The real problem with Vancouver’s outrageous house prices

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

The towers are well-spaced, and residents don't feel claustrophobic as most have pretty decent views. If you were to squeeze everyone into 12-storey buildings, you will need to create rows of wall-to-wall apartment blocks. Forget about squares, plazas, or pocket gardens then. Everyone would be looking into each other's bed or living rooms. No matter how you see it, you always create higher density with taller buildings.

scryer isn't trolling at all.

Paris and other European cities must be a shit place to live then.

[squeezied]

Originally Posted by Vin

They are more affordable relative to Vancouver's condos. Imagine if they were all 6-storey apartments: prices would probably still be similar, but a lot more people will have to live even further away from the transit stations or downtown.

Oakridge is different. The buildings are built for the luxury market, just like Vancouver House, and never intended for the middle-class. There will be a lot more affordable apartments and condos around Oakridge in the future once the City allows tall highrises to go in.

So then answer my question, do you think if Oakridge were to reduce from 40+ stories to 10 stories the units would be more expensive?

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by scryer

these height restrictions are extremely superficial and they only serve the folks that can 'enjoy' these views (most of which are rich folks in Point Gray or the average tourist in QEP).

Wow such misinformation.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Geez, just let the article stand on its own without bringing view cones to everything. Eliminating view cones will barely make a dent in Broadway's affordability. Adding more units to a development may make it more economically viable for the developer but won't lower the selling price of the units. There'll just be more of the same expensive units. The market rate ultimately determines the price.

You'll get better affordability rezoning the rest of Vancouver's single family houses to low/mid rises than eliminating view cones.

True, but view cones are the most often cited reason for limited density. Developers could fill out their units as flat stacks, but it would be less desirable from an architectural, and sales standpoint, thus, more difficult to sell at the current prices, so they don't. RE companies are businesses, after all. They exist to make money.

They would have to negotiate higher density zoning anyways.

Originally Posted by squeezied

Look at any neighbourhood that has been adding taller buildings in the past couple years: Marpole, Brentwood, Metrotown, etc. They aren't getting any more affordable. And look at Oakridge, do you think if the height were to hypothetically reduce from 40+ stories to 10 stories the units would be more expensive? To repeat myself again:

Demand everywhere has soured due to low interest rates, high immigration, and speculator demand.


Height limits are one of the primary limits in limiting the total amount of density in Vancouver right now- the other is zoning. But the source, and much of the reasoning (NIMBY) is the same.

Both limit supply- but you can't increase supply right now without changing both. Also, going over the view cones right now requires paying a substantial fee ($350/sqft).


To answer the question, no, because much of the land on the site is being used to support a park. Reducing it to 10 stories would reduce the amenities making it more difficult to justify such a high cost.

Originally Posted by rofina

This makes sense under normal circumstances. But not with the amount of tax built into every new unit of housing.

CAC's alone will make any unit along Broadway beyond affordable.

If they go with higher range of $425 a foot that's $300,000 a unit assuming a not extravagant 700sq/ft unit.

One theoretical condo, before its anything more than what I just typed, will already cost a minimum of $300,000. That's pretty insane.

Assume land costs being cut in half ( not likely )
Assume labour costs being cut in half (no chance, we face a long term labour shortage in the trades)

And that unit is still a minimum of $600,000 under the most optimistic scenario imaginable.

We will never build an affordable unit of housing under the current system. Its literally impossible.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

So then answer my question, do you think if Oakridge were to reduce from 40+ stories to 10 stories the units would be more expensive?

Yes definitely. If they do build 10-storey buildings, it would definitely be cheap-looking condos just like the rest of the 6-storey parts of Cambie, and certainly not the curvy skyscrapers with mushroom-shaped balconies you see at the presentation centre. More likely than not they would not even build anything, just like what is happening along Broadway.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Krissy

Wow such misinformation.

That's not an argument.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Paris and other European cities must be a shit place to live then.

They make it up with 5-6 storey architecturally-stunning ornate structures, and have zero SFH neighbourhoods at the core and surrounding it. Their wide tree-lined boulevards, canals and historical squares also make up for the claustrophobic living condition. Can Vancouver do all that?

Despite all that, Paris' ranking for "best city to live in" is still below Vancouver's. That says a lot.

Also, Paris is also starting to go tall. Yes, a lot taller than Vancouver. We are simply going backwards.

See the new Paris:
https://pxhere.com/en/photo/780747

[Vin]

Originally Posted by squeezied

Are you pretending you don’t understand my post so you don’t have to address what I said? Or maybe I just have to spell it out to you.

I quoted myself to show that I’m the one implying view cones are a small impact to affordability, not Vin. Where has Vin said view cones are only a small component to affordability?

Anyways for popcorn fun, I’d like to see you provide the ‘evidence and resources’ on how view cones are for rich people in Point Grey.

I never said it's a "small component". It is fairly huge in my opinion.

Not allowing other areas in Vancouver to go tall, in my opinion, is an offshoot of the strict viewcone policies, which are just an excuse to maintain the status quo. They don't even consider the fact that by doing so, they are essentially taking away the "viewcones" of the suburb city districts by forcing them to go tall.

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's not an argument.

To say view cones are for rich people in Point Grey is misinformation. Did you even read scryer's post? But knowing you, you probably can't tell what misinformation is.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Krissy

To say view cones are for rich people in Point Grey is misinformation. Did you even read scryer's post? But knowing you, you probably can't tell what misinformation is.

No one has proven anything about the view cones being for whom in this argument- except maybe for NIMBYs.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

No one has proven anything about the view cones being for whom in this argument- except maybe for NIMBYs.

