Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

They will when there are governmental directives, as well as the right municipal policies that enable higher construction economies of scale for builders to get their profits via larger-scale developments. That's how cities in other countries OUTSIDE the Lower Mainland can provide affordable housing for their masses. For instance, affordable housing prices are capped, so developers simply can't screw the system. They need to work with it.

I can see where you're getting at for rental, but I still can't see it for condos - which is why doing condo projects are frustrating as it's a scam - as the market dictates home prices. I mean... you'd need something almost akin to co-op housing to maintain a unit's constant affordability and not inflate with crazy market prices.

I guess you could argue if someone wanted to punch above the viewcones that they had to hold X amount of units for a certain rate what are held at below-market values maybe through a legally-binding housing agreement like they do secured rental housing? I have no idea as I don't work in that form of real estate. Sounds like a nightmare though.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's how cities in other countries OUTSIDE the Lower Mainland can provide affordable housing for their masses.

World-class cities will always struggle with affordability. Despite Vancouver's many obvious flaws, people from all over the globe want to move here.

I can think of a number of desirable cities that are also extremely unaffordable:

• London
• Paris
• New York
• San Fransico
• Hong Kong

If providing affordable housing was so easy, don't you think the rest of the world would have figured it out???

By looking at these rankings, you could argue Vancouver is substantially more affordable than other global cities with a comparable standard of living.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Location, location, location. Downtown is expensive because it's downtown.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I can see where you're getting at for rental, but I still can't see it for condos - which is why doing condo projects are frustrating as it's a scam - as the market dictates home prices. I mean... you'd need something almost akin to co-op housing to maintain a unit's constant affordability and not inflate with crazy market prices.

I guess you could argue if someone wanted to punch above the viewcones that they had to hold X amount of units for a certain rate what are held at below-market values maybe through a legally-binding housing agreement like they do secured rental housing? I have no idea as I don't work in that form of real estate. Sounds like a nightmare though.

And if there's ever any ownership units that're likely to build and sell cheap, they're not going to be in an 80-floor tower in Yaletown - they're going to be in one of these.

Lanefab

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Since people have asked for the numbers and can't google them (hint they have been posted on this forums many times over the years as well).

Housing starts
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/data/s...con_housing_starts_urban_communities.pdf

Population growth (been stable at ~1%yr)
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20404/vancouver/population

Note the average household size is 2.2 people per dwelling.

So, no study. And using the "good ol' common sense" approach doesn't look good either:

Population growth
2007: 38k
2008: 40k
2009: 40k
2010: 39k
2011: 30k
2012: 29k
2013: 31k
2014: 30k
2015: 31k
2016: 31k
2017: 32k
2018: 25k
2019: 25k

Housing starts
2007: 20.7k
2008: 19.0k
2009: 08.3k
2010: 15.2k
2011: 17.8k
2012: 19.0k
2013: 18.7k
2014: 19.2k
2015: 20.9k
2016: 27.9k
2017: 26.2k
2018: 23.4k
2019: 28.1k

Vancouver was 24k behind the curve in 2010, and before that, 2009 has us at 31k behind the curve;* even assuming 2.2 people per unit, that's -6k and -22k respectively. And given that the market usually has a bit of satellite delay, that would put us right on track for the 2015-2017 crunch... and we've only been building slightly ahead of the curve until recently.

Conclusion: while artificial demand is real, it's only part of the equation.

*Was it the recession, the Olympics or something else that caused construction to fall off a cliff?

[jollyburger]

They also have a section in all the UDI's State of the Market reports as well with population vs. housing starts:

https://udi.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Q1-2021-State-of-the-Market-Report-FINAL-web.pdf

2016 article in the Globe saying there's no supply issue (chart with that housing starts/population ratio)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...rdability-is-data-shows/article31794288/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Conclusion: while artificial demand is real, it's only part of the equation.

*Was it the recession, the Olympics or something else that caused construction to fall off a cliff?

Is that net starts or all starts? Most "new housing" is tearing down SFH and rebuilding the same.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Is that net starts or all starts? Most "new housing" is tearing down SFH and rebuilding the same.

Seems like most new housing is multi-unit. Like 70-80% of all new home registrations

https://www.bchousing.org/research-centre/housing-data/new-homes-data

[Migrant_Coconut]

Confirmed. Even ten years ago, SFH was only 35%.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/...&DisplayAs=Table&GeograghyName=Vancouver

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Since people have asked for the numbers and can't google them (hint they have been posted on this forums many times over the years as well).

Housing starts
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/data/s...con_housing_starts_urban_communities.pdf

Population growth (been stable at ~1%yr)
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/20404/vancouver/population

Note the average household size is 2.2 people per dwelling.

Neither of those sources provide any reliable facts to support your belief. Housing starts, as others have suggested, are not net of demolitions, so only tell you how many dwellings are newly built, not how many were added. You can only use the census for that. The 2021 data won't be available until 2022. Similarly only the census counts the number of people, or households. Everything else is an estimate, and different estimates have been seen to be quite significantly inaccurate, especially as the previous census gets further away. BC Stats for example will change their published population estimates for 2017, 2018 etc including the estimate for this year, after they see what the 2021 census data actually found.

