The Vancouver Business Thread

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

The answer to all your musings is balance.

Sure - were capitalist. But when a household making well into the 6 figures is forced into 500 sq/ft one bedrooms because of prices, it starts to damage the fabric of society and more importantly pushes people out of the region.

We do a great job attracting people and educating them. But a poor job retaining the talent.

The prices for houses and condos today are simply a net negative to the City and region.
- Business are having problems attracting and retaining talent.
- Commute times are going off the charts
- Commute directions are scattered as town centres sprout up across region
- First responders are forced to live away
- Even the construction industry is starving itself - we cant attract labour to build our fancy condos because they cant afford to live here.

This may have been a boon to the economy 10 years ago. Its a net negative now.

We have tourism, we have film, we have tech, we have resource, if there is a time to get off Real Estate its now.

Last year I rented a place in South Van that was a 1 bedroom 800sqft for $1050. I was considering moving into a studio that was 550sqft downtown for $1100. I was making $50k gross that year so I think the 6 figures into 500sqft isn't happening unless they are bad with money. I know Yaletown gets up to $2000 a month for a 700sqft 1 bedroom place so if they are living there maybe? But Vancouver itself has quite a few 1 bedrooms for $1000-$1200 still.

We are having trouble with talent....but partially that's because we have strong anti-immigration policies. We need a lot of cheap immigrant labor to fill in the labor-intensive jobs to free up skilled labor. We also have focused on social housing which has killed commercial development.

Actually commute times are there to push people to not drive. The city council's plan is to increase commutes further to push people into not driving. We are currently decreasing road infrastructure in Vancouver to do this (bike lanes, closing roads, expanding sidewalks, etc. Rather than commutes being a symptom there actually a result. They keep it a bit hush hush but if you talk to a member of Council and ask them they'll explain that if they decreased commute times more people will drive, so they decided to increase it instead. It would be pretty easy for the city to decrease commute times if they wanted to such as encouraging more 2nd-3rd shift business (4pm-12am, 12am-8am), a unified traffic control system, conversion of side streets to major roads, increased lanes and eliminating street parking on major roads, conversion of bike lanes to lanes, etc. However, the city is very green so they want to discourage automobile use and push for people to take transit. They also feel that decreasing commutes is not a long term solution as they will just encourage more people to drive.

As for the construction industry...yeah we are building alot and the high cost of labor is because of that. You literally cannot hire a good contractor without connections now. This is another reason I push for a more open immigration and work permit policy. For some reason we couldn't take all the Syrian immigrants in the construction industry and instead got all the ones with non-transferable job skills A large chunk of the increased build times and construction costs also comes from regulation and inefficient building codes. One example is we now have to build balcony's separate from buildings to maintain a fire barrier (much more expensive and painful to do). Not an expert regarding construction and I'm going by stories.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Hmm I can see that prices of "Luxury properties" will go down if we get rid of foreign buyers. I don't see why we need to reduce the price of luxury condos/real estate. After all these properties pay a large chunk of our taxes? I also don't necessarily see a strong real estate market as a bad thing? Taxes were plentiful and investment properties were being built and sold like crazy (meaning there were lots of rentals). A tax on foreign buyers makes sense but 15-20% makes it so no one will buy here while a 5% tax would have been reasonable. Were a capitalist nation so adding a small tax to give us a competitive edge is reasonable, but 15-20% is pure punishment. Plus it was evil to levy that tax on people who had put a deposit down on new construction but had yet to complete the sale. I believe in being fair and nice, and by doing that we showed that we are assholes. There should have been a grace period and warning, instead these measures like empty homes and speculation taxes are given with little to no warning in an attempt to immediately punish people.

If you look at statistics most major international cities have many foreign buyers. London its 13%+. Its just normal to have that in a major city. Vancouver is literally Canada's Western capital. If you look at BC as a whole the amount of foreign ownership goes down greatly. Foreigners have really helped boost this city such that our unemployment is at an all time low. The reason UBC and other schools are so rich now is definitely because of that (PS I do not support how many international students UBC is taking over locals).

In the end lets be honest, I'm going to say something thats going to get me in trouble. Most homeless and drug addicts are Canadians while the people paying the taxes to care for them are foreigners.

What a joke. It's pretty clear which side your bread is buttered on. Foreign buyers are parasites that create unaffordability for local residents. No amount of tax would be too high.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Last year I rented a place in South Van that was a 1 bedroom 800sqft for $1050. I was considering moving into a studio that was 550sqft downtown for $1100. I was making $50k gross that year so I think the 6 figures into 500sqft isn't happening unless they are bad with money. I know Yaletown gets up to $2000 a month for a 700sqft 1 bedroom place so if they are living there maybe? But Vancouver itself has quite a few 1 bedrooms for $1000-$1200 still.

