Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- 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
- jesse and Best place on meth are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic February 2012 Daily Numbers in the group Housing Data
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Chip says: “This is because the government widened the scope for bringing in family members. Today, while the government says 55% of immigrants are economic immigrants and the rest are family, the fact is that among that 55% are the immediate family of the skilled worker. As a result, only 18% of immigrants into Canada are in fact skilled.”
According the BC Stats, in 2006, the non-economic class made up 36.5% of the total of 42K immigrants into BC. Of the economic class, skilled workers made up 44.2% of the total followed by investors/entrepreneurs with 12.5% (the remainder is composed of live-in caregivers and the self-employed).
The federal government has immigration targets for the economic and non-economic classes of roughly 60-40, respectively. However, because of a chronic shortfall in the number of economic class applications, they lump accompanying family members of economic class applicants into the same pile. With an average number of accompanying family members of 1.3, roughly 19% (44.2%/2.3) of immigrants into BC are skilled workers.
Source:
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/pr_immig.asp
(Sorry, but not open to non-subscribers until 04/01)
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
With the recnt inventory buildup and shrinking sales, it looks like the few remaining fools have circled the wagons on
http://www.realestatetalks.ca
in desparation.
Some of their nonsense is hard to believe, including a couple of realtors that could rival Chipman for biased BS.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
The number of 1.5-1.6 per condo unit comes from the city of Vancouver metro core study.
I am also aware that the burbs will play a factor, it would be naive to assume the oversupply there won’t affect prices in the city. But it would also be naive to assume they are not different markets either. Cheap condos in bby will have more effect on d/t condos then cheap condos in surrey, and cheap condos in abbotsford really won’t have any effect on those same d/t condos, but they might have an effect on Langley condos. I am concentrating on the d/t market as that is where a lot of people claim supply is exploding. It is that statement I disagree with.
While people can point to stats that in a downturn all markets come down the same percentage, I am confident that won’t happen this time around, I do not have anything to prove it, just intuition. We will see soon enough. I beleive there will be a slowdown, even a pull back in some markets, but not in every market.
Been a while since I’ve seen a good discussion on here. Thanks for everyone being civil.
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“Comment by Anonymous
2008-03-23 11:27:30
Just came back from a few pre-sale showing. Even the agent admits it not the same. It’s taking quite a bit longer to sell. Not only that, the pre-sale price has not gone up from prior year. This is an indication that the R/E market is not going up”
Which area did you go to?
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Comment by sheeplessinvancouver
2008-03-22 22:17:23
The region is essentially one market. Does it matter what side of Boundary Road you’re on really?”
For a few people, it matters which side of Main you’re on. ”
Very true. A property can be on the other side of a main street and be priced about $20,000 less. We are all in the same area, however it is certain pockets of neighbourhoods where people value more than others.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
People are just seeing that that the market shills and the
master marketers(Bob Rennie etc.) have been pumping RE and in effect raising prices via the MLS and Realtylink. I am in sales and if I had the opportunity to have total control of the numbers. I don’t trust realtors as far as I can throw them. They are and can manipulate and mislead as they wish and you know what they say about absolute power and corruption.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Just came back from a few pre-sale showing. Even the agent admits it not the same. It’s taking quite a bit longer to sell. Not only that, the pre-sale price has not gone up from prior year. This is an indication that the R/E market is not going up.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
Drachen:
“Who on earth is “Roabert Shellier”?”
I made it up! I was being mischievous.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
““There were also the same amount of people coming here between 1989 and 2004 and there was minimal appreciation in resale values of condominium units”
I’m sorry i wrote that, I know the prices went up and down during this time but I wanted to point out the basic point that not much happened if you bought in ’89 and sold in’04.
I’ve met bulls who’re are blissfully unaware that real estate sales even took place before 2002, since they lived with their parents before that and since buying a base unit all they’ve seen is (paper)gains.
They missed the the rounds of people walking away from their condos ten years ago and don’t want to believe it happened.
The rental market isn’t tight downtown, any potential renter (who doesn’t repeatedly swear while bragging about how high his drug consumption is to his buddy on a cel phone during the viewing) with a beacon score of 650 and up can get a nice place downtown for around $2/sq ft through a property management company.
