HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2010, 8:22 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,411
what type of money do you people make? i thought i was making okay money before getting laid off i couldn't afford that even on $50,000 a year
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2010, 4:09 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Not true. See Manhattan, Central London etc.
Obviously never been to the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Lots of social housing. Difference is, it's all clumped together... stigmatizing the whole area into the projects.

There's also a lot of rent control in Manhattan keeping rents low in some areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2010, 11:42 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,578
I'm sorry, but using Supply Vs Demand doesn't work here.

Currently, demand is down, supply is up; but price is also up. That breaks the rule right there.

The ratio of homes sold to homes listed in July 2010 is 13%, compare that to July 2009 of 31%. Active listings are 30% greater compared to last year. This is following the trend set last month and the month before. We have a year over year increase in supply, and a decrease in demand, but increase in price.

Demand is way down, supply is way up. Prices should come down, not increase 13%. The system is at best in equilibrium, meaning there is enough supply to meet demand, so prices should stagnate. At worst, only 20% of people who want to sell their house right now are able to do so, and if they are motivated sellers, will start to undercut the competition.


I believe there is no shortage of land in the region. Mountains, water, so what? We have plenty of undeveloped and underdeveloped land inside current city limits. Every year new parcels are developed, and every year people buy. Every year is seems like the last year to buy into Yaletown, but every year something new gets built.

If anything is in limited supply, it's skilled labor and investment dollars. There wasn't enough skilled labor supply during the boom, so what resulted were highschool dropouts acting like they have a skilled trade and charging 100's of dollars an hour for services. This results in higher construction dollars, and thus lower returns on investment dollars. So investment dollars become a bit more scarce, thus driving asking prices on units to attract more up front investors/banks.

But that's just short term supply. Unfortunately people can't wait. Just like how people can't wait for the supply of next generation consoles to stabilize. Enough people feel like they need one right away, so they willingly overpay to get one before everyone else. But sure enough, the system churns out enough units for everyone to enjoy. But unlike game consoles, when they are launched, I can't find them. I can drive around town for days without seeing a single on a shelf. Compare that to housing in the lower mainland, and I've never had trouble finding an open house to visit, and some units are available for months on end.

The problem is that this causes perceived demand. Sure, a super elite tower in the middle of Yaletown sells out in 2 hours. But that doesn't mean that every condo in the city is now on equal footing or remotely comparable to that. But Realtors, who work both sides of a negotiation, set it up as such.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 1:52 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,036
True. You make a lot of good points. There seem to be a disconnect in prices. I'm sure it's partly buoyed by "Vancouverism." Vancouver seems that is has become more and more like what people here have always claimed Toronto to be. It seems we've bought our own hype. People have been systematically persuaded to believe that there needs to be some premium for living here, that it's the greatest place on the planet.

It also doesn't help that it's pretty common knowledge that the Canadian government has done some artificial inflation of housing prices to keep the economy from crumbling.

The September Issue of "Canadian Business" is an interesting read, if you want to pick it up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 3:12 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,411
Real estate speculators, immigrants and crooks: Are they just scapegoats?

Much debate results from a lack of data on how the underground economy and other factors influence housing prices

By Don Cayo, Vancouver Sun August 23, 2010


Criminals are people, too. As are immigrants, old folks and any other demographic group you can name.

And, yes, these folks all do their bit to drive up the cost of housing in Metro Vancouver.

Because the fact is, the more of us there are, no matter who or how we make our money, the more demand for homes. This, coupled with a housing supply that's limited and skewed by our dramatic but difficult geography, pushes prices sky-high.

But do some of us drive up prices more than others?

Looking at a few specific neighbourhoods, the answer may very well be yes. But region-wide, not so much.

Vancouver's successive waves of wealthy immigrants, for example, no doubt bid up prices of upscale homes in the parts of the city that these newcomers see as choice.

Of course, the same could be said of poorer newcomers, who drive up the rents in basement apartments. After all, if they didn't come here, or if they had more money, half our mortgage-helper suites would be empty and competition for tenants would drive prices down.

Beyond these obvious observations, however, the analysis gets complicated. There's lots of speculation, but no data, on how much money organized (or, for that matter, unorganized) crime injects into the economy, how much spending power immigrants bring with them, or if or how much property flippers influence prices.

B.C.'s underground economy (shady cheats as well as gangland thugs) is likely north of 15 per cent of gross domestic product. This works out to more than -- maybe a lot more than -- $25 billion.