We are having trouble with talent....but partially that's because we have strong anti-immigration policies. We need a lot of cheap immigrant labor to fill in the labor-intensive jobs to free up skilled labor. We also have focused on social housing which has killed commercial development.

Actually commute times are there to push people to not drive. The city council's plan is to increase commutes further to push people into not driving. We are currently decreasing road infrastructure in Vancouver to do this (bike lanes, closing roads, expanding sidewalks, etc. Rather than commutes being a symptom there actually a result. They keep it a bit hush hush but if you talk to a member of Council and ask them they'll explain that if they decreased commute times more people will drive, so they decided to increase it instead. It would be pretty easy for the city to decrease commute times if they wanted to such as encouraging more 2nd-3rd shift business (4pm-12am, 12am-8am), a unified traffic control system, conversion of side streets to major roads, increased lanes and eliminating street parking on major roads, conversion of bike lanes to lanes, etc. However, the city is very green so they want to discourage automobile use and push for people to take transit. They also feel that decreasing commutes is not a long term solution as they will just encourage more people to drive.

As for the construction industry...yeah we are building alot and the high cost of labor is because of that. You literally cannot hire a good contractor without connections now. This is another reason I push for a more open immigration and work permit policy. For some reason we couldn't take all the Syrian immigrants in the construction industry and instead got all the ones with non-transferable job skills A large chunk of the increased build times and construction costs also comes from regulation and inefficient building codes. One example is we now have to build balcony's separate from buildings to maintain a fire barrier (much more expensive and painful to do). Not an expert regarding construction and I'm going by stories.

You are talking out of your ass. Do you even fact check your statements before you post them? Canada has some of the most liberal immigration policies out there.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by misher

Last year I rented a place in South Van that was a 1 bedroom 800sqft for $1050. I was considering moving into a studio that was 550sqft downtown for $1100. I was making $50k gross that year so I think the 6 figures into 500sqft isn't happening unless they are bad with money. I know Yaletown gets up to $2000 a month for a 700sqft 1 bedroom place so if they are living there maybe? But Vancouver itself has quite a few 1 bedrooms for $1000-$1200 still.

We are having trouble with talent....but partially that's because we have strong anti-immigration policies. We need a lot of cheap immigrant labor to fill in the labor-intensive jobs to free up skilled labor. We also have focused on social housing which has killed commercial development.

Actually commute times are there to push people to not drive. The city council's plan is to increase commutes further to push people into not driving. We are currently decreasing road infrastructure in Vancouver to do this (bike lanes, closing roads, expanding sidewalks, etc. Rather than commutes being a symptom there actually a result. They keep it a bit hush hush but if you talk to a member of Council and ask them they'll explain that if they decreased commute times more people will drive, so they decided to increase it instead. It would be pretty easy for the city to decrease commute times if they wanted to such as encouraging more 2nd-3rd shift business (4pm-12am, 12am-8am), a unified traffic control system, conversion of side streets to major roads, increased lanes and eliminating street parking on major roads, conversion of bike lanes to lanes, etc. However, the city is very green so they want to discourage automobile use and push for people to take transit. They also feel that decreasing commutes is not a long term solution as they will just encourage more people to drive.

As for the construction industry...yeah we are building alot and the high cost of labor is because of that. You literally cannot hire a good contractor without connections now. This is another reason I push for a more open immigration and work permit policy. For some reason we couldn't take all the Syrian immigrants in the construction industry and instead got all the ones with non-transferable job skills A large chunk of the increased build times and construction costs also comes from regulation and inefficient building codes. One example is we now have to build balcony's separate from buildings to maintain a fire barrier (much more expensive and painful to do). Not an expert regarding construction and I'm going by stories.

Yeah, because every building under construction and under development is social housing.

[GenWhy?]

The vitrol shots at Misher are highly unnecessary everyone. Use data, policy links, and studies if you must. Knowledge is power and discussion leads to informed ideas.

[misher]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yeah, because every building under construction and under development is social housing.

Not all projects are social housing. But most projects have to contribute huge amounts unless they are. Otherwise they don't get the required zoning. The general rule is you can build 3 storeys more if you build market rental and double your FSR if you build social housing. But there are areas where its only social housing. Also zoning is very restrictive about what can be built unless its social housing which means every lot is zoned to its max (so we can't build new housing!). To quote the below article regarding Broadway https://urbanyvr.com/broadway-corridor-land-speculation

"Only projects with 100 per cent social or supportive housing will be considered under interim rezoning policy"

This means that with a skytrain coming up no new projects will be started for two years unless there social housing (which isn't going to happen). So were leaving an area that could have been a major development untapped until there's massive construction down Broadway.

