Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- admin replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- admin posted an update:
- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
May 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
“You may be right, but the people who actually buy & happily live in those apartments happen to disagree with you.
Maybe you could widen your world view to consider that plenty of people are happy to live in places that you personally would not?
(600sf is too much for me, I would prefer 500sf.”
Grant,
I am sure someone has a nice shed or closet they would be happy to rent out. If you have any sort of family, what are your odds of finding anyplaces in any of the current condo developments-not only in Downtown, but even in scenic Coquitlam or Port Moody?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
“Developers are building teeny weeny condos because they make money that way. If they couldn’t build anything smaller than 1000 sf, they would have to sell them at prices people can afford (or should I say today think they can afford). Granted fewer people would be buying, but you would still get an intersection of supply and demand.”
No, people who form joint corporations to buy it, or buy a room out of a two bedroom apartment, or more likely, buy it and rent out the second bedroom to another family. Tenant-in-common agreements would become more common. At the end of the day, market would simply react to any government intervension. I don’t see two bedroom apartments commanding higher per-square-foot rent, therefore the rental market is certainly showing a preferance for smaller units, as one 1000 square foot unit divided into two 500 sqft units command higher total rent than not divided.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
How is this going to be more affordable? Developers aren’t building 1000 sf places because nobody can afford them at today’s prices.
Developers are building teeny weeny condos because they make money that way. If they couldn’t build anything smaller than 1000 sf, they would have to sell them at prices people can afford (or should I say today think they can afford). Granted fewer people would be buying, but you would still get an intersection of supply and demand.
And don’t tell me about high land costs, land costs are driven by allowable density, they are not exogenous.
That said, I’m all in favour of letting developers build a large number of little suites, it will just exhaust the buyer pool more quickly and bring on the decline. Sort of the Viet Cong of RE. I do think the fools who buy them are headed for some serious haircuts, as once ordinary sized condos become affordable again, the minis are going to be a very marginal market.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I have to agree that larger living spaces can be legislated. I am quite familiar with the BC building code and its requirements already are onerous. Minimum and maximum sqaure footage depending on building type and location is already part of zoning restrictions. It would come at a higher,cost unless we really want to see some good ole NDP-type red tape.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Vancouver City Council voted on Friday to impose the moratorium. CBC report here.
For those with the time and inclination to look into this further, the city’s policy report that led to the decision is here.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“If developers had incentive to build larger units, and a plethora came on to the market, the smaller condos that have been built over the past few years would suddenly be less desirable.”
Quite the opposite. If developers build larger units, that means less small units are being built. The smaller condos will be even more desirable, because they will be considered more desirable than sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment with another family. You’ll start seeing $1000/room shared rental in downtown. Given the extremely limited construction labour pool we have now, I’d prefer to see more units being built, rather than less units with more square footage each being built. I think developers will start building bigger suites after the crash.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:37 am
gursk: yes, but..
What percentage of Manhattan’s footprint is residential? (vs commercial/other?).
And what are the same figures for the West-end?
I’d guess that (1) West-end is far larger percentage residential footprint when compared with Manhattan and thus (2) the population density in the residential sub-section would be greater in Manhattan (rather than about equal, as the total figures would suggest).
May 30th, 2007 at 11:36 am
These are dwellings designed not for maximum human utility, but for maximum developer profit…
Has there ever been a time, in the history of mankind, where this wasn’t the case?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Interesting stats about West End Population density (not all of downtown, just the West End).
2001 West End population density was 234 people per hectare, or 95 people per acre. See:
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/pdfs/PopDensity.pdf
Manhattan, 1.5 million people in 23 square miles, 100 residents per acre.
So the West End VS Manhattan debate rages on.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
markx: vasectomy housing, very funny! Now I understand why they’re called condominiums…(sorry, couldn’t help myself)
When I see floorplans for new condo developments, I can’t help but think many of those spaces are somewhat depressing—all the perplexing angles and strangely situated rooms, the solariums and balconies where unused exercise equipment and obsolete electronics will collect for want of storage space, the “flex-spaces†that will surely end up some poor soul’s windowless bedroom. Once the granite countertops and stainless-steel appliances go out of style and lose their cachet as markers of a luxury lifestyle, who will want to live here? Will these be high-rise slums, the Vancouver analogue to abandoned St. Louis suburbs?
