The real problem with Vancouver’s outrageous house prices

[whatnext]

You know it's getting bad when even relatively well-paid academic jobs go begging:

..The faculty housing crisis is most acute at the University of British Columbia. A new 1,000-square-foot condo on campus sells for about $800,000, much less than the $1.8-million average price for a detached house, but still out of reach for many new professors.

Last year, UBC missed out on 18 hires who turned down job offers because of how unaffordable Vancouver has become, according to a survey of the university’s deans. For another 70 appointments, the housing issue was a key part of negotiations, the deans reported....

...Dr. Rea says that when he goes to conferences in Hong Kong or Taipei, he has seen ads for the units on campus that he and his colleagues can’t afford marketed to foreign buyers.

“Should UBC be leasing its land for a hundred years to the open market and mostly to the global rich?” he asks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle30123278/

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You know it's getting bad when even relatively well-paid academic jobs go begging:

..The faculty housing crisis is most acute at the University of British Columbia. A new 1,000-square-foot condo on campus sells for about $800,000, much less than the $1.8-million average price for a detached house, but still out of reach for many new professors.

Last year, UBC missed out on 18 hires who turned down job offers because of how unaffordable Vancouver has become, according to a survey of the university’s deans. For another 70 appointments, the housing issue was a key part of negotiations, the deans reported....

...Dr. Rea says that when he goes to conferences in Hong Kong or Taipei, he has seen ads for the units on campus that he and his colleagues can’t afford marketed to foreign buyers.

“Should UBC be leasing its land for a hundred years to the open market and mostly to the global rich?” he asks.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle30123278/

The most livable city...

[Shift]

There's always Surrey..

[logan5]

Foreign buyers must be taking over Surrey now because it has become out of reach for locals. I'm not too familiar with Surrey, so I'm not sure which parts of are made up of rich Chinese (who are surely responsible for driving up housing costs in Surrey)

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by logan5

Foreign buyers must be taking over Surrey now because it has become out of reach for locals. I'm not too familiar with Surrey, so I'm not sure which parts of are made up of rich Chinese (who are surely responsible for driving up housing costs in Surrey)

Why buy a single house in the west side when you can buy a whole swath of houses in surrey and redevelop with cheaply built new construction.

[retro_orange]

'Snob zoning' is keeping Vancouver unaffordable: UBC economist

Jon Woodward
Jon Woodward, CTV News, Reporter
@CTV_Jon

Published Wednesday, May 25, 2016 4:42PM PDT
Last Updated Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:57PM PDT
Rules designed to “preserve the character” of Vancouver neighbourhoods are keeping out working people and effectively subsidizing the owners of multi-million dollar homes, according to a UBC economist.

And those zoning rules are encouraging the construction of mega-mansions on single family home lots because building townhouses and apartments are illegal, Tom Davidoff said.

“Single family zoning is snob zoning,” economist Tom Davidoff told CTV News. “That’s what we have in Vancouver.

Rules designed to “preserve the character” of Vancouver neighbourhoods are keeping working people out UBC economist Tom Davidoff says. (CTV)

“They’re trying to preserve the character of our neighbourhoods. Well, the character is out the window. These are the global elite building multi-million dollar palaces. That’s the character that our city aims to preserve,” said Davidoff.

Some two-thirds of the City of Vancouver is zoned for a home, including a basement suite and a coach house. The city has also allowed more density on arterial routes close to transit.

Davidoff proposed a further rule change that would automatically allow the rezoning of a lot when it became more expensive.

He said when a lot became worth $2 million, the owner would automatically be allowed to built a two to three-storey building of townhouses or apartments. He allowed for some exceptions, such as heritage value, but said the general rule should be to allow development, not restrict it.

“Let’s keep it simple,” Davidoff said. “If 95 per cent of Canadians can’t afford what you’re zoning that should not be legally enforceable.”

Davidoff was speaking about affordability challenges the same day of the launch of Generation Squeeze’s Code Red campaign, which measured just how unaffordable Metro Vancouver real estate has become.

The $500,000 that would have bought two houses in 1976 only buys two bedrooms today, even when adjusted for inflation. And a young Vancouverite earning the average wage would have to save for 23 years before he or she could afford a down payment. Meanwhile, wages have dropped $4000 compared to 1976.

Young people are having to come up with more dramatic ways of getting by, shown by videos of young people packed into a house designed for far fewer people.