Population change isn't tremendously relevant, because it's the number of households that determines the amount of housing needed. Couples divorce and need two dwellings. Singles die, and make a dwelling available. Children (finally) move out of the basement, and move to a rental apartment. If they share an apartment with a friend then only one dwelling is needed - if they can afford to own on their own, then two are needed. A refugee family from Syria might have three children, but only need one dwelling. All these factors change constantly, and change the number of dwellings that are needed.

Overall from 2001 to 2016 the City of Vancouver saw 60,437 dwellings added, but only 47,817 more dwellings occupied by households. (The population increased by 85,815 in that 15 years) So by 2016 there were 25,502 dwellings in the city not occupied by 'usual residents'. That had almost doubled from 12,881 dwellings in 2001. That year 5.2% of total dwellings weren't occupied by usual residents, and by 2016 it was 8.2%. That's why vacant homes taxes and foreign owner taxes were introduced.

Not all those dwellings were necessarily really vacant - they might have had temporary foreign workers, or students on short-term study visas, (who don't count as 'usual residents'), but many were either second homes, or vacant investments.

So up to 2016 there were more homes being added than new households being created. We'll see next year if that's true in 2021, or whether the new taxes (and covid) have made a difference. These are just City of Vancouver numbers, but we're in the thread about the viewcones, and those only exist in the City of Vancouver (and only in a relatively small part of the city).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

World-class cities will always struggle with affordability. Despite Vancouver's many obvious flaws, people from all over the globe want to move here.

I can think of a number of desirable cities that are also extremely unaffordable:

• London
• Paris
• New York
• San Fransico
• Hong Kong

If providing affordable housing was so easy, don't you think the rest of the world would have figured it out???

By looking at these rankings, you could argue Vancouver is substantially more affordable than other global cities with a comparable standard of living.

You seriously comparing Vancouver to New York, Paris, London, and Hong Kong?
Cause thats like comparing Vancouver to Yellowknife.

Those megacities have absolutely huge populations and monster economies that bring about affordability problems with them that Vancouver just doesn't have to deal with.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You seriously comparing Vancouver to New York, Paris, London, and Hong Kong?
Cause thats like comparing Vancouver to Yellowknife.

Those megacities have absolutely huge populations and monster economies that bring about affordability problems with them that Vancouver just doesn't have to deal with.

Then pick some other cities from those rankings I provided with similar populations to Vancouver: Beirut, Dakar, Copenhagan, and Stockholm. Vancouver is more affordable and provides a higher quality of life than all of them.

I think you ignored my point: there is no silver bullet for housing affordability. If there was, there would be dozens of cities with large populations that had solved this problem. Vin stated that the right policies can make housing affordable, and I don't believe it is that simple.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I can see where you're getting at for rental, but I still can't see it for condos - which is why doing condo projects are frustrating as it's a scam - as the market dictates home prices. I mean... you'd need something almost akin to co-op housing to maintain a unit's constant affordability and not inflate with crazy market prices.

I guess you could argue if someone wanted to punch above the viewcones that they had to hold X amount of units for a certain rate what are held at below-market values maybe through a legally-binding housing agreement like they do secured rental housing? I have no idea as I don't work in that form of real estate. Sounds like a nightmare though.

Its not really a novel idea.

2 classes of housing stock.

Class A and Class B.

Class A - market driven. What we have now. Speculate as you please.

Class B - built on subsidized land (govt) built to a set standard to prevent cost escalation. And sold at cost. Record kept of unit. Only local tax payers able to buy. Units value linked to annual inflation in perpetuity. The Class B housing stock gets preferred zoning and regulations.

Done. No need to reinvent the wheel or complicate things.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Then pick some other cities from those rankings I provided with similar populations to Vancouver: Beirut, Dakar, Copenhagan, and Stockholm. Vancouver is more affordable and provides a higher quality of life than all of them.

I think you ignored my point: there is no silver bullet for housing affordability. If there was, there would be dozens of cities with large populations that had solved this problem. Vin stated that the right policies can make housing affordable, and I don't believe it is that simple.

It is that simple, but what it takes is a reframing of the whole discussion.

Realizing that housing is not about housing is a first step.

Realizing that the entire system and industry is geared towards escalating values in perpetuity is the second.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

World-class cities will always struggle with affordability. Despite Vancouver's many obvious flaws, people from all over the globe want to move here.

I can think of a number of desirable cities that are also extremely unaffordable:

• London
• Paris
• New York
• San Fransico
• Hong Kong

If providing affordable housing was so easy, don't you think the rest of the world would have figured it out???

By looking at these rankings, you could argue Vancouver is substantially more affordable than other global cities with a comparable standard of living.