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
Freako
“Going to 40 from 25 results in a 15% reduction in payments. This is improvement in affordability is a ONE TIME shot that gets eaten up through price increases in a SINGLE YEAR at recent rates of appreciation. This will not end well.”
Not to mention that because of the much slower payment on principal with a 40 year mortgage the market only has to take a very little dip for 40 year mortgage holders to be in a net negative equity situation. Which brings about a situation very similar to the neg am mortgages in the states and people walking away from their homes.
It is just adding fuel to the fire and will actually make the fallout worse.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
-A-
Who on earth is “Roabert Shellier”?
Are you trying to say Robert Schiller but completely incapable of spelling it? That would seem to be at odds with your claim that you’d just read an article quoting him. It would also be at odds with ANOTHER recent article which said “Professor Schiller, interviewed recently on Report on Business television from his office at Yale University, went on to pick out Vancouver, B.C. as having one of the most out-of-line real estate prices in the world.”
Full story
If you can’t link to the article I’m going to just have to assume you’re lying.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
-A- , that has to be the single biggest piece of BS I’ve read on this blog to date
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:50 am
From the Sun article”
Ironically, young buyers taking advantage of these relatively new long-term mortgages are keeping the heat on in the very market they’re struggling to break into, says Craig Alexander, deputy chief economist for TD Bank Financial Group. He and his colleagues have been forecasting a cooling housing market for some time, he says, but it never materialized because they didn’t expected 40-year mortgages to create a whole new crop of potential buyers. “It never occurred to us that it would have such attraction, particularly to first-time home-buyers,” Alexander says. “And probably that was very foolish of us.”
1. Foolish? No, the fools are the morons abandoning fiscal responsibility to chase prices higher.
2. Going to 40 from 25 results in a 15% reduction in payments. This is improvement in affordability is a ONE TIME shot that gets eaten up through price increases in a SINGLE YEAR at recent rates of appreciation. This will not end well.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 am
-A-: Do you have a link to that article? I can’t find anything like what you described on the New York Times website.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 am
“Young adults find creative solutions to purchase first homes / Today’s investment-savvy buyers aren’t put off by sky-high prices”
Yeah, and Casey Serin was a sophisticated investor. The marginal buyers cum foreclosee we read sobstories about were savy and creative. Clearly this article is a plug for the book mentioned in the story. A book which attempts to capitalize on the poor affordability young buyers face. Tragic, all of it.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
krrish2 – You never answered me before. Tell us about your “holdings”. What do you currently own? What’s in your real estate portfolio? And what are you buying lately?
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Vancouver Sun’s latest disgrace:
http://tinyurl.com/3ctxr8
“Young adults find creative solutions to purchase first homes / Today’s investment-savvy buyers aren’t put off by sky-high prices”
Right. And this from the front “News” section.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
No one has said those 6K new residents we get a year are owners,
Yes I agree that it is inconsequential whether newcomers are renters or owners.
I tried posting a link to document that showed housing starts from 1990 to 2006. Starts have slowed a bit since the heyday of the early 90′s. They were about 5500 a year then. The recent boom has starts slightly less on average, but with 2004 over 6000. The population growth of Metro Vancouver is much lower now, so I’d imagine that the city proper is down too. Where do you get the 6K a year from? Sounds reasonable, but I am just curious. Finally, I think the 1.5 per unit of new construction is a tad low. The long term overall average is about 2.6, but I think the weighting towards high density will bring this down to 2 or so. IMHO. Thus Vancouver proper has been adding anywhere between 8000 and 12000 over the past4 years or so.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:38 am
“And we can all trust the Fraser Institute.”
All of those facts except for the last paragraph came from the government’s own data. So if the government says that only 18% of immigrants are classed as skilled workers, how is it a reach for the Fraser Institute to say that only 23% of immigrants are net fiscal contributors?
However you slice it, immigrants to Canada have been getting steadily poorer, and that has to be taken into consideration if immigration is assessed as a factor in rising house prices.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 am
Not good news for the bears.