"Ultimately each drug dealer, each gangster, has to buy a Louis Vuitton bag for his girlfriend," says Andy Yan, a planner and researcher at Bing Thom Architects. "The minute this happens, the grey economy hits the real economy."

That's a lot of money, "and no doubt it plays a role," says Jock Finlayson of B.C. Business Council. "But is it an underlying explanation for the price of housing? I don't think so."

My colleague Kim Bolan specializes in crime, not real estate, but she agrees.

Bolan tells me top echelon gangs do invest in real estate and legitimate companies, but "if I think about all the gangsters arrested over the last two years, few had houses. Those who did usually just had one."

Not surprising, perhaps, given that real estate deals attract the attention of the anti-money-laundering FINTRAC system, whereas luxury car purchases and pricey condo rents do not.

But, as with the unknowable amounts in savings and offshore earnings that immigrants bring into B.C., proceeds of crime clearly put a lot of money into circulation. And that can't help but bolster demand beyond the limits suggested by the region's fairly modest level of officially reported income.

Housing supply, apart from the geographical constraints dealt with in Saturday's column, is further restricted by the generous amount of land set aside for parks and other public places, as well as the Agricultural Land Reserve, which becomes an ever-greater factor as housing sprawls farther into the suburbs.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz0xUPJrjrp
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 8:00 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I'm sorry, but using Supply Vs Demand doesn't work here.

Currently, demand is down, supply is up; but price is also up. That breaks the rule right there.

The ratio of homes sold to homes listed in July 2010 is 13%, compare that to July 2009 of 31%. Active listings are 30% greater compared to last year. This is following the trend set last month and the month before. We have a year over year increase in supply, and a decrease in demand, but increase in price.

Demand is way down, supply is way up. Prices should come down, not increase 13%. The system is at best in equilibrium, meaning there is enough supply to meet demand, so prices should stagnate. At worst, only 20% of people who want to sell their house right now are able to do so, and if they are motivated sellers, will start to undercut the competition.
A year is not enough time for market forces to have an impact on the price of housing in that market.

Also supply and demand doesn't have a major impact on the year of year changes. What it does have an impact on is the longer term trends. Stuff like 3,5,7,10 years. Which is why you see the current trend where supply is up and demand is down. Yet prices are also up. There are other factors causing the minor year over year changes.

Also I'm going to go on a quick guess that a lot of sellers are not in a hurry to sell. Thus they won't be dropping their asking price. Hence the price of housing doesn't change yet there is more supply and less demand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 8:08 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
True. You make a lot of good points. There seem to be a disconnect in prices. I'm sure it's partly buoyed by "Vancouverism." Vancouver seems that is has become more and more like what people here have always claimed Toronto to be. It seems we've bought our own hype. People have been systematically persuaded to believe that there needs to be some premium for living here, that it's the greatest place on the planet.
It maybe hype, but if the price of a house in an area is a certain price, and someone wants to live in that area. they either have to pay that price or they don't live there. It is as simple as that.

Or of someone doesn't like the price, don't buy. But they also shouldn't complain that the prices are too high.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 3:06 PM
igeneer igeneer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 55
so much room for growth

As most of you are aware, the vast majority of the city of Vancouver is covered by single family homes. If we are going to increase density, the first place to start should be the vast neighbourhoods of houses NOT downtown. If each house in Vancouver proper is worth on average 1 million, then that split into multiple units should make living more affordable. Perhaps people will resist having to tear down their beloved houses, but there are tens of thousands of large properties that can sustain at least three times the density without compromising quality of life in the neighbourhoods south of the DT peninsula.

Just go to Paris, Tokyo, New York, or any city with much higher population densities and you will see much higher residential density, and more padestrian infrastructure. We should stop focusing so much energy on redeveloping downtown... That's my rant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 3:25 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
It maybe hype, but if the price of a house in an area is a certain price, and someone wants to live in that area. they either have to pay that price or they don't live there. It is as simple as that.

Or of someone doesn't like the price, don't buy. But they also shouldn't complain that the prices are too high.
I agree, except that I'd add one point: time.