These are dwellings designed not for maximum human utility, but for maximum developer profit…Please don’t misread me: I don’t begrudge developers a chance to turn a profit, and I don’t think I’ve misunderstood “economic reality”: developers are just acting in response to particular market and legislative environments. Currently, city hall encourages developers to trim down floorspace: An example from the Housing Again website ( http://tinyurl.com/354v2l ): “B.C.’s provincial standard [for apartments] is 440 square feet. Vancouver’s minimum is 320 square feet, except under certain special circumstances, such as the Downtown Eastside. To encourage more affordable housing development, the city will relax the minimum size for self-contained apartments to 275 square feet. Jones fears that developers will seize on the 208-square-feet mark the next time they’re negotiating social housing concessions. “Guaranteed, they’ll say `Look, DERA did it–208 is livable; people are living in them.’ Of course people are living in them. They’ve got nothing else. They’re living in cardboard boxes.” (And they’re having vasectomies!)
Question: why is it wrong to imagine the opposite? If developers had incentive to build larger units, and a plethora came on to the market, the smaller condos that have been built over the past few years would suddenly be less desirable. So would those tear-down east/west-side properties (specifically, those with about 900 sq ft. main floors and an equal amount of “garden level†space). More affordable/livable housing, anyone?
May 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Markx,
most “average families” that whine about size of apartments probably can’t afford anything “family-sized”.
Apparently we shouldn’t let economic reality get in the way of people’s entitlements.
Claiming that Colleen feels entitled to a north van split level = straw man.
Claiming that Colleen feels entitled to a spawling 2/3 bedroom apartment for much less than market price = truth.
Clark,
What is being built is not particularly useful to the people who actually live and work in the area.
You may be right, but the people who actually buy & happily live in those apartments happen to disagree with you.
Maybe you could widen your world view to consider that plenty of people are happy to live in places that you personally would not?
(600sf is too much for me, I would prefer 500sf.)
May 30th, 2007 at 8:10 am
At current CONSTRUCTION costs, most “average families” that whine about size of apartments probably can’t afford anything “family-sized”. For developers, the surge in value of RE has not all turned into pure profit, as labour costs skyrocket.
If you don’t like the high rent or high prices, move or get a job at a construction site.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
patiently:
Jade East, that’s a strawman that I’ve seen before. Nobody is suggesting this. If you read closely, people are calling for somewhat bigger apartments and townhouses. Living spaces in the 800-1200 sq. ft. range instead of the 400-600 sq. ft. range.
How is this going to be more affordable? Developers aren’t building 1000 sf places because nobody can afford them at today’s prices. They are in the business of selling houses and apartments, not dictating lifestyle.
I’m pretty sure city government has ways to get developers to make somewhat larger units. Its quite a failure that they haven’t done so during this housing boom.
As has been repeated on this thread many times: market forces will do this for us.
The City is there to clean the streets and hire police.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Grover:
Nobody here has ever figured out what Satv’s deal is.
Some think he runs all his comments through babelfish to another language then back to english. It’s possible he’s ESL or Dyslexic. Nobody really knows, all we know is that nobody here can ever figure out what the hell he’s saying.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Holy shit satv, what are you smoking?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:03 am
“I am not sure that we
are some how all owed split level bungalows in North Van by the nature of our history.”
Jade East, that’s a strawman that I’ve seen before. Nobody is suggesting this. If you read closely, people are calling for somewhat bigger apartments and townhouses. Living spaces in the 800-1200 sq. ft. range instead of the 400-600 sq. ft. range.
I’m pretty sure city government has ways to get developers to make somewhat larger units. Its quite a failure that they haven’t done so during this housing boom. I really hope walls can be easily knocked out it these buildings to create decent sized livings spaces for families. Anyone know how possible it is with this construction?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:27 am
How dare a few people question the wisdom of allowing for the mass construction of housing stock that primarily consists of 600 square foot concrete boxes (albeit with nice granite counter tops).
Unfortunately, this is not solely a downtown phenomena as the bulk of the developments in the burbs of Surrey, PoCo, etc. are cut in the same mold.