“You put five, six, seven, eight people in a place you can get an affordable rental price,” said Noel Farrand, who was behind one of the videos.
He said the current situation can be frustrating for young people who are trying hard but barely squeezing by.

“My parents are baby boomers. They worked hard but they had other factors in play that allowed that hard work to pay off in a way that doesn’t exist today,” he said.

The City of Vancouver has rezoned single family homes to allow for coach houses and basement suites, though only about 2500 of the estimated 50,000 homes have built coach houses.

Today the city announced the construction of a $141-million rental housing project for seniors and families that would have 358 units.
“Given our vacancy rate in Vancouver is at record lows, getting more housing built couldn’t come at a better time,” Mayor Gregor Robertson said at the announcement.

Robertson didn’t say whether he would prefer Davidoff’s solution, simply saying, “Ultimately it’s up to the community whether they would support that kind of density in the neighbourhood.”

Often residents oppose new developments at city hall, referring to “neighbourhood character” as they oppose more people. Several speakers at the hearing Tuesday night referenced “neighbourhood character.”

Davidoff said allowing the free market to operate effectively in Vancouver would ensure more development, which could lower prices in other units as supply increases – and not cost the city anything.

“When you see a mansion going up on the West Side of Vancouver, that’s not the free market. The free market would be 50 stories of apartments,” Davidoff said.

Article link: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/snob-zoning-is-...r&_gsc=sE3zlJY

I like this proposal of the $2 Million benchmark where you can automatically upzone at that point, I'm tired of the snob zoning

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Vancouver has roughly 12 residential towers over 100 metres proposed or under construction, whereas Burnaby has about 40 (excluding Southgate and Lougheed). Burnaby knows they can rake in the money Vancouver is rejecting. All that Vancouver is making is 6 storey low rises around Cambie and False Creek, which do slightly increase density, but not enough.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

'Snob zoning' is keeping Vancouver unaffordable: UBC economist

Article link: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/snob-zoning-is-...r&_gsc=sE3zlJY

I like this proposal of the $2 Million benchmark where you can automatically upzone at that point, I'm tired of the snob zoning

It was pointed out on reddit that "automatically rezoning" would be stupid.

The people building these Jr.McMansions on the single family lots, are doing so they can flip the property as a "new property" to drive the price up.

If they were automatically converted to RM2/3/4/etc you end up replacing a 1 million dollar house with 2-4 townhouses of 1 million each. That's falling directly into the hands of the property flippers.

You have to actually merge 4 or more consecutive properties and build a 40-story tower to justify rezoning. You don't increase affordability by just replacing a building with another building on the same land with more smaller units.

And this is what I find extremely frustrating with property right now. A 60 year old apartment building has 500 square foot units, while a 1990's era apartment building has 300 square foot units. 2 Bedroom? 900 square foot in the 60 year old building, 700 square foot in the 90's building.

Duplexes and Townhouses are not affordable housing, they are firetraps designed to pay lip-service to city councils request for cheaper market housing in exchange for taller towers, but they end up being no cheaper than the units in the tower.

When I see a two-story building get torn down and replaced with yet another 2-story building in Vancouver, it's like what was the point of that? Demolished a perfectly good structure and replaced it with one that is less energy efficient (look at all that glass.)

[twoNeurons]

Because SFHs are not easily rezoned, we have ended up with laneway houses, a plethora of basement suites and 3–4 suites in a SFH.

There is a house on a corner lot across from the LDB in East Van that had 4 ( fairly large ) suites in it, plus a laneway house. Eventually, building inspectors forced them to get rid of two suites. One separate suite is legal in Vancouver, but most places get around that by having a door into the main area and not finishing the kitchen/living areas until after inspection.

I don't know about you guys, but if I were faced with the choice of 1 Monster House with a laneway + 2 suites, or a 2-unit narrow duplex... I know which one I would think is more liveable.

You could easily split 2 regular sized Vancouver lots into 3 lots for SFHs. In most of the greenfield development of SFHs in Surrey, you're seeing houses built on 25' lots with 3 bedrooms up, 3 bathrooms and a basement.

What's better, forcing a family to become a landlord of 3 suites to be able to afford a SFH, or making it easier to rezone/resize land. Laneway houses were simply an excuse to keep the status quo of SFH on standard-sized lots. They were a mistake. As land values went up, if laneway homes were NOT available, more pressure would have been put on lots to redevelop into more dense, more liveable housing, without forcing you to become a full-time landlord.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

You do realize that there probably still is more square feet of new builds coming on the market every year in Vancouver than in nay of the suburbs?