"...if the price of a house in an area is a certain price [currently], and someone wants to live in that area [now]. they either have to pay that price[, wait for the next cycle,] or they don't live there. "
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 3:49 PM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 12,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by igeneer View Post
As most of you are aware, the vast majority of the city of Vancouver is covered by single family homes. If we are going to increase density, the first place to start should be the vast neighbourhoods of houses NOT downtown. If each house in Vancouver proper is worth on average 1 million, then that split into multiple units should make living more affordable. Perhaps people will resist having to tear down their beloved houses, but there are tens of thousands of large properties that can sustain at least three times the density without compromising quality of life in the neighbourhoods south of the DT peninsula.

Just go to Paris, Tokyo, New York, or any city with much higher population densities and you will see much higher residential density, and more padestrian infrastructure. We should stop focusing so much energy on redeveloping downtown... That's my rant.
Sullivan's "Dencity" would have done much good, but NIMBY's had their way and now it has been significantly watered down. They threw in arguments like how the city is already congested, that there aren't enough city services, and quite a few asinine ones.

The same NIMBY's also complained about King Edward Village and the now canceled "ship-shaped" tower at Lonsdale. To quote the NIMBY's, "it's as if you put a f-ing CN Tower where I live" (btw, someone should point out that the condo tower he lives in a few blocks away was a "CN Tower" to someone else too).


We shouldn't stop focusing on redeveloping (and expanding) Downtown, rather we should put the same effort we put into Downtown into the rest of the city.

Downtown is the epicentre of everything, and despite concerns that some think it's already "too dense" I strongly disagree....there's no such thing. That especially goes with arguments against further densification in the Downtown Eastside, because "it's already very dense" because of some absurd sq. footage or whatever...absolutely silly.

I appreciate vibrancy and active street life, increase density and you will get that.



Then there's also those lefties out there who are against further real estate developments, because the money-driven real estate guys will win and make more money! Supply and demand, hippies. Bring in more supply, those prices will go down...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 5:30 PM
wrenegade's Avatar
wrenegade wrenegade is offline
ON3P Skis
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lower Lonsdale, North Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
I'm sorry, but using Supply Vs Demand doesn't work here.

Currently, demand is down, supply is up; but price is also up. That breaks the rule right there.

The ratio of homes sold to homes listed in July 2010 is 13%, compare that to July 2009 of 31%. Active listings are 30% greater compared to last year. This is following the trend set last month and the month before. We have a year over year increase in supply, and a decrease in demand, but increase in price.

Demand is way down, supply is way up. Prices should come down, not increase 13%. The system is at best in equilibrium, meaning there is enough supply to meet demand, so prices should stagnate. At worst, only 20% of people who want to sell their house right now are able to do so, and if they are motivated sellers, will start to undercut the competition.
You can't really compare prices year over year and state the increase in price of 13% like that. It's a little more complicated. Sales starting around last May/June started to pick up, and by August/September we were matching or surpassing sales (and listings) records. Obviously driving prices up. Now, starting around March/April things started to cool off a bit and they are definitely flat now. Prices probably peaked in the spring (depending on the area/product), have come down a bit since then but are now pretty flat. So ya, they are up 13% year over year, but they are down from the Spring, which were way up more than 13% from the previous July/August.

Quote:
I believe there is no shortage of land in the region. Mountains, water, so what? We have plenty of undeveloped and underdeveloped land inside current city limits. Every year new parcels are developed, and every year people buy. Every year is seems like the last year to buy into Yaletown, but every year something new gets built.
There is shortage of land in the region, but that's not to say there still aren't lots of areas to develop. Things are just more expensive and trickier to do now. Mixed-use development, sustainability, higher DCCs and CACs, car-share programs, height limits, parking requirements, view cones, air parcels, it's not even straight-forward to built even a 4 storey wood frame condo project anymore.

It obviously comes down to where you buy as well. You'll likely be hearing "Last chance to own in Yaletown for at least another 5 years, and last chance to own Vancouver's Waterfront for another 20 (NEFC, SEFC built-out), but that's marketing (.....and Rennie). In the Valley it's a little different, there are still hectares upon hectares of land outside of the ALR that can be turned into subdivisions, and I don't think (I don't know their market as well as Vancouver) they saw the same sort of price increase we saw around the CoV. But those are getting more expensive and difficult to assemble and they'll become more scarce in the next couple years. Housing starts between 2004 and 2008 were between 18k-20k per year, and only ~8,500 last year. Now there is a lot of existing supply, but 65,000 people come to Metro Vancouver every year and they all need to live somewhere. Those numbers look like supply and demand to me.


edit: source for housing starts: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/...nicipality.pdf
__________________
Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 6:41 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 23,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
Sullivan's "Dencity" would have done much good, but NIMBY's had their way and now it has been significantly watered down. They threw in arguments like how the city is already congested, that there aren't enough city services, and quite a few asinine ones.