We are presently still in the grips of an economic mania, so simply saying the market will sort it out seems to forget we are not dealing with a “rational actor”. What is being built is not particularly useful to the people who actually live and work in the area.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Who started this urban myth about West End having “world class” density? It’s utter dogs bollocks. There are neighborhoods in Manhattan larger than the West End with 5-6 times the density. Chicago has neighbors with 3 times the density.
Taken as a whole, the city is something like the 650th least-dense urban area on the planet.
Its tough to get statistics on this, although I saw something recently that compared all of the downtown Vancouver peninsula to Manhattan, and Manhattan was twice as dense. Remember its also a pretty damn big island.
The area west of Burrard is commonly referred to as the “West End”. The density level there is even higher, but how it ranks in the world I’m not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the most dense area of Canada, or even the west coast of North America.
Chicago has somewhat dense downtown areas, but they are small and mixed with commercial. Outside of downtown it is a huge sprawl. What areas are you referring to?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Warren did you use Las Vegas as a sarcastic example?
Sort of. I was referring to the fact that it came out of nothing. It was basically a pile of dirt in the 30s until gambling was legalized and the Hoover Dam was constructed. A few casinos opened and it has never looked back. Current housing woes aside, it has been one of the fastest growing cities in the US for a long time.
Current housing woes aside, it pretty much came out of nothing, which is how some people are looking at Vancouver, wondering why we’re suddenly among the most expensive places to live in North America.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:25 am
“We are Canadians-with our own histories, roots and expectations about how we live.” I don’t even know what this means.
How many square feet is historically appropriate? I seem to recall that pictures of my great grand parents house in Strathcona were not of a big house with both a border paying rent and 6 kids, there probably wasn’t allot of room. They moved here
from Italy because they were told that there was
amazing real-estate available, gorgeous farmland
that turned out to be a rock pile on Burnaby mountain. From my point of view Historically
Vancouver is so young its life has been one
of constant development and with this has
come opportunism, lies allot of crap buildings, huckster, cheerleaders and BS. We may be at
an all time high now but I am not sure that we
are some how all owed split level bungalows
in North Van by the nature of our history.
If your expectations are unobtainable here
they are not realistic and you just have to
move on or re-calibrate what you expect.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“and the next station is”
where ever you go what ever you do I will be (not here)right there waiting for you.
price up has changed the lyrics of richard marx.
if you leave 11.5% up you will find 29.5 % up on next station.
I mean to say if anybody think of moving you will be broken.
anybody think of price fall the june numbers will disturb the picture.
what can you take out of shoe box if you are a developer.
Colleen said
This is a case of the ridiculously rich and the rest of us. Why are we not considering the quality of life in Vancouver for its citizens as well as its development? Where are our elected, well paid politicians? We do not live in London, New York, Tokyo or Hong Kong. This is not Europe. We are Canadians-with our own histories, roots and expectations about how we live. This is what makes Vancouver such a beautiful and special place.
Sincerely,
Colleen
sir I beg your pardon but country’s self strength measure through on its self dependentness, issue is to decide if canada is self dependent to supply our needs,
I don’t think so
chinesenoodles,italian pasta,indian curry canada is multicultural socaity.most of stuff being import from all over the world so our canadian value can not control price’s and architectural structure.
if we can produce cunstruction matterial,and grocery we can reserve our value.
this is not to hurt any sentiments but this post I found suitable answer from best what i can think.
but related thing you can count like we have most jobs in communication not in any original production.so we are dependent on other.
in comunication people can only sell lottery.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Chinese Stock Market is down 6.5% so far tonight.
Follow through?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Who started this urban myth about West End having “world class” density? It’s utter dogs bollocks. There are neighborhoods in Manhattan larger than the West End with 5-6 times the density. Chicago has neighbors with 3 times the density.
Taken as a whole, the city is something like the 650th least-dense urban area on the planet.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Be not faint of heart, people. The real estate Stalingrads are being fought right now in places like Florida, Arizona, and the California Central Valley, soon to be joined by places like Spain, and the armies of greater fools are no match for Mr. “Joe Stalin” Market’s unlimited supply. Once these markets capitulate the jig will be up for RE worldwide.