Those cities are expensive not because of their really high density, and they are highly desirable despite being high density. Do you seriously think they will be any cheaper if they are less dense? Truth is, these cities are highly desirable because of their importance as political, cultural, art, fashion, technological and financial centres.

Vancouver is a resort and retirement city, and yet prices are escalating to compete with those of world financial centres. That's a big joke and it shows how this city is indeed driving up prices artificially despite being a backwater.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I can see where you're getting at for rental, but I still can't see it for condos - which is why doing condo projects are frustrating as it's a scam - as the market dictates home prices. I mean... you'd need something almost akin to co-op housing to maintain a unit's constant affordability and not inflate with crazy market prices.

I guess you could argue if someone wanted to punch above the viewcones that they had to hold X amount of units for a certain rate what are held at below-market values maybe through a legally-binding housing agreement like they do secured rental housing? I have no idea as I don't work in that form of real estate. Sounds like a nightmare though.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-politics-housing-idUSKCN1M11YA

Learn from progressive governments if ours already suffer innovation bankruptcy.

The lackadaisical and backward mentality of planners here aren't helping housing affordability.

Removing viewcones isn't the only solution, but certainly a very good one considering the inability of municipal officials to free up a lot more land for high-density housing. It is a huge waste of space if we can only build around 6 stories for the limited strips of land that already took ages for them to be rezoned.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those cities are expensive not because of their really high density, and they are highly desirable despite being high density. Do you seriously think they will be any cheaper if they are less dense? Truth is, these cities are highly desirable because of their importance as political, cultural, art, fashion, technological and financial centres.

Vancouver is a resort and retirement city, and yet prices are escalating to compete with those of world financial centres. That's a big joke and it shows how this city is indeed driving up prices artificially despite being a backwater.

I can promise you that some of the cheapest dwellings in those cities are low-rise residential, not the 70-floor high rises you are advocating for. I am not against height, but it's laughable that you think tacking an extra 20 floors onto a building will reduce unit prices because of economies of scale. For a market-driven commodity, economies of scale work to increase margins, not decrease prices.

It's obvious you hate Vancouver very much, but there are still people all over the world (not to mention the rest of Canada) who want to move here who are neither retirees nor in search of recreation. Vancouver may not have the financial services sector that Toronto has, but it does have thriving tech, film & tv, and trade sectors. As for affordability, Vancouver and Toronto are Canada's flagship cities. This will naturally drive up housing prices compared to the rest of the country since foreigners and Canadian citizens alike tend to migrate there.

You have a tendency of using general statements and never backing them up. You say things like "That's how other cities in other countries... provide affordable housing to the masses." Yet many cities with a lower standard of living in less desirable countries are more unaffordable than Vancouver. Take a look at these rankings,or these ones. Vancouver may be in the top 100 for cost of living globally, but it is also behind cities in countries like Saudi Arabia, Chad, and Thailand. I don't believe any of those countries are the magnet for immigrants that Canada is. Vienna has been getting praise for its public housing, but it also appears on the cost of living rankings above Vancouver. Get your head out of the sand, there is no shining beacon of light for housing affordability. Every country around the world is throwing ideas against the wall, hoping that something sticks.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

Learn from progressive governments if ours already suffer innovation bankruptcy.

It's a good thing Germany is making bold changes since Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Berlin, and Dusseldorf all appeared on these rankings ahead of Vancouver. Obviously those changes that were made three years ago have made a world of difference.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Again, downtown is expensive because it's downtown - all removing the viewcones does is give us ten more floors of condos for the same price as the ones downstairs. We want to get rid of them because then we get prettier skylines.

Solving affordability requires massive upzoning outside of downtown on the 70+ percent of Vancouver that's still SFH-only, and there it doesn't matter if it's sixty floors or just six.

[WALKIEBRO]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I can promise you that some of the cheapest dwellings in those cities are low-rise residential, not the 70-floor high rises you are advocating for. I am not against height, but it's laughable that you think tacking an extra 20 floors onto a building will reduce unit prices because of economies of scale. For a market-driven commodity, economies of scale work to increase margins, not decrease prices.

This is such flawed logic. You really think, because the dwellings in the high rises aren't the cheapest, they don't help with affordability. The high rises increase the affordability of all the other houses. People that can afford high prices buy into the high rises, thus allowing people with less money to afford the low rises. If the high rises didn't exist, there would be more competition for the low rises and they would cost more.

Even if the new units coming to market aren't instantly considered affordable, they still help with affordability by increasing supply. Also as they age over time, they become less desirable, increasing their relative affordability.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Supply and demand don't exist in a vacuum. Large luxury highrises drastically raise the property value and prestige of all the homes around them, in turn attracting even more upper-class buyers, businesses and redevelopments and usually making the neighbourhood less affordable, not more. Such a neighbourhood usually requires either subsidized/public housing, a lot of rentals, or a lot of subsidized rentals (often all three) to be affordable.

Whereas if we build a bunch of cheaper fourplexes or sixplexes, supply increases, gentrification slows, and market ownership is still within range of the middle class.