The same NIMBY's also complained about King Edward Village and the now canceled "ship-shaped" tower at Lonsdale. To quote the NIMBY's, "it's as if you put a f-ing CN Tower where I live" (btw, someone should point out that the condo tower he lives in a few blocks away was a "CN Tower" to someone else too).

We shouldn't stop focusing on redeveloping (and expanding) Downtown, rather we should put the same effort we put into Downtown into the rest of the city.

Downtown is the epicentre of everything, and despite concerns that some think it's already "too dense" I strongly disagree....there's no such thing. That especially goes with arguments against further densification in the Downtown Eastside, because "it's already very dense" because of some absurd sq. footage or whatever...absolutely silly.

I appreciate vibrancy and active street life, increase density and you will get that.

Then there's also those lefties out there who are against further real estate developments, because the money-driven real estate guys will win and make more money! Supply and demand, hippies. Bring in more supply, those prices will go down...
Very well said mr.x. A good start would be ensuring that no parcel on a arterial can be developed with just two story retail. Require a residential component of some kind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 9:05 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by igeneer View Post
As most of you are aware, the vast majority of the city of Vancouver is covered by single family homes. If we are going to increase density, the first place to start should be the vast neighbourhoods of houses NOT downtown. If each house in Vancouver proper is worth on average 1 million, then that split into multiple units should make living more affordable. Perhaps people will resist having to tear down their beloved houses, but there are tens of thousands of large properties that can sustain at least three times the density without compromising quality of life in the neighbourhoods south of the DT peninsula.

Just go to Paris, Tokyo, New York, or any city with much higher population densities and you will see much higher residential density, and more padestrian infrastructure. We should stop focusing so much energy on redeveloping downtown... That's my rant.
While yes in theory if you were to increase the density thus having more dwellings per KM. Then yes the average price should drop.

The problem is that eventually the demand would cause the price per dwelling to start increasing again. Eventually you will get to a point where the price per dwelling is back to where it was at the start. Thus you are now paying the same amount for less space.

If you want to lower the prices. Lower the demand. Make this region look like a crap hole where people would not want to live. And you will see the prices come down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
I agree, except that I'd add one point: time.

"...if the price of a house in an area is a certain price [currently], and someone wants to live in that area [now]. they either have to pay that price[, wait for the next cycle,] or they don't live there. "
Of course what if there never is a big enough down cycle that brings the price of housing down to a point that some person may buy.

I do feel a lot of people sit around waiting for the next down cycle. Because they feel prices are too high. Yet that never really materializes and thus they end up being stuck on the side lines always complaining.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2010, 10:19 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
While yes in theory if you were to increase the density thus having more dwellings per KM. Then yes the average price should drop.

The problem is that eventually the demand would cause the price per dwelling to start increasing again. Eventually you will get to a point where the price per dwelling is back to where it was at the start. Thus you are now paying the same amount for less space.
Could you elaborate on this? You didn't explain why you believe the demand curve for housing will shift right in the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 1:12 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
While yes in theory if you were to increase the density thus having more dwellings per KM. Then yes the average price should drop.

The problem is that eventually the demand would cause the price per dwelling to start increasing again. Eventually you will get to a point where the price per dwelling is back to where it was at the start. Thus you are now paying the same amount for less space.

If you want to lower the prices. Lower the demand. Make this region look like a crap hole where people would not want to live. And you will see the prices come down.
There's a measure of truth to that, and there's definitely a perception issue issue as well, but there are also a lot of desirable places that have collapsed as well. Lots of beautiful places in California, for example.

Quote:
Of course what if there never is a big enough down cycle that brings the price of housing down to a point that some person may buy.

I do feel a lot of people sit around waiting for the next down cycle. Because they feel prices are too high. Yet that never really materializes and thus they end up being stuck on the side lines always complaining.
There are those that will never buy, this is true. However, you can also look at it from another point of view. Buy when it's more expensive to rent than pay a mortgage. Rents go up and usually they equalize with mortgages. Or put another way... buy when you can rent out the place and cover most of your mortgage.

Of course, these people who rent and use the money they save by renting to buy useless junk are the ones that always complain.