We are witnessing the greatest investment disaster in human history unfold right before our eyes. Watch it closely, and retell it to your grandkids.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Those of you who read my blog know where I stand on condo marketing. One of the reasons I’m so concerned is because the lifestyle being sold, aside from being vapid and empty, doesn’t support the long-term interests of the community.
Once the smoke clears, and the Rennie goggles come off, there will be one big hangover. Everybody will instantly understand how stupid they were and how messed up the whole thing was. Even those in the thick of it will say that they saw it all along.
The good news is that this party won’t be repeated for some time. The bad news is that buildings last a long time. But life goes on. There will always be affordable places. It may not be the location or density that you prefer, but you will find something within commuting distance.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I am somewhat disturbed by the expressed opinions of some of the lesser minds on this blog who seem to think their syllogisms are worth of some praise as if they were propped by some truly solid and irrefutable economic law.
WTF was that about?
May 29th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Those of you who read my blog know where I stand on condo marketing. One of the reasons I’m so concerned is because the lifestyle being sold, aside from being vapid and empty, doesn’t support the long-term interests of the community.
Marketers talk about sustainability and green living, but much of what’s being developed today doesn’t reflect the needs of families and working-class people. I really wonder what Vancouver is going to look like in 20 years. So much of the housing we’re building up is designed as “luxury living” without any sense of Vancouver as a place where people actually work.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Solipsist: When will “the one” arrive?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I can understand where Colleen is coming from. I am disheartened by the foolishness of those frightened by the hype, and the “education” system and parents who produced so many with so little common sense.
I often think of the movie Matrix, with all those people dreaming in little pods, while their life force is harvested. When that movie came out, I looked through all the special effects at the real story. I felt like “they” were laughing at “us”, as “we” sat bedazzled by the SFX, and missed the truth.
That’s what this RE market, and the global credit bubble remind me of. The pods are a bit bigger though, and have granite counter-tops. At least in Matrix most never woke up. When those twenty-somethings wake up to higher interest rates (tomorrow), and unemployment, they are going to want the blue pill (Prozac).
There is no point in blaming (except maybe the American gov’t), or looking to any gov’t to meddle in the market. The people who bid up the prices are to blame – as are those who accept concrete rat cages. There are cycles and there will be a crash. The Canadian $ is headed for parity, and the export markets will die. We might end up in recession before the Americans do.
Save your buttons, there will be excellent buying opportunities soon. Just remember not to gloat when you buy a West Side property for 500 G’s.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Thank God, several hundreds of years of history suggest it will pop
Price history certainly suggests a price drop, with or without God’s help; however, Colleen’s complaints about density, living space, and financial equity won’t be resolved so quickly. Talk about missing the point…
I am somewhat disturbed by the expressed opinions of some of the lesser minds on this blog who seem to think their syllogisms are worth of some praise…
“who seem to think” – I see now why you distinguish between ‘expressed’ and ‘unexpressed’ opinions, as here you take people to task for what you presume is their opinion and not for opinions they have actually expressed. Bravo, why wait. No doubt the new prerogative of greater minds…
May 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
So people who are complaining: what do you suggest the city does?
I don’t see how developers successfully selling 400-500sf condos relates to a conversion moratorium. if they changed them all into 800-1000sf condos selling for twice as much, who’s lives would that improve?
May 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Excellent points Colleen, too bad some missed the point entirely.
I am somewhat disturbed by the expressed opinions of some of the lesser minds on this blog who seem to think their syllogisms are worth of some praise as if they were propped by some truly solid and irrefutable economic law.
This is nothing but a mania, and no matter how it ends it will have victims, it’s lose lose situation created by greed and fear.
If it doesn’t pop, it will have created a whole new underclass, if it does pop, thousands will be mired in debt for most of their working lives.
Thank God, several hundreds of years of history suggest it will pop.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’ve just spent three weeks in Japan, including over a week in Tokyo, and I can tell you, it is cheaper to live in Tokyo than Vancouver in many ways. A few things like movie tickets are more expensive. My friend has a small one bedroom suite (600 s.f.?) less than an hour commute by subway to downtown Tokyo for about C$500/month. Most vending machines dispense ice coffee (or hot coffee in a can!) for C$1.20 or less.
The cheap burgers at McDonald’s are just C$0.90 (here they’re C$1.40).