That's pretty much what it all boils down to. Seems like both YIMBYs and NIMBYs are using the housing crisis as a punchline; once it dies down, the underlying argument will always be whether or not tall towers can be as aesthetically pleasing as the mountains they block, where they should be blocked from, and whether they should be blocked in the first place.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's pretty much what it all boils down to. Seems like both YIMBYs and NIMBYs are using the housing crisis as a punchline; once it dies down, the underlying argument will always be whether or not tall towers can be as aesthetically pleasing as the mountains they block, where they should be blocked from, and whether they should be blocked in the first place.

My issue with the viewcones is that they're way too restrictive right now. You're right, the big issue is YIMBY vs NIMBY, which dictates policy. The government could be much more lenient with CAC costs, so that height is more a guideline, not a rule that dooms each building to have the same height as every building around it, and limits the expansion of downtown.

[whatnext]

A survey by Research Co on the housing market showed that only 34% of Metro Vancouverites thought we should build more housing units to deal with the affordability crisis. By far the most popular option, favoured by 77% of respondents was an outright ban on foreign ownership:

Late last month, Research Co. asked Metro Vancouverites about three simple issues: should we build more or fewer housing units, should we have more or fewer new housing units devoted exclusively to rentals and has the time come for Canada to consider the possibility of banning non-citizens from buying real estate in the country?...

..When Metro Vancouverites were told that 75,000 new housing units were built in the region from 2015 to 2017, one-third of respondents (34%) said they believe we should build more than we did over this three-year period.

Just over a quarter of Metro Vancouverites (27%) surveyed believe we should build at roughly the same pace as we did over the three-year period, while one in five (19%) wants to build less. This so-called “anti-density” crowd amounts to almost half of Metro Vancouverites surveyed, creating a conundrum for policy-makers and councils who may have promised to simply build their way out of the housing crisis...

....The survey reminded respondents about the situation in New Zealand, where legislation was recently passed to ban most foreigners from buying real estate in the country.

The New Zealand law contemplates exceptions for foreigners who hold residency status in New Zealand, as well as citizens from Australia and Singapore, due to free-trade agreements. Almost four in five Metro Vancouverites (77%) supported enacting similar legislation in Canada. This is consistent with the high level of endorsement that the foreign-buyer tax – in all of its forms – has garnered over the past few years...

https://www.burnabynow.com/no-easy-way-f...way-out-of-its-housing-crisis-1.23521632

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

....The survey reminded respondents about the situation in New Zealand, where legislation was recently passed to ban most foreigners from buying real estate in the country.

The New Zealand law contemplates exceptions for foreigners who hold residency status in New Zealand, as well as citizens from Australia and Singapore, due to free-trade agreements. Almost four in five Metro Vancouverites (77%) supported enacting similar legislation in Canada. This is consistent with the high level of endorsement that the foreign-buyer tax – in all of its forms – has garnered over the past few years...[/I]

Has New Zealand's legislation helped? Australia has something similar, if I remember correctly, but aren't their housing prices going crazy as well?

[misher]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Has New Zealand's legislation helped? Australia has something similar, if I remember correctly, but aren't their housing prices going crazy as well?

Given that less than 1% of sales went to foreign Owners (yeah everyone says foreign Owners get around the tax but if there getting around the tax they'll get around the ban) we all must logically recognize that any ban on foreign Owners wouldn't do shit. I do hope our politicians use intelligence when enacting laws.

However, racism isn't logical either.


The biggest testament/proof to the power of domestic demand is how the increase in mortgage difficulty killed the market.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by misher

Given that less than 1% of sales went to foreign Owners (yeah everyone says foreign Owners get around the tax but if there getting around the tax they'll get around the ban) we all must logically recognize that any ban on foreign Owners wouldn't do shit. I do hope our politicians use intelligence when enacting laws.

However, racism isn't logical either.


The biggest testament/proof to the power of domestic demand is how the increase in mortgage difficulty killed the market.

Back to the mis information and racist calling for pointing out facts. How much does the CCP pay you per post?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Back to the mis information and racist calling for pointing out facts. How much does the CCP pay you per post?

*sigh*

[misher]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Back to the mis information and racist calling for pointing out facts. How much does the CCP pay you per post?

*sigh*..............considering your anti free-market I think the CPC would want to recruit you more than a libertarian/free market supporter like me. I did not mean to call you racist, I meant that respondents in that survey you quoted who blame foreign ownership aren't using logic when they say that which is similar to how racism occurs. Not sure where the mis information accusation came from. When I said 1% foreign buyers I was repeating commonly available facts, here's one source

According to the numbers released, just one per cent of all real estate transactions in Metro Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Regional District during the first six months of this year involved foreign nationals, down from three per cent in the same period a year ago.

https://www.burnabynow.com/opinion/edito...ving-b-c-s-real-estate-market-1.23410763


PS: Its a forum about real estate construction so I think most of us support the real estate industry.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

..When Metro Vancouverites were told that 75,000 new housing units were built in the region from 2015 to 2017, one-third of respondents (34%) said they believe we should build more than we did over this three-year period.

Were respondents told how many people moved to Metro Vancouver/LM over that same period?

Given that roughly 120,000 to 135,000 people moved to the lower mainland from Jan 2015 to Dec 2017 I think that information is very relevant.

I really don't know why or how your average Joe should know how many housing units a metropolitan region should be delivering. A question that complex isn't really a casual question that should be asked in a phone interview.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Back to the mis information and racist calling for pointing out facts. How much does the CCP pay you per post?

Speaking of "mis information"....