Of course, we could just go on another upswing... and the question each person has to ask themselves is "Is owning a home worth the sacrifice?"

Who know we may end up like Germany or some other European countries where houses are paid off in a couple of generations and houses get handed down the next in line.

The only thing that's certain is the nobody really knows what the future holds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 8:25 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
Could you elaborate on this? You didn't explain why you believe the demand curve for housing will shift right in the long run.
First off I'm not an economist and only did a brief study of it. Mostly in my own spare time. So my theory may be correct.

Ok so lets say the averge price of a 2000 sq ft dwelling in the City of Vancouver is 1 Million. Now in theory if you were to take all those dwellings and split them in half and sell them as 1,000 sq ft dwellings. Then the average price per dwelling should in theory be $500,000.

So now you've flooded the market with an increase in supply. So people come in and start to buy up. But demand eventually starts to increase as well. Till at some point your supply is close to being used up. At that point the average price per dwelling starts to rise. Till eventually you will get to the point that the average price per dwelling will come back to $1 Million. But now that $1 Million only buys you a 1,000 sq ft dwelling and not a 2,000 sq ft dwelling like it did originally.

The only way this won't happen is if demand either decreases or stays stagnate. But in a city like this demand will most likely increase unless something dramatic happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 8:31 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
There's a measure of truth to that, and there's definitely a perception issue issue as well, but there are also a lot of desirable places that have collapsed as well. Lots of beautiful places in California, for example.



There are those that will never buy, this is true. However, you can also look at it from another point of view. Buy when it's more expensive to rent than pay a mortgage. Rents go up and usually they equalize with mortgages. Or put another way... buy when you can rent out the place and cover most of your mortgage.

Of course, these people who rent and use the money they save by renting to buy useless junk are the ones that always complain.

Of course, we could just go on another upswing... and the question each person has to ask themselves is "Is owning a home worth the sacrifice?"

Who know we may end up like Germany or some other European countries where houses are paid off in a couple of generations and houses get handed down the next in line.

The only thing that's certain is the nobody really knows what the future holds.
I'm not positive but I don't believe the cost of renting has ever been higher than the cost of the mortgage (principal + interest). Although it might have matched the cost of the principal in the past.

As for whether ownership is good or not. I would say it depends on the kind of lifestyle one is going to live. If someone is going to moving around a lot then sure ownership is probably not wise for them. But if someone feels they will be settling down and the job they have seems long term. Then ownership maybe something too look for.

The only thing I would warn any one looking to rent. Is to make sure they put away money to build up some equity. Worst thing anyone can do is get into their retirement years with no equity in their name.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 3:35 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
I'm not positive but I don't believe the cost of renting has ever been higher than the cost of the mortgage (principal + interest). Although it might have matched the cost of the principal in the past.
There's always a premium for ownership. However, historically, what has separated renters and owners has been owners could afford a down payment. This was, of course, before the 0% down days.

Now, however, how long will it take for you to start "saving" by owning over renting? It used to be 5-10 years before you could be in the black if you rented it back out. Now, with the huge disparity there is between mortgages and rents, I fear 10 years is the minimum you'll have to wait before that's true.

That's oversimplifying it, of course... and there are different factors for each person, but it's worth thinking about at least.

Quote:
The only thing I would warn any one looking to rent. Is to make sure they put away money to build up some equity. Worst thing anyone can do is get into their retirement years with no equity in their name.
This is true. If you're going to rent, make sure you take the money that you would be spending on a mortgage and don't throw it to the wind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 6:39 PM
quobobo quobobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
The only way this won't happen is if demand either decreases or stays stagnate. But in a city like this demand will most likely increase unless something dramatic happens.
Yes, but demand is going to increase regardless of whether supply increases.

Compare these two situations:

1) Housing supply stays mostly the same, demand increases
2) Housing supply increases dramatically, demand increases

Are you arguing that prices won't be lower in situation 2? Or are you just saying that in situation 2, prices may be the same/higher than they are currently?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2010, 8:34 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by quobobo View Post
Yes, but demand is going to increase regardless of whether supply increases.

Compare these two situations:

1) Housing supply stays mostly the same, demand increases
2) Housing supply increases dramatically, demand increases

Are you arguing that prices won't be lower in situation 2? Or are you just saying that in situation 2, prices may be the same/higher than they are currently?
In situation 2, prices at first would be lower, but demand would eventually catch up thus driving prices to be higher per sq ft than it was in the beginning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Business & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.