Report forecasts 1.1 million population rise in Lower Mainland by 2041, requiring...

[csbvan]

Most units being constructed in the region are not coming in the form of tall concrete towers , like Ultra. This forum may focus on towers, but that isn't the overwhelming form of new unit construction across this region.

The thing is, an estimate of 13,000 units being completed is simply not plausible. The 44,000 units under construction right now is a record. Over the last few years, when there was not a record number of new units under construction, completions surpassed 20,000. There hasn't been a year in recent memory with less than 15,000 completions.

I am going to take the CMHC data as being the best estimate of starts, completions and construction time. The numbers add up.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

When in recent memory have you seen a condo completed in 20.6 months?

General rule of thumb is one month down one month up for excav. Lobby and podium floors are around a month each then 2 weeks per floor forming.

So on a standard 30 storey condo with 4 levels of U/G parking and a 3 floor podium:

- 8 months excav/parking forming
- 3 months ground and podium
- 12 months tower

So 23 months in and you've only topped out, you haven't even finished the units. Envelope and finishing usually last another 10-12 months.

Let's take Ultra in Surrey as an example. Easy greenfield site with plenty of laydown and no difficult site conditions. Broke ground late Nov 2015, today they still do not have their occupancy, so it will be well over 3 years to occupancy for a very standard metro Vancouver tower.

So given that 36 months is a pretty standard time for a mid sized condo, with larger condos like Brentwood taking 48+, smaller condos would need to be finished in 10-16 months to have an average of 20 month construction time. That just does not happen, not even woodframe.

I'm not sure how it impacts reported construction timing, but CMHC don't consider the project to be under construction during excavation and underground work. Basements and underground parking don't count - a 'Housing Start' is when the project hits grade. Similarly a completion isn't when someone moves in - they seem to count it completed when it looks to be completed (they apparently do their own survey of construction sites). So shorter construction times will result - from being counted as a 'Start' to being counted as a 'Completion'

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm not sure how it impacts reported construction timing, but CMHC don't consider the project to be under construction during excavation and underground work. Basements and underground parking don't count - a 'Housing Start' is when the project hits grade. Similarly a completion isn't when someone moves in - they seem to count it completed when it looks to be completed (they apparently do their own survey of construction sites). So shorter construction times will result - from being counted as a 'Start' to being counted as a 'Completion'

That's one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's one of the stupidest things I've read in a while.

As long as you know how these things are calculated, it's not a big deal. I guess it might be examples like Espana in International Village, where they excavated in the early 1990s, I think, and only completed in 2009. In between times there was a lake there.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Allowing seniors to enter is useful to help assimilation efforts and to keep people from sending money outside the country to help their extended family.

Except your importing people as they enter the years they are most expensive to our public health system. And many are coming from countries where unhealthy habits like smoking are prevalent and will result in higher medical costs down the road. And what's wrong with sending money back to poorer countries where it can do a lot of good circulating through their economy?

I kind of question the numbers, you can't assume going forward will be the same as looking back. And there's a big article in the Globe & Mail today about all the gaps in Canadian statistics:
Flying blind: Why does Canada know so little about itself?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except your importing people as they enter the years they are most expensive to our public health system. And many are coming from countries where unhealthy habits like smoking are prevalent and will result in higher medical costs down the road. And what's wrong with sending money back to poorer countries where it can do a lot of good circulating through their economy?

I kind of question the numbers, you can't assume going forward will be the same as looking back. And there's a big article in the Globe & Mail today about all the gaps in Canadian statistics:
Flying blind: Why does Canada know so little about itself?

Because that money isn't sticking around in the Canadian Economy? If you care about burdens to the economy, there you go.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Also, 25,000 completed units for a regional population growth of around 30,000 per year is staggering. The 45,000 per annum is an average based on a projection for 2041. Housing completions in 2018 should be judged against current population growth, not the anticipated population growth for 2035.

Immigration to Canada has risen dramatically in the last few years. We were accepting around 260 000 immigrants up to 2015, but in recent years that number has climbed to over 300 000, with 2020 seeing 340 000 and 2021 seeing 350 000 new immigrants. Considering that after the new immigrants have done their time in Flin Flon or wherever, they will start moving to the bigger cities. Vancouver being one of the major destinations. That 45 000 figure is not only in line, it may even be too low. Depending on the economy and inter-provincial migration.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nts-in-canada/

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Except your importing people as they enter the years they are most expensive to our public health system. And many are coming from countries where unhealthy habits like smoking are prevalent and will result in higher medical costs down the road.