If I could, I’d consider moving to Kyoto…
May 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
There’s plenty of places below 1300. One bedroom basement suites in Central Surrey start at 500.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I agree that this market is very frustrating, but I’ve become much calmer since I’ve decided to leave this city for a while. I’m going to stick around for the summer, but I plan to get out before the dark grey rainy season gets here. There are some things I will miss about Vancouver, but I’ve been here for long enough and mostly I’m excited about living somewhere new. Next winter sounds like a good time to check out some warmer climates.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Warren did you use Las Vegas as a sarcastic example? Didn’t you see the article about 1 in every 30 homes there going into foreclosure in the last year? Things didn’t work out so well for real estate ‘investors’ in Las Vegas and I have a feeling we’re headed in the same direction.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
This city is certainly changing. (Whether’s it for the better or worse really depends on your preferences.) One person’s small condo is another’s castle. There is definately some problems around “equitable outcomes” but one can’t say the market is inefficient. In other words equity and efficiency of outcome are not the same thing. This is something that we should all try to discuss and decide on a common culture of beliefs of where we want this city to be headed.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Do you really think that these young, new owners are going to stay in their units longer than 5 years?
Yes, because they’ll be stuck with them.
people require change to reflect their growth and development and their need for change and growth doesn’t change
Nice parallelism. That and $1.75 will get you a cup of coffee.
Where are our elected, well paid politicians?
Hopefully keeping their incompetent hands and taxpayer monies away from the issue. If there’s an imbalance, the market will correct itself in time. The wheels grind slow, yet they grind.
We are Canadians-with our own histories, roots and expectations about how we live.
Rhetorically expressed assumption of urban-chic entitlement, but history guarantees nothing.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I am forced to move out in June as the owner wants to sell the place. I am seeing that $1300-$1400 is starting to be the norm. It is near impossible to find anything below that price! I wonder how people could afford so much rent? People seem to have no problem paying $1300 or above? I wonder what kind of jobs do these people have?
May 29th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
“I for one am concerned that our city is turning into a resort, with short term occupants, flippers and time sharers with no where for the TRUE citizens to live.”
Florida used to have the same concern. When the party ends, the only end users are the “true contributors”. All the hyped wealthy boomers, rich Latinos, and RE tycoons all seemed to vaporized. Plus, I consider construction workers to be true contributors, along with people that serve them.
As for the tiny apartments, that’s more for young singles or students, and it will be rightfully so once the party ends. Montreal has plenty of tiny apartments, and they serve as affordability housing for grad students and single employed people. I fully expect rent for these tiny downtown studios to fall to a level affordable to students.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I sympathize somewhat with Colleen and others, but real estute’s basic point is true. Demand got us into this mess, and likely Supply will get us out of it.
Colleen’s arguments are a vague echo of the arguments of the APC, who seem to think they are entitled to live in or close to downtown Vancouver, at some artificially cheap price. Sorry but that’s not the way things work here.
Whether this is a bubble that will burst in catastrophic fashion, or somehow the world is converging here like its Las Vegas and values will never go down again, you’ll just have to deal with it by moving, living smaller, or whatever.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
sansan: Sustainability starts with having fewer or no kids, just like not driving a car is better than driving a car, two cars, or two SUVs. From the city’s perspective, it’s called Vasectomy Housing. Schools are generally paid for with property tax, so it makes sense for the city to discourage people from having children.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
However, besides the obvious bitching, what can be done about it?
The only thing that makes a difference – vote with your feet. If Ontario’s that much better, have a nice trip. You’ve just reduced demand for Vancouver housing demand by 1 household.
I for one am concerned that our city is turning into a resort, with short term occupants, flippers and time sharers with no where for the TRUE citizens to live.
Maybe true. I know a number of people who have left for greener pastures and likely so do you. Maybe considered it yourself, as I have. If that’s happening on a large scale, and many of the “TRUE” contributors to the economy are leaving for lack of affordability, then our local economy is being weakened. When sufficiently weakened, housing prices will respond.
Let’s let developers be free to build what they choose (rightly or wrongly), and you free to live where you choose.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:57 am
here, here.
reductimat… concern is not bitching, I too am concerned about housing typology and affordability in this city.
real estute… supply and demand is a free market idea… is this a truely free market when there are so many barriers to entry in the real estate industry?
