Oakridge Park | 13 Towers | 154m | 52fl | 5M sqft | U/C

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

$2 million for a 647 sq/ft one bedroom? Chinese billionaires must be dumber than we thought:

https://www.zolo.ca/vancouver-real-e...st-avenue/2801

Perhaps all that is important for many is a foothold in Canada, a 'pied-à-terre' to return to when things get too hot in China. Also, this might avoid any 'empty-house' issues.

[svlt]

There are honestly many things the superrich spend on to the tune of $2 million that depreciate far more quickly than an overpriced condo.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

If not for these people, Vancouver will never ever get nicer things. Who's going to pay for them? You? Better be them paying than to be forever stuck with "Vancouver Specials" and boxy walk-ups in this city.

Without this type of pricing for the units, there is no way architectural flairs can be achieved in tall buildings. Someone has to pay for them. People are paying for the novelty of owning something that stands out, and if they can afford it, let them. If you are envious, then work harder so that one day you can afford them too.

LOL, the old "You've should be thankful you have a Tiffany store, who cares if you can't afford a home" argument. I don't give a rat's ass how "pretty" Oakridge is.

What are buildings like Amazing Brentwood but the Vancouver Specials of today? Little identical boxes in the sky. At least with Vancouver Special you owned the land underneath it.

[Hmoob]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What are buildings like Amazing Brentwood but the Vancouver Specials of today? Little identical boxes in the sky. At least with Vancouver Special you owned the land underneath it.

I can imagine how it feels to look back at the Vancouver you remember and miss it. It's unfortunate we don't have enough land to maintain the low population density this city used to know.

Manhattan used to be single family homes early in its development too. The world's population is growing. And our species is generally migrating from rural to urban environments. As tempting as it is to try to limit our city's population, that doesn't fit in the world we live in. Not today.

I'm happy for the future owner who's ready to spend $2 million on a box in the sky. It sounds like too much money to me, but hey, good for them. We can keep building more of those as long as there's demand. It's not like they're limiting options for anyone else in the city. I get that the whole idea of someone spending that much on a condo is offensive to some, but once you get over yourself, how does it hurt anybody?

[cov]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, the old "You've should be thankful you have a Tiffany store, who cares if you can't afford a home" argument. I don't give a rat's ass how "pretty" Oakridge is.

What are buildings like Amazing Brentwood but the Vancouver Specials of today? Little identical boxes in the sky. At least with Vancouver Special you owned the land underneath it.

Vancouver is a growing metro hub with human capital being it's most valuable resource. All the land in Vancouver is already owned and in use. That's why you got none, and why Vancouver housing is expensive. There is plenty of cheap land waiting for you in Sask.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

I can imagine how it feels to look back at the Vancouver you remember and miss it. It's unfortunate we don't have enough land to maintain the low population density this city used to know.

Manhattan used to be single family homes early in its development too. The world's population is growing. And our species is generally migrating from rural to urban environments. As tempting as it is to try to limit our city's population, that doesn't fit in the world we live in. Not today.

I'm happy for the future owner who's ready to spend $2 million on a box in the sky. It sounds like too much money to me, but hey, good for them. We can keep building more of those as long as there's demand. It's not like they're limiting options for anyone else in the city. I get that the whole idea of someone spending that much on a condo is offensive to some, but once you get over yourself, how does it hurt anybody?

Its a ton of money being injected into our economy. Lots of employment opportunity too.

Luxury developments definitely have a place, we just need to make sure we do a much better job at providing housing along the whole spectrum.

The right way to go about this isn't preventing the Westbanks of the world from building Oakridge type developments. The CAC's from something like this should go directly to building housing for middle income on City owned land.

The polarization of everything has got to stop, life isnt binary. Its shades of grey. We only focus on the 1% richest, and 1% poorest. Meanwhile the 98% in the middle is struggling to keep things running for the other 2%.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cov

Vancouver is a growing metro hub with human capital being it's most valuable resource. All the land in Vancouver is already owned and in use. That's why you got none, and why Vancouver housing is expensive. There is plenty of cheap land waiting for you in Sask.

Spare us the condecension. I have my land, but some foreign "housewife" sitting on her fat ass in an overpriced condo while the middle class workers get priced out does nobody any good. Only a stooge for offshore money would argue that it does.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Spare us the condecension. I have my land, but some foreign "housewife" sitting on her fat ass in an overpriced condo while the middle class workers get priced out does nobody any good. Only a stooge for offshore money would argue that it does.