One of my friends has talked about wanting to retire in another country. Looking up the info on retirement visas, I've seen that they all say the person has to have a certain amount of money (it varies by country) for living expenses, including having to pay for private medical insurance. Seeing as they haven't been paying into that country's public services for their working lives, they're not allowed to access them when they retire there. Is Canada so special that we'd be any different?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by logan5

Immigration to Canada has risen dramatically in the last few years. We were accepting around 260 000 immigrants up to 2015, but in recent years that number has climbed to over 300 000, with 2020 seeing 340 000 and 2021 seeing 350 000 new immigrants. Considering that after the new immigrants have done their time in Flin Flon or wherever, they will start moving to the bigger cities. Vancouver being one of the major destinations. That 45 000 figure is not only in line, it may even be too low. Depending on the economy and inter-provincial migration.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nts-in-canada/

If the Conservatives get back into power, or forces Trudeau into a minority government, maybe it'll go back down. There are a ton of factors, and increasing immigration can be controversial. I'd be skeptical of assuming the number is going to go up for the next decade.

[logan5]

Immigration stimulates the economy. Why would a different government want the economy to stagnate?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Sheba

One of my friends has talked about wanting to retire in another country. Looking up the info on retirement visas, I've seen that they all say the person has to have a certain amount of money (it varies by country) for living expenses, including having to pay for private medical insurance. Seeing as they haven't been paying into that country's public services for their working lives, they're not allowed to access them when they retire there. Is Canada so special that we'd be any different?

their kids can sponsor them and have to agree to being financially resposible for them but they would get PR and would be able to get medical.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by logan5

Immigration stimulates the economy. Why would a different government want the economy to stagnate?

Exactly. We also have an aging population. We need immigration.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by logan5

Immigration stimulates the economy. Why would a different government want the economy to stagnate?

Ask Trump.

Also, immigration regulations were more strict in general under Harper.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Ask Trump.

Also, immigration regulations were more strict in general under Harper.

And yet Harper still increased and promoted the TFW program allowing businesses to hire and abuse these temps and undercut many local salaries.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Exactly. We also have an aging population. We need immigration.

That's the standard, non-thinking motherhood view. I'm always surprised the NDP never seizes on the fact that mass immigration and TFW are used by businesses to drive down wages and to avoid investment in mechanization. Case in point the Humboldt Broncos tragedy. Importing some poor sap from the developing world and giving them minimal training operating a big rig is cheaper than paying a wage Canadians would want or investing in automated trucking technology.

And while Japan has definite demographic challenges, it is not some dystopian hellhole of the aged that some try to portray as the alternative to mass immigration.

[logan5]

There's plenty of research that backs the idea of immigration being a positive thing for the economy. You can't just say it's the non-thinking view of things. That's a false statement.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by logan5

There's plenty of research that backs the idea of immigration being a positive thing for the economy. You can't just say it's the non-thinking view of things. That's a false statement.

You're right, it's an established fact. Especially the classes of immigrants that Canada allows in.

[SpongeG]

Canada will be allowing people to sponsor their parents on a first come first saved basis Jan 28. Commentors on facebook are freaking out.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/long...-reunification

[casper]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Refugees and Immigrants are different categories and numbers.

I know a number of immigrants, one of them is a doctor and can't get work without redoing her schooling here. Also, know an engineer from Syria who immigrated here over a decade ago and he couldn't work here without schooling so he was travelling back and forth to Saudi Arabia to work but he decided he wanted to get his citizenship here and needed to spend more time here and find any kind of job to do so. He was thinking of investing in a restaurant at one point.

So I imagine a lot of the immigrants coming will be in the same boat, skilled but unemployable in their field. having to work in a minimum wage job or change their career entirely.

I have noticed over the past few years there are a lot of older people who appear to be immigrants in their 40s or 50s working in retail and fast food places.

There are always positions where training as a Doctors or Engineer is an asset but you don't actually require the formal designation. Lots of specialized sales positions or related support roles.

[casper]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Canada will be allowing people to sponsor their parents on a first come first saved basis Jan 28. Commentors on facebook are freaking out.

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/long...-reunification

This can be a positive if the sponsor has small children and the parents become the day care service. I would fully support that move.