Right before this policy came into effect this project for an 16 storey building with 158 units submitted its application. Imagine what would have happened if the city allowed for rental stock along Broadway over the next 2 years or even straight up Strata Housing. Instead its all social housing. https://development.vancouver.ca/1296wbroadway/index.htm

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

"Only projects with 100 per cent social or supportive housing will be considered under interim rezoning policy"

Interim means temporary. You know that right?

From the article:

The city is developing a new plan for the Broadway Corridor, but it won’t be ready until 2020

You can argue that the city is too slow at this, but likely it will involve Translink, who is rightfully looking to capitalize on some of the new value their massive transit investment will give to landowners, rather than developers scooping up all of those gains.

2020 is plenty of time before the line is built. It's not opening until at least 2024 at this rate.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by misher

Last year I rented a place in South Van that was a 1 bedroom 800sqft for $1050. I was considering moving into a studio that was 550sqft downtown for $1100. I was making $50k gross that year so I think the 6 figures into 500sqft isn't happening unless they are bad with money. I know Yaletown gets up to $2000 a month for a 700sqft 1 bedroom place so if they are living there maybe? But Vancouver itself has quite a few 1 bedrooms for $1000-$1200 still.

We are having trouble with talent....but partially that's because we have strong anti-immigration policies. We need a lot of cheap immigrant labor to fill in the labor-intensive jobs to free up skilled labor. We also have focused on social housing which has killed commercial development.

Actually commute times are there to push people to not drive. The city council's plan is to increase commutes further to push people into not driving. We are currently decreasing road infrastructure in Vancouver to do this (bike lanes, closing roads, expanding sidewalks, etc. Rather than commutes being a symptom there actually a result. They keep it a bit hush hush but if you talk to a member of Council and ask them they'll explain that if they decreased commute times more people will drive, so they decided to increase it instead. It would be pretty easy for the city to decrease commute times if they wanted to such as encouraging more 2nd-3rd shift business (4pm-12am, 12am-8am), a unified traffic control system, conversion of side streets to major roads, increased lanes and eliminating street parking on major roads, conversion of bike lanes to lanes, etc. However, the city is very green so they want to discourage automobile use and push for people to take transit. They also feel that decreasing commutes is not a long term solution as they will just encourage more people to drive.

As for the construction industry...yeah we are building alot and the high cost of labor is because of that. You literally cannot hire a good contractor without connections now. This is another reason I push for a more open immigration and work permit policy. For some reason we couldn't take all the Syrian immigrants in the construction industry and instead got all the ones with non-transferable job skills A large chunk of the increased build times and construction costs also comes from regulation and inefficient building codes. One example is we now have to build balcony's separate from buildings to maintain a fire barrier (much more expensive and painful to do). Not an expert regarding construction and I'm going by stories.

If this were actually true - council should be put out to pasture for this. Perhaps that's why they aren't running for reelection?

All they have accomplished is to put more commuters on the highway as they drive in from ever further townships, like Abbotsford, Langley, etc.

This would be the single most counter-intuitive policy ever. I mean sure - in theory you could end up with no traffic in Downtown one day by barring all non commercial vehicles.

But to then ignore the catastrophe you created on the periphery under the guise of being green, perverts the very principals of what green actually is.

"Out of sight, out of mind" is a terrible policy.

Secondly, I can think of 3 families in my group of friends in the last 12 months that have left for elsewhere.

Perhaps you can find a 1 bedroom for $1000 somewhere - but that doesn't speak to the stability, space, and location required to house a family with children.

These couples all left well paid professional jobs in favour of communities where they can own, belong, and be stable.

The rental market here is harsh too - short tenure, landlords selling, renovictions, etc. These are not conditions to raise kids in, with school catchments to consider, commutes, etc.

The facts are becoming undeniable that the Civic policy has been tailored to the very wealthy at the cost of general well being of our social structure.

The sad thing is that this causes all sorts of damaging knee jerk reactions, that will benefit no one - see the orange guy down south.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What a joke. It's pretty clear which side your bread is buttered on. Foreign buyers are parasites that create unaffordability for local residents. No amount of tax would be too high.