Surely the answer is to build the condos for the foreigner and grow the local economy, and also build reasonably priced housing for middle class workers. You're creating a false dichotomy.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Anorak

Surely the answer is to build the condos for the foreigner and grow the local economy, and also build reasonably priced housing for middle class workers. You're creating a false dichotomy.

That's similar to the Australian model. Allow foreign investment in new properties but restrict secondary sales.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Anorak

Surely the answer is to build the condos for the foreigner and grow the local economy, and also build reasonably priced housing for middle class workers. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Really? You're saying that in a thread about a development site that straddles a major rapid transit line and bus route and therefore would ideally serve those middle class workers you refer to. Instead it is being built as a luxury development and marketed directly to foreign buyers.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Really? You're saying that in a thread about a development site that straddles a major rapid transit line and bus route and therefore would ideally serve those middle class workers you refer to. Instead it is being built as a luxury development and marketed directly to foreign buyers.

Unfortunately any development in such a desirable location is going to naturally become a "luxury development". The Canada Line, Oakridge, Queen E + Van Dusen, multiple schools, and BC Children's all within walking distance makes for a very very appealing area, no matter how you build it up. Look for less valuable land for middle class workers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately any development in such a desirable location is going to naturally become a "luxury development". The Canada Line, Oakridge, Queen E + Van Dusen, multiple schools, and BC Children's all within walking distance makes for a very very appealing area, no matter how you build it up. Look for less valuable land for middle class workers.

Not naturally.

[Hmoob]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately any development in such a desirable location is going to naturally become a "luxury development". The Canada Line, Oakridge, Queen E + Van Dusen, multiple schools, and BC Children's all within walking distance makes for a very very appealing area, no matter how you build it up. Look for less valuable land for middle class workers.

Fortunately much of the surrounding area is already planned for significant increases in density, much of which will be more affordable than the just-referenced condo, and every bit as convenient to amenities and transit.

If people want to spend $2 million on a condo, let them. They're not hurting us. They're funding a significant part our local GDP. Selfishly, that supports the vibrant city I enjoy without requiring I fund it through taxes. Multimillion dollar condos are not limited resources. This is not a zero-sum game.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not naturally.

Unless you think the government is controlling property values, the market speaks otherwise.

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Fortunately much of the surrounding area is already planned for significant increases in density, much of which will be more affordable than the just-referenced condo, and every bit as convenient to amenities and transit.

Time will tell what the prices of those properties will be, especially once Oakridge is fully developed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not naturally.

Exactly.

The corner of two busy streets, above a mall, and not adjacent to waterfront isn't "naturally" destined for luxury housing. The pricepoints of several Cambie Corridor properties actually adajcent to QE Park were significantly lower.

Perhaps some posters feel middle class Canadians should be shunted off to locations like the River District with poor transit and further from job hubs like downtown, UBC and YVR?

[cov]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Spare us the condecension. I have my land, but some foreign "housewife" sitting on her fat ass in an overpriced condo while the middle class workers get priced out does nobody any good. Only a stooge for offshore money would argue that it does.

spare us the feudal nonsense. How will condos built over a parking lot displace the middle class? Wasteful land-use policies that subsidizes your lifestyle have given young people virtually no housing options.

Many units of the Oakridge development will be rented out to provide housing for the middle class. Far more so than what single-family or townhome developments can ever provide. None of the regurgitated talking points about scary foreigners will ever change that.

[Hmoob]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Perhaps some posters feel middle class Canadians should be shunted off to locations like the River District with poor transit and further from job hubs like downtown, UBC and YVR?

That's what happens in European cities with strict limits on development near the city centre (e.g. the banlieues of Paris). Wouldn't it be helpful if we could agree to allow sufficient development in desirable, convenient locations? Look at how much of Vancouver is limited to single family homes (at least in build form and density).

Yelling about immigrants while holding on to historical city planning does not help. Seattle rents are falling while their population is growing in the midst of a strong economy. What are they doing differently from us?

[red-paladin]

Thread is getting off topic....

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unless you think the government is controlling property values, the market speaks otherwise.

Time will tell what the prices of those properties will be, especially once Oakridge is fully developed.

Plans, policy, zoning, etc. Yes they do.

[GenWhy?]

I think we're talking about the 500 (ish) market rental and social housing to be phased in along with the 2000 condos.