Did anyone read the article in the New York Timmes in which Roabert Shellier fially admits that the housing bubble will not affect Vancouver and makes referemce to R Chipman for reasons to support the idea that Vancouver is not in a bubble, and furthermore, there is fundamental justification for a 30% price appreciation between now and 2010.
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
For anybody who thinks there is not much to rent do a search on the dozen or so rental websites for a condo with max rent at 2500, which would be approximately what your payment would be with 25% down. Pretend your an immigrant and you want to see what a neighbourhood or building is like until you buy. The only problem you will have is trying to figure out which of the several hundred you will have time to look at.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 am
“We know Vancouver has been growing at a rate of 6000/year. So there is no oversupply of units.”
As already mentioned it is not proper to look at Vancouver city proper. The entire region needs to be taken into account and if this is done there are indeed more dwellings spaces being built than the population is increasing. A few points added to this:
Vancouver prices are higher than in the outlying regions and this is so partly due to its location. If other GVA cities drop in price it would be silly to think that Vancouver could maintain its price level. There will not be a significant “step function”.
It is ultimately affordability that will determine prices. I do not disagree that housing is difficult to find in Vancouver for an affordable price. One must always trade off lifestyle and location to cost. It is possible that supply remains tight and prices drop in certain situations — ultimately wages need to support prices and if total wages do not keep pace with total rents something has to give eventually, especially with condos.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
And we can all trust the Fraser Institute.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:19 am
The Vanman,
You are so funny every time you pick some theme you just like to keep on rolling your own thread,oh come on you are talking about immigrants like to rent but how do the get those units for rent where those unit comes from or become available and when ever extra 6k shows up then extra 6k units become available again. do you think housing stats are not going up in number? so oneway or another Pesto is right try to understand.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 am
Let’s add some facts to this debate.
In the past several decades the structure of immigrations has changed. In 1980, new immigrants were earning the same as Canadians. In 2000, they were earning 80% of Canadians.
This is because the government widened the scope for bringing in family members. Today, while the government says 55% of immigrants are economic immigrants and the rest are family, the fact is that among that 55% are the immediate family of the skilled worker.
As a result, only 18% of immigrants into Canada are in fact skilled.
A report by the Fraser Institute in 2005 suggested that only 23% of immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada at a cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion.
March 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Anti-Pesto,
Well done and very well said thanks for the deep look inside the core.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:50 am
Touchy subject for some. Good debate on here for once, without all the name calling.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 am
“There were also the same amount of people coming here between 1989 and 2004 and there was minimal appreciation in resale values of condominium units.”
The interest rates were high for a good part of that period which kept a lot of people out of the market. There was also a drop in resale value in the mid-90s which would have wiped out any appreciation since 1989.
But interest rates were in double digit in the early 1980′s housing boom. That certainly didn’t keep people out of the market at all.
I think the reason why the mid 90s bust in real estate has to do with the technology bubble that was developing then. You see, a bubble is when you have mad money chasing just one specific asset class when the fundamentals do not justify it.
Before the bust of the dot.com bubble, the TSX was literally propped up by just 2 companies — Nortel and JDS Uniphase. I remembered that the analysts at ROBTV said that Transcanada Pipelines was a widower stock and told viewers to simply sell it and buy the 2 strong ones. It was $9 then. Today, other analysts at ROBTV are recommending a buy on TRP at $39/share!
When hot money is chasing commodities are houses, no rational explanations can be given. The question is, when will the bubble pop and how bad will it be.
If you had lived through the 1980′s housing crash, you should know how it feels like. If you haven’t, then it’ll be an interesting experience for you.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 am
Anti-Pesto,
Numbers means absolutely nothing, unless you know exactly each of the 6000 immigrants are rich. You assumed they are, but that’s a dangerous assumption. Just like a couple of my friends assumed that sub-prime mortgages accounted for the majority of US mortgages. The reality is further from the truth as illustrated by the Carpe Diem’s website. The media made it sound like it was.