There's probably more new square feet being built in Vancouver than in all the suburbs, excluding Burnaby, combined.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Take a drive down West 2nd near Olympic Village, Main St, Cambie, Marine, Kingsway, Oak, and around Marpole. Then head over to SE Marine/River District Area.

"Snob rezoning", plus all other restrictions, including viewcones, are preventing more affordable housing to be built in Vancouver proper.

Main, Cambie, Kingsway, River District etc are pretty pathetic when it comes to the rate of developments happening elsewhere.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It was pointed out on reddit that "automatically rezoning" would be stupid.

The people building these Jr.McMansions on the single family lots, are doing so they can flip the property as a "new property" to drive the price up.

If they were automatically converted to RM2/3/4/etc you end up replacing a 1 million dollar house with 2-4 townhouses of 1 million each. That's falling directly into the hands of the property flippers.

You have to actually merge 4 or more consecutive properties and build a 40-story tower to justify rezoning. You don't increase affordability by just replacing a building with another building on the same land with more smaller units.

And this is what I find extremely frustrating with property right now. A 60 year old apartment building has 500 square foot units, while a 1990's era apartment building has 300 square foot units. 2 Bedroom? 900 square foot in the 60 year old building, 700 square foot in the 90's building.

Duplexes and Townhouses are not affordable housing, they are firetraps designed to pay lip-service to city councils request for cheaper market housing in exchange for taller towers, but they end up being no cheaper than the units in the tower.

When I see a two-story building get torn down and replaced with yet another 2-story building in Vancouver, it's like what was the point of that? Demolished a perfectly good structure and replaced it with one that is less energy efficient (look at all that glass.)

Exactly but I gave up explaining. The issue runs deeper than a lack of density. We are seeing an overwhelming demand due to foreign and domestic investors. Now you add an influx of Russian and money escaping the Middle East and the demand is limitless. The price-to-income ratio issue is real, I refuse to believe working people in this city are purchasing 800k+ condos.

The whole obsession of up zoning is so darn ridiculous when you see so many AirBnB's and vacant homes/apartments. Of course, we have no data to back this up...because well... you know so you have to use your best judgements to see which homes are rotting or derelict along Victoria, Knight, Main, Fraser, Cambie, Oak, Granville. We would be playing into these investors hands. The rich get richer by sticking it to panicking middle class buyers. What was a 700k house on Cambie a few years ago are now 800k 900 sq/ft 2 bdrm condos.

[Bdawe]

The whole obsession with AirBnB get's pretty darn ridiculous when you actually delve into how many AirBnB units there actually are. It's not all that many in the grand scheme of things, even when you ask the openly Air-BnB hating people who built this website

You can look around at empty units all you want, but that doesn't actually say anything about how a greater supply of develop-able space would effect their price.

[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.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

The whole obsession with AirBnB get's pretty darn ridiculous when you actually delve into how many AirBnB units there actually are. It's not all that many in the grand scheme of things, even when you ask the openly Air-BnB hating people who built this website

The criticism surrounding AirBnB's is valid as they are NOW becoming a widespread problem. Illegal ones are operating in many neighborhoods and a plethora of codes/rules are being broken. This is an issue that cannot and should not be downplayed.

You can look around at empty units all you want, but that doesn't actually say anything about how a greater supply of develop-able space would effect their price.

But supply/demand is half the issue here, if that. A lack of supply doesn't cause a 30-50% spike in property prices over the course of a year.


The reality is we have 2 camps here:

1) You have the corrupt lobbyist, special interest groups driven by ideology, property owners and stakeholders that are in outright denial or intentionally dancing around the real issue instead of looking at data (ie. price-to-income ratio)

2) Those who acknowledge there is a significant issue that will persist until the ENTIRE region becomes too unaffordable.

Originally Posted by 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.

May as well. I have no confidence in any government right now to do anything sensible.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

"Snob rezoning", plus all other restrictions, including viewcones, are preventing more affordable housing to be built in Vancouver proper.

Main, Cambie, Kingsway, River District etc are pretty pathetic when it comes to the rate of developments happening elsewhere.

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

[logicbomb]

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?

You call those mid-rise developments towers? Nah, we need more glass skyscrapers. Moar!!!! After all, we are on SkyscraperPage!

[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