Au contraire, foreigners contribute to the coffers of this country, while the lazy drug-addicted bums are the real parasites. They are the ones causing money to enter bottomless pits through social housing, welfare cheques, unnecessary healthcare, crime and punishment, legal costs, etc. We probably don't need foreign money to be parked here if we don't spend so much on the social welfare system. Get your facts right.

Which side is your bread buttered on? I think we all know.

FYI, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rofina

If this were actually true - council should be put out to pasture for this. Perhaps that's why they aren't running for reelection?

All they have accomplished is to put more commuters on the highway as they drive in from ever further townships, like Abbotsford, Langley, etc.

This would be the single most counter-intuitive policy ever. I mean sure - in theory you could end up with no traffic in Downtown one day by barring all non commercial vehicles.

But to then ignore the catastrophe you created on the periphery under the guise of being green, perverts the very principals of what green actually is.

"Out of sight, out of mind" is a terrible policy.

Secondly, I can think of 3 families in my group of friends in the last 12 months that have left for elsewhere.

Perhaps you can find a 1 bedroom for $1000 somewhere - but that doesn't speak to the stability, space, and location required to house a family with children.

These couples all left well paid professional jobs in favour of communities where they can own, belong, and be stable.

The rental market here is harsh too - short tenure, landlords selling, renovictions, etc. These are not conditions to raise kids in, with school catchments to consider, commutes, etc.

The facts are becoming undeniable that the Civic policy has been tailored to the very wealthy at the cost of general well being of our social structure.

The sad thing is that this causes all sorts of damaging knee jerk reactions, that will benefit no one - see the orange guy down south.

May I just say that I think you've hit the nail on the head here. City council seems to have a delusional, pie-in-the sky vision of transportation.
OK, the road infrastructure is deliberately underbuilt to supposedly get people tpo take transit. But the transit isn't yet extensive enough, and what's more....
Cars are here to stay until the world's oil runs out. This Pollyannaism on the part of the city is sad, naïve and plain pathetic.
Good transportation infrastructure is essential for any growing city that wants to attract business, and the current civic leaders, unknowingly, are shooting themselves in the foot.
Not only themselves, but more precisely, the whole city, and I'm referring to the metro area as a whole.
Freeways are a necessary evil, and they can be built without gashing up the city. Again, look at Stockholm as an example. The transit is coming along, but is nowhere near extensive enough yet. // By the time this enters the mindset of the powers that be, it will be too late - and too expensive - to rebuild and remedy the damage done.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rofina

The facts are becoming undeniable that the Civic policy has been tailored to the very wealthy at the cost of general well being of our social structure.

The sad thing is that this causes all sorts of damaging knee jerk reactions, that will benefit no one - see the orange guy down south.

You know what else is like the P*ssygrabber-in-Chief? Insults and accusations based on nothing but rumours and/or bad guesses.

Just saying, all we've got is one poster with anecdotes from tertiary sources. Let's not blow that into a vast anti-car conspiracy without more information.

[SgtNeonPanda]

Originally Posted by rofina

If this were actually true - council should be put out to pasture for this. Perhaps that's why they aren't running for reelection?

All they have accomplished is to put more commuters on the highway as they drive in from ever further townships, like Abbotsford, Langley, etc.

If you look at Translink's commuter surveys, very few people from Abbotsford or Langley commute to Vancouver. The vast majority commute to elsewhere in the Valley.

https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-Projects/Transportation-Surveys.aspx

Misher is right on the creating impediments to traffic downtown. Brent Toderian once famously said that one of the greatest contributors to downtown was the traffic light at Georgia and Denman, as it slowed the flow of traffic into
downtown. This isn't a policy of the current council, but one that has been part of CoV planning for a good 20 years.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You know what else is like the P*ssygrabber-in-Chief? Insults and accusations based on nothing but rumours and/or bad guesses.

Just saying, all we've got is one poster with anecdotes from tertiary sources. Let's not blow that into a vast anti-car conspiracy without more information.

Not sure which specific points or insults you are referring to.

I think its clear to see that decisions made by council as they pertain to housing and transportation have not been made in favour of the average folk.

Corporate money has bought civic politics. I don't think that controversial to say anymore.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rofina

Not sure which specific points or insults you are referring to.

I think its clear to see that decisions made by council as they pertain to housing and transportation have not been made in favour of the average folk.

Corporate money has bought civic politics. I don't think that controversial to say anymore.

May have preempted the inevitable "war on cars!" flamewar too soon. Sorry if you thought I meant you.

There's nothing wrong with less MV dependency or more modal share; the main problem is that Vision is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd like to blame that on overenthusiasm and ineptitude rather than malice. At least until a leak/audit shows otherwise.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

May have preempted the inevitable "war on cars!" flamewar too soon. Sorry if you thought I meant you.