The real estate pumpers (as I call them) look to use the immigration argument since the day real estate bubbles exist. John Talbot wrote a book about this in the 2003, describing the immigration was a myth in driving up house prices.
Here are the problems with immigration.
1, Immigrants are one of the highest mobile people. They immigrate. The word “immigrate” means they move from one community to another. They are not residents of the community yet.
2, Past immigrants may be rich from Taiwan and Hong Kong. These days, immigrants come from a modest social class. And somehow, they could all afford million dollar homes?!?
3, Immigrants are not forced to stay in Canada. In fact, many immigrants had came into Vancouver, stayed for awhile and was really pissed at the Canadian Government for misleading them about an abundance of high paying jobs (some of these are doctors, nurses, engineers, etc) on their website. One short hop over to Seattle after they are approved by the US government and they’re gone. I’m sure Seattle gets a sizable amount of people coming in every year and so are a lot of Western states like Montana, Oregon etc… Why are their housing market crashing since the end of 2006?!?
4, Immigrants don’t always buy a condo. They want at least a single family home.
Their mentality is different from us in a way that owning a piece of land under the home is better than owning a strata shoebox unit in a possible leaky condo! Historically, condos have never appreciated as much as a SFH does. Most of the time, it doesn’t appreciate significantly at all. The immigrants I know and talked to all agree that they won’t buy a condo, but they have been the driving force of this overbuilding.
5, Strata council in some condo establishment can be overly self-serving to certain individuals and some may have an agenda that may be contrary to the ideals of the immigrants who bought into the units. Some immigrants don’t want the hassle of dealing with the politics of others. Owning a SFH in this case is a better option.
And before you start babbling away how our rental market is tight, maybe you should do yourself a favor and do better due diligence instead of relying on a few keystrokes on your computer to google certain data. Maybe talk to a few property managers first. While the rental market is tight, it is not as tight as you might think. The problem with people these days is that, they want to find places they can live closer to their work place. Gas prices are high and bus passes are expensive. Both of them can eat up a significant amount of your pay and if you can save these by commuting less or even walking to work, all the better. That is why, certain condo communities are in hot demand. But what if the long awaited recession hits? Production of most things will be cut down to serve a smaller crowd. It means less need of transportation, which leads to more job cuts. Less need for fuel to transport goods lead to lower fuel prices. Lower fuel prices will allow people to live further away from their work place in communities that have a lower rent to price space ratio. This has happened before in many of the busts we went through in Vancouver. So, do you think this time will be different Anti-Pesto.
And how long had you lived in Vancouver and are you living with your parents still?!?
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 am
My understanding is a bubble starts in the most central, desirable neighbourhoods, and then spreads out to the far edge of the Metro area. It then retreats back, in the opposite direction. This is certainly what we’re seeing in California. So Mission will pop a while before Kits, but both will eventually decline by the same amount (relatively).
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Obviously utility of RE varies by location. That’s exactly why some neighbourhoods are more expensive than others.
But calling them different markets is another thing. All neigbourhoods in a metro are substitutable. They all go up and down together. People always claim otherwise of course (“my neigbourhood is special”), and they are always proven wrong.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“There were also the same amount of people coming here between 1989 and 2004 and there was minimal appreciation in resale values of condominium units.”
The interest rates were high for a good part of that period which kept a lot of people out of the market. There was also a drop in resale value in the mid-90s which would have wiped out any appreciation since 1989.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
If you’re looking at Craigslist, it really makes it tough to gauge what’s going on. It’s too bad the postings don’t get updated as rented. Through a bit of sleuthing it’s easy to find a ton of reposts/price drops… a few examples below.
$1450 500sqft in yaletown: http://tinyurl.com/2r8gj7 – has been posted on a daily basis since March 4th. Time for a price drop?
2bed in yaletown: http://tinyurl.com/32y5u6 – originally posted for $1900 March 10th, now posted for $1750 http://tinyurl.com/2sdbaf
2bed in Coal Harbour: http://tinyurl.com/2rkqqa originally posted for 2900 Feb 28th. Asking 2500 now http://tinyurl.com/3dcxqp
1bed in Coal Harbour – http://tinyurl.com/36d84d posted for 1400 Feb 27th – reposted for 1300 http://tinyurl.com/33k5yf
2bed Downtown – http://tinyurl.com/35hwbb
posted for 2450 Feb 26th – reposted for 2200 http://tinyurl.com/2lxt9z … maybe this time the !!! exclamation marks will sell it!!!