Markx… you missed the point completely. The issue isnt necessarilly about rental housing it is an issue of housing types and affordability. Developers have concentrated on only a few limited typologies that DO NOT accomodate growing families or long term living. The issue is where will REAL contributers to our economy and culture (eg. day to day real people with regular salaries and jobs) live?
I for one am concerned that our city is turning into a resort, with short term occupants, flippers and time sharers with no where for the TRUE citizens to live.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am
If I understand Colleen, she’s concerned that the City won’t impose the proposed moratorium.
The market is misallocating resources because home ownership is mispriced. Nobody wants to build and manage a new apartment building when the alternative is to build a condo tower and make a quick buck offloading the units on suckers who aren’t concerned with trivial details like rental yields.
Some of the new condos purchased by “investors” will by necessity become rentals but there are inefficiencies due to high construction costs and inexperienced and uncoordinated “landlords”. The investor-landlords will try to recover some of the increased costs through higher rents. (But of course they don’t get to set market rents).
Despite the inefficiency and the frustration it causes, I’d much rather see this thing run its course than to have the government step in and start meddling. The market may be behaving irrationally for the time being, but there’s no way I trust bureaucrats to allocate resources more efficiently in the long term.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
here, here.
reductimat… concern is not bitching, I too am concerned about housing typology and affordability in this city.
real estute… supply and demand is a free market idea… is this a truely free market when there are so many barriers to entry in the real estate industry?
Markx… you missed the point completely. The issue isnt necessarilly about rental housing it is an issue of housing types and affordability. Developers have concentrated on only a few limited typologies that DO NOT accomodate growing families or long term living. The issue is where will REAL contributers to our economy and culture (eg. day to day real people with regular salaries and jobs) live?
I for one am concerned that our city is turning into a resort, with short term occupants, flippers and time sharers with no where for the TRUE citizens to live.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
High housing density is an admirable goal, but I agree with Colleen: it would certainly be more sustainable if there were guidelines for developers on how little space is too little…
I work in Yaletown, and I often wonder about the growing families housed in the local highrises: once the toddler outgrows his stroller, and there’s another kid or two in the picture, how will the family cope with their cramped quarters? The option for most would be to move to the outer rings, to lower-density but more spacious accomodation. Not so sustainable with all the commuting and waste that entails. If appartments in the city were big enough to begin with, there’d be no such migration, and sustainability would be a more realistic outcome…
… Then again, when the market crashes, I suppose that Yaletown family could just buy a few other shoeboxes on the same floor and by knocking down a wall or two, cheaply and sustainably create more spacious quarters.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Why stop at assigned housing? Why not just abandon the monetary system all together, and convert to centrally planned economy all together? No more landlord/tenant, or employer/employee conflict, no more affordability issues, and no rich/poor gaps. How does that sound?
The west end has recently become much more popular to live in compared to just a few years before, hence the surging rents compared to suburban areas. On the other hand, wages on the lower end are surging, especially for construction related fields. So blame both the condo construction and the construction workers who build them. I know an apprentice electrician who pay $1300 for a one-bedroom in Yaletown. He doesn’t seem to have problem affording it.
If the US situation is any indication, the tight rental market will turn about the same time as the RE market. Check out the housing bubble blog linked on this blog, and you’ll see the light at the end of tunnel. Flippers will become reluctant landlords. In the mean time, I plan to hide in Montreal for a couple years, waiting out this bubble. I expect much higher rents in the next year or two, while wage in my line of work stay flat. So I will vote with my foot, instead of bitching about greedy landlords. I’m entitled to look for a job anywhere in Canada, but not necessarily afford to live in any Canadian city. My gf has been forced out of Vancouver, her birthplace, and moved to Kamloops. Looks like I’ll be forced out as well.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Come on folks, high real estate prices bothering you? We are ALL to blame.
Economics 101 – Supply and Demand. Check it out.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
First, let me start by saying that I understand the frustration many feel.
However, besides the obvious bitching, what can be done about it? Should we have our civic leaders implement a price-per-square-foot ceiling? Or scrap it all together and have assigned housing?
I’m pretty pissed I can’t afford a house in Monterey. Why won’t somebody do something about that!