prices.

The third one is likely the greatest in importance, but the other two are obviously contributing to a "perfect storm" of factors.

Also, by "woefully inadequate rezoning", you're agreeing with those of us who find Vancouver's inner-city neighborhoods to be surprisingly SFH-heavy for a city of that size with such development constraints, right...?

I'm mostly fine with Vancouver inner city neighbourhoods. The single family homes, especially on the east side are mostly subdivided. All those Vancouver specials act as duplexes, and are more affordable rental spaces. What I find disturbing are the 50 to 60 foot wide lots that make up most of Metro Vancouver's detached housing stock. Those lots could easily accommodate 2 single detached homes. There's enough of these huge lots to build 100's of thousands of new houses.

I think you got it backwards. The third one is of least importance. Your suggesting that somehow the Chinese conspired to make Vancouver real estate skyrocket in value. Foreign investors are taking advantage of a situation that already existed.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by dleung

LOL when did you say that?

I can see that you pointed to the Calgary example as a way to drive down unit prices in Vancouver to $40k in land per unit. I showed that the actual number is closer to $200-400k... after which you started doing that thing Sarah Huckabee Sanders does to facts...

There is a "elements" style development which is 6 floors in the Vancouver example more appropriate for suburban development and a "Kensington" style development which is 10 stories which is more appropriate for higher density potential areas.

You totally lost the plot here.

[geotag277]

Manhattan is like Montreal. It can sprawl in infinite directions. That's why all comparisons with Vancouver are stupid. Vancouver is unique. Vancouver can't grow anymore. Vancouver can't add SFH housing stock to meet demand, which is what originally triggered SFH prices to skyrocket past Toronto (in the 90s).

People commute from CT to Manhattan for god's sake. Vancouver has zero comparable options for commuters.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by lio45

BTW, I'm not even saying this is something that should change, I'm merely pointing out that it's obviously a factor that helps make the city even less affordable.

As I'm fond of saying during such discussions on SSP: if we completely razed San Francisco and covered all the land of the former city with high-density soulless commie blocks, it would do absolute wonders for affordability in San Francisco.

Also, the comparison isn't that unfair, seems to me. Greater Montreal's at 4 million, right? Isn't Van close to 3 million?

I think it's unfair not because of population differences but because Montreal is an eastern city founded hundreds of years ago while Vancouver is a western railway city that grew up in the last century. These different eras of growth come with different built forms. It shouldn't be surprising that Vancouver's mostly SFH when all cities that grew over that period were, just like how it's not surprising Montreal mostly has rowhouses.

And sure, it plays a role in affordability, but I want to make sure I acknowledge that I don't think that's the biggest factor

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by logan5

Vancouver is unlike any other major city in North America. Montreal can grow outwards in all directions. Same for Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, etc. Vancouver can only expand in a tightly contained south easterly direction. So no, Montreal is not anywhere near comparable to Vancouver. No city is. Huge land constraints combined with woefully inadequate rezoning = sky high housing prices.

We've talked about this before, but Vancouver's really not as constrained as people make it sound. The eastern section isn't really that constrained; the Fraser Valley's pretty wide. Richmond's only half developed. Delta's maybe a third. Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge are about a third. And Surrey eastward, there are acres and acres of developable farmland, and it doesn't really get constrained until past Abbotsford. I'm not saying we should develop it, but that the option has always been there for Vancouver to be a sprawling low-density city too.

[GreaterMontréal]

The Lower Mainland is about 2,500km². Vancouver has still room to grow.

urban Toronto 2,800/km , 2,300km²
urban Montréal 2,700/km , 1,294km²
urban Vancouver 2,600/km , 876km²

http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

[GlassCity]

Here's a picture of the Agricultural Land Reserve. As you can clearly tell, it's much more responsible for whatever density there is in Metro Vancouver than the border, water or mountains. Again, not advocating for getting rid of it, just really arguing for the fact that Vancouver's density is a conscious policy decision, not a necessity forced by the landscape.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/agriculture/about/Pages/default.aspx

[logan5]

Have a look at Metro Vancouver on Google Earth. You can see a thin green line that represents Metro Vancouver's boundaries. Within those boundaries are about 1400 sq km's of uninhabitable mountain range. Then deduct the Agricultural Land Reserve and burns bog, and that's another approx. 600 sq km's that cannot be developed. Your left with about 800 sq km's to work with. Look at the ALR map. Look at how much of Richmond is ALR. Look at Delta and Langley. It's ridiculous.

[casper]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Here's a picture of the Agricultural Land Reserve. As you can clearly tell, it's much more responsible for whatever density there is in Metro Vancouver than the border, water or mountains. Again, not advocating for getting rid of it, just really arguing for the fact that Vancouver's density is a conscious policy decision, not a necessity forced by the landscape.


http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/agriculture/about/Pages/default.aspx

Absolutely. I think we need to keep the ALR. That is critical from a food security perspective.

There may be some smaller hobby farms. For those the government should make it clear, subdivision is not an option. If they are not financially viable as is then they should form parts of land assemblies to create larger farms.

[dleung]

I literally posted this two weeks ago:



Vancouver takes up 29.5% of the legal area

[casper]

Originally Posted by logan5

Have a look at Metro Vancouver on Google Earth. You can see a thin green line that represents Metro Vancouver's boundaries. Within those boundaries are about 1400 sq km's of uninhabitable mountain range. Then deduct the Agricultural Land Reserve and burns bog, and that's another approx. 600 sq km's that cannot be developed. Your left with about 800 sq km's to work with. Look at the ALR map. Look at how much of Richmond is ALR. Look at Delta and Langley. It's ridiculous.

I think the ALR is a positive.

Compare Metro Vancouver to:
GTA - 7,000 sq km
Greater Montreal - 4,258 sq km
Calgary 825 sq km

I did not normalise the other areas for uninhabitable land. However it gives you a clear indication for how constrained Vancouver is relative to other metro areas in Canada.

[logan5]

Never seen that before. Excellent reference material.

It's even worse than I thought (using my crude calculations).

[geotag277]

Getting rid of the ALR won't do anything anyways. It's not even that much land. It's already immediately adjacent to other areas vancouver has already sprawled too.

The only effect of getting rid of the ALR will be maximizing profit for ALR land owners, who are going to do whatever they can to maintain current land values. So you may add more overpriced expensive SFH housing stock, but you are eroding the purpose of the ALR in the first place, with almost zero benefits.

I can see reducing the ALR once Vancouver's housing strategy is figured out, ie. density, speculation, sustainable multi-family units balancing demand. But doing it ahead of time acting like you can turn Vancouver into a sprawl city like Calgary is absurd.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Getting rid of the ALR won't do anything anyways. It's not even that much land. It's already immediately adjacent to other areas vancouver has already sprawled too.

The only effect of getting rid of the ALR will be maximizing profit for ALR land owners, who are going to do whatever they can to maintain current land values. So you may add more overpriced expensive SFH housing stock, but you are eroding the purpose of the ALR in the first place, with almost zero benefits.

I can see reducing the ALR once Vancouver's housing strategy is figured out, ie. density, speculation, sustainable multi-family units balancing demand. But doing it ahead of time acting like you can turn Vancouver into a sprawl city like Calgary is absurd.

I don't think the ALR should be reduced, but I agree, it wouldn't do much for housing affordability. I'm just saying it's more responsible for Vancouver's built form than its other constraints. If it wasn't for the ALR, Vancouver could sprawl with the best of them if it wanted to.

[Pinion]

.