The real problem with Vancouver’s outrageous house prices

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Cambie really isn't that much compared to the housing demand. Typically one of midrise building can house about 50 to 90 units, with about 2 people living in each unit. 150 people in each building isn't enough. More midrises (preferably 5-10 stories) in the industrial area south of the Olympic Village, Hastings, Fraser River ect. could be used. But I do think historical neighbourhoods like Strathcona and the Woodlands should remain single family homes, since I wouldn't like to see historical buildings disappear.

Glass skyscrapers would not look good on corridors. We'd just end up with an awkward row like in Las Vegas. The skyscrapers (in the CoV) belong Downtown.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Huh? Have you been along Cambie Street lately? Or is it just because it's not towers that it doesn't meet your approval?

I consider most projects along Cambie as mid to low-density. The proposals at Langara Gardens, Dogwood or Oakridge are what would achieve higher densities with green space, but they are not happening yet.

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

Cambie really isn't that much compared to the housing demand. Typically one of midrise building can house about 50 to 90 units, with about 2 people living in each unit. 150 people in each building isn't enough. More midrises (preferably 5-10 stories) in the industrial area south of the Olympic Village, Hastings, Fraser River ect. could be used. But I do think historical neighbourhoods like Strathcona and the Woodlands should remain single family homes, since I wouldn't like to see historical buildings disappear.

Glass skyscrapers would not look good on corridors. We'd just end up with an awkward row like in Las Vegas. The skyscrapers (in the CoV) belong Downtown.

Finally, someone who speaks with logic.
If those buildings can go up 2 or 3 times higher, each building can house up to 450 people, then it is called "high density". To prevent a Las-Vegas style row of taller towers, adjacent streets should be upzoned, like what Metrotown has been doing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Vin

I consider most projects along Cambie as mid to low-density. The proposals at Langara Gardens, Dogwood or Oakridge are what would achieve higher densities with green space, but they are not happening yet.




Finally, someone who speaks with logic.
If those buildings can go up 2 or 3 times higher, each building can house up to 450 people, then it is called "high density". To prevent a Las-Vegas style row of taller towers, adjacent streets should be upzoned, like what Metrotown has been doing.

I don't know why we don't go in and say any arterial is a minimum 4 stores with the ground floor being commercial or office. The max could be different to suit the area but a max of 10-40 stores sounds reasonable.

I think Kingsway is a good one that could see significantly more residential going in. Even secondary connectors that do not traditionaly have a lot of mid-high rises could be added. For example Rupert or Boundary.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't know why we don't go in and say any arterial is a minimum 4 stores with the ground floor being commercial or office. The max could be different to suit the area but a max of 10-40 stores sounds reasonable.

I think Kingsway is a good one that could see significantly more residential going in. Even secondary connectors that do not traditionaly have a lot of mid-high rises could be added. For example Rupert or Boundary.

You know why Vancouver is what it is now?

As according to Bob Rennie, voicing out about what more people are starting to say:
http://vancouversun.com/business/rea...uru-bob-rennie

[WarrenC12]

The way I see it the only thing we can do is tax-tax-tax. If you can't stop the money from flowing in, at least use some of it for local services.

[csbvan]

Bob Rennie, the chief fundraiser for the political party that continues to refuse to do anything about transit, comes out saying that the problem in Vancouver is not prices, but lack of transit. This makes my head spin. Bob Rennie has been silent for quite a while as the media storm over real estate has grown into a hurricane. He should remain silent.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Yes it's important to remember Bob Rennie is the chair of fundraising for the BC Liberals. It's obvious where his motivations lie.

[scryer]

I think that both what Bob Rennie said in the article and the Chinese investors are part of the recipe that leads to this level of housing un-affordability. I'm sure that there are other factors as well such as height limitations

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by scryer

I think that both what Bob Rennie said in the article and the Chinese investors are part of the recipe that leads to this level of housing un-affordability. I'm sure that there are other factors as well such as height limitations

Could one also throw in the potential positive impact of regional Skytrain development to Langley as well as opening up the lower parts of the Sunshine coast to housing/urban development via a direct highway link to the Horse Bay/Vancouver area?

[whatnext]

It's not just people considering leaving due to outrageous property values it's businesses. We're hollowing out our city just to give foreign investors a chance to compete for a place to park their cash.

Niels Bendtsen is one of Vancouver’s longest-standing design and manufacturing success stories. He has been designing and making furniture in Vancouver since 1963 and his Ribbon Chair sits in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York. But a recent eye-popping property tax assessment has Mr. Bendtsen considering if he should relocate his business to another city....

Mr. Bendtsen owns warehouse, manufacturing and office space in Railtown, which is part of the Downtown Eastside. The rundown area near the city’s industrial waterfront had long been ignored...

....Mr. Bendtsen’s property at 405 Railway was just assessed at $14.512-million, up from $5.751-million last year. In 2016, he paid $68,852 in taxes. Based on the 2017 value, his taxes will be an estimated $175,000.