There's nothing wrong with less MV dependency or more modal share; the main problem is that Vision is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd like to blame that on overenthusiasm and ineptitude rather than malice. At least until a leak/audit shows otherwise.

Yes - in that case, we agree.

My comment about Civic finances also pertains more towards development choices, rather than infrastructure.

However, the two tie in more and more with the scale of proposals we are seeing across the City.

Eg; False Creek North.

[misher]

Just wanted to say I really appreciated the insightful replies!

Regarding home prices:
I admit I am on the side of homeowners rather than people who do not own homes. Around 64% of Vancovuerites own their homes, generally the people that have been here long-term rather than the new entrants. I see nothing wrong with home prices increasing as long as a good amount of rental stock is maintained. If housing price increases then we will just densify and build more condos the way other metropolitan centres in the world have gone. I also see nothing wrong with foreigners offering us more for our homes and increasing prices, after all were a capitalist nation and everyone has the option of moving, downsizing, etc. I know many clients and friends sell their places in Van, take the money, and buy someplace much cheaper out east.

Regarding infrastructure:
I agree with Coconut, we've pushed too much on public infrastructure when it just isn't there yet. We need a coherent system of tunnels for transit to run throughout the city (and a skytrain to North Van) before we start reducing our road going infrastructure.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Just wanted to say I really appreciated the insightful replies!

Regarding home prices:
I admit I am on the side of homeowners rather than people who do not own homes. Around 64% of Vancovuerites own their homes, generally the people that have been here long-term rather than the new entrants. I see nothing wrong with home prices increasing as long as a good amount of rental stock is maintained. If housing price increases then we will just densify and build more condos the way other metropolitan centres in the world have gone. I also see nothing wrong with foreigners offering us more for our homes and increasing prices, after all were a capitalist nation and everyone has the option of moving, downsizing, etc. I know many clients and friends sell their places in Van, take the money, and buy someplace much cheaper out east.

Regarding infrastructure:
I agree with Coconut, we've pushed too much on public infrastructure when it just isn't there yet. We need a coherent system of tunnels for transit to run throughout the city (and a skytrain to North Van) before we start reducing our road going infrastructure.

The percentage of residents that rent is 51% in the City of Vancouver.

If you have "clients" that have moved it's not surprising you see nothing wrong with housing prices being driven up by foreign buyers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by misher

Just wanted to say I really appreciated the insightful replies!

Regarding home prices:
I admit I am on the side of homeowners rather than people who do not own homes. Around 64% of Vancovuerites own their homes, generally the people that have been here long-term rather than the new entrants. I see nothing wrong with home prices increasing as long as a good amount of rental stock is maintained. If housing price increases then we will just densify and build more condos the way other metropolitan centres in the world have gone. I also see nothing wrong with foreigners offering us more for our homes and increasing prices, after all were a capitalist nation and everyone has the option of moving, downsizing, etc. I know many clients and friends sell their places in Van, take the money, and buy someplace much cheaper out east.

Regarding infrastructure:
I agree with Coconut, we've pushed too much on public infrastructure when it just isn't there yet. We need a coherent system of tunnels for transit to run throughout the city (and a skytrain to North Van) before we start reducing our road going infrastructure.

I think you're reading Metro Vancouver data for ownership/renter percentages. If you are referring to the Metro Vancouver Housing Data Book (April 2018), it states that "In 2006, there were 817,230 households in Metro Vancouver; 531,725 (65%) were owners and 285,045 (35%) were renters."

It's old data and for the whole region. Rental housing starts "exploded" post 2015 and added a lot of new homes and Vancouver proper has a high percent of renters than the Metro Area (40+ percent).

[GenWhy?]

And mind you it indicates "households" not population as renters/owners.

[GenWhy?]

I would also caution on assuming those that own homes or households that are strata (doesn't mean they are not rented out) that their inhabitants have been here on average longer than renters or are less entrenched or tied to their local communities. Stats and data can be read many ways, and I always take this with a grain of salt. Read between the lines - don't be a fanatic, but be cautious in the wording (or lack of wording).

Notice in the Metro report that mostly all new rentals are "expensive" (too high for the average renter's wage), and that rents have greatly outpaced wage increases. In my work this is largely explained by land cost, and that's the issue as well with the bonus of large gains off selling property recently that it makes all new homes (bought or rented) more expensive. Good and bad. No one tool in the tool box. A few of my friends rent here and bought property in their hometowns for "cheap".