Mr. Bendtsen says it’s unfair to penalize small and mid-size businesses that bring manufacturing jobs to the city. He has 75 employees in Railtown; however, he is considering a move to Toronto, where commercial properties are much cheaper.

“[The city] says they want this type of business down there, and yet they are taxing us out of there,”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle33672975/

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Mr. Bendtsen says it’s unfair to penalize small and mid-size businesses that bring manufacturing jobs to the city. He has 75 employees in Railtown; however, he is considering a move to Toronto, where commercial properties are much cheaper.

Hahahahaha what??

[Bcasey25raptor]

Vancouver is in decline, saw this coming years ago, people are fleeing and businesses are closing up, this city is turning into an empty overpriced overseas bank account for rich chinese communist party insiders.

Something needs to change NOW, not next year, NOW or this city will die.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver is in decline, saw this coming years ago, people are fleeing and businesses are closing up, this city is turning into an empty overpriced overseas bank account for rich chinese communist party insiders.

Something needs to change NOW, not next year, NOW or this city will die.

Oh the self destructive ironies /contradictions of untethered/unregulated capitalism.....

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Oh the self destructive ironies /contradictions of untethered/unregulated capitalism.....

Unregulated capitalism, where the central planners have deemed that 81% of the city should be off-limits to residential redevelopment, and much of the remaining 19% is already built to the arbitrary density cap (ie. maximum quota on homes) set by the planners.

As LeftCoaster pointed out, a rapidly growing population + record job growth are rather interesting symptoms of "self destruction".

Oh and here's a quote from the report, which hammered this point many times: "Without exception, severely unaffordable markets have severe land use restrictions."

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Unregulated capitalism, where the central planners have deemed that 81% of the city should be off-limits to residential redevelopment, and much of the remaining 19% is already built to the arbitrary density cap (ie. maximum quota on homes) set by the planners.

As LeftCoaster pointed out, a rapidly growing population + record job growth are rather interesting symptoms of "self destruction".

Oh and here's a quote from the report, which hammered this point many times: "Without exception, severely unaffordable markets have severe land use restrictions."

Maybe if we were to regulate the inflow of foreign (housing investment) money we wouldn't need to deregulate certain low density housing areas. Too much of a good thing can turn sour/bad fast.

As for LeftCoaster's jobs report,..two things are possible outcomes...a) that such new jobs fuel higher housing costs, b) the salaries of such new jobs can't keep up with the cost-of-living (re: rate of (hyper?) inflation in Vancouver.

The government (as you seem to be suggesting) could of course deregulate/EASE its control of real estate development and let a free-for-all (re: laissez faire) supply and demand regime drive the destruction of neighborhoods and thus turn all of Vancouver into a RELATIVELY high priced skyscraper jungle (like Manhattan) with its raft of environment problems.

[Cypherus]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Vancouver is in decline, saw this coming years ago, people are fleeing and businesses are closing up, this city is turning into an empty overpriced overseas bank account for rich chinese communist party insiders.

Something needs to change NOW, not next year, NOW or this city will die.

I have firsthand experience of millions of dollars being poured into Vancouver from mainland China, but most of it now has been diverted to Toronto and even Seattle. Based on experience, many of the mortgage brokers lending money to Chinese "students" and "homemakers" which is common on their mortgage applications were also in on it (note: student and homemaker is a "code word" to the mortgage broker who happens to have the same ethnic background of the borrower that they have money overseas, so their mortgage will be approved despite not having to prove their income like every other Canadian resident). Wonder why a student can spend 57 million dollars buying properties and also qualify for mortgages (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...cle31892652/)?

It's also common to have $50,000 transfers from up to twenty people from mainland China to accumulate a single deposit of $10 million for the the principle individual who wishes to acquire Vancouver real estate. Using permanent or Canadian residents to acquire properties while the money is actually from a mainland Chinese investor who uses twenty people to funnel $50,000 each to the Candian buyer (agent) was the typical strategy, and circumvents the foreign buyers tax.

For a city that has nothing to do, and is under rain for 10 months a year, is not the appeal. Vancouver is just a safety deposit box for the Chinese wealthy.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Cypherus

It's also common to have $50,000 transfers from up to twenty people from mainland China to accumulate a single deposit of $10 million for the the principle individual who wishes to acquire Vancouver real estate. Using permanent or Canadian residents to acquire properties while the money is actually from a mainland Chinese investor who uses twenty people to funnel $50,000 each to the Candian buyer (agent) was the typical strategy, and circumvents the foreign buyers tax.

I'm not doubting your experience with offshore investors, but wouldn't you need 200 people sending $50,000 each to accumulate a $10 million deposit?

[SFUVancouver]

"Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

"Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."

Haha honestly.

Vancouver just saw it's best year of job growth in decades and everyone is declaring the city dead...

It defies logic. I guess it's an alternative fact?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

"Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded."

I'd say it's more of a question of short term profits versus long term stability. A lot of the jobs created are ones that leave at the drop of a hat or the loss of a tax credit (cough film cough).

The high cost of housing in the mean time dampens the long term competitiveness of the city as a whole.