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“Maybe we are and maybe we aren’t. But just what is so magical about the city proper anyway? The region is essentially one market. Does it matter what side of Boundary Road you’re on really?”
For a few people, it matters which side of Main you’re on. Others have to live near the beach, or the mountains. Many of us have a preference for walkable neighbourhoods close to downtown. Little neighbourhood enclaves like Kits, the West End, etc., are what make Vancouver attractive to many of us. The suburbs are our idea of hell.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“I just got back from the USA, your counterparts from the NAR are really pumping the idea that boomers should be investing in farm land.”
The next bubble. I hope they’ve heard of crop insurance. And have read the reports of climate change projections for the US midwest.
Are they recommending this as an investment or is this a head for the hills because it’s going to get scary recommendation? If the former, we’re going to see lots of farms being flipped because no one is going to make a killing on biofuel crops unless they’re willing to take risks and get large bank loans for equipment. If it’s the latter, well, you can feed yourself on an acre or less.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
When those 6K buy isn’t the issue, they need to live somewhere so the housing still needs to be added.
Besides the 6K that came in 2000 might be the ones buying today. It all washes out in the end.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
You can disagree if you like, those are the numbers, I didn’t make them up. I stand by what I said there isn’t an oversupply in vancouver. No one has said those 6K new residents we get a year are owners, I’m sure a very large portion of those are in fact renters that rent those thousands of units you say are for vancant.
Vancany rates are quite low in this city so I’m not so sure there is this abudance of rentals you speak of. And yes I am aware of how the vancany rates are calculated and that not all units are included in the tally.
We will see an oversupply only if demand drops and it might due to high prices.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I think it is rather arrogant to assume that every single immigrant would want to “buy” a house when they come here. As far as I know, buying a house is not a mandate in their immigration policy, nor it is stipulated as such. They are NOT FORCED to buy to qualify for membership in the Vancouver community.
When you buy a home, you are literally buying a membership into the community that you will be living in. Renting, however, differs from buying in that, you do not need to participate in the community. You can try out the community. If you don’t like it, you simply leave and go rent in another community. That’s the flexibility. I think for most immigrants, that’s what they will do first.
Imagine you are in a clothing store. You go there to buy clothes, but before you buy it, wouldn’t you want to try it out and make sure it fits you before you buy? It’s common sense that we do this. We try things out before we make a full commitment. Buying a house is a serious commitment. So if these 6000/year people are coming and buying a house outright without even knowing the neighborhood, I would assume that these are the same people who would drink gasoline without even reading the label, buying clothes without needing to try or jaywalking across the busy Highway 99 without bothering to look for oncoming traffic.
Granted that some may have just bought the house the minute they landed from their 747, but I suspect that numbers are very few and far in between.
Many friends of mine who were immigrants of the past, whether they landed in the early 80s, 90s and today all had rented in the beginning to see which communities serve them well for themselves and their kids, before plunking down some major cash.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
rents are looking high. $1400 for 500 sqft and $2100 for 900 sqft. Are these reasonable for DT?
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
This pdf doesn’t go past end of 2006, but it does show 4K starts and up per quarter for most of the boom. http://www.vancouvereconomic.c.....Starts.pdf
link
Slightly smaller than the roaring early 90′s, but population growth was much higher then.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
New supply=3000-4000/condo units a year.
Average household for condo 1.5-1.6
So new supply can house ~4500-6400people/year.
I think you grossly underestimate construction. For example, what about the Parklane East Fraser lands development below marine drive. What about all the densification (duplexes etc). CHMC showed 65 deteached and 700+ condo starts in February 2008. If se assume 2 per unit, that is capacity for over 1500 people IN A SINGLE MONTH. Sure not all months have starts like that, but you need to go beyond your assumption that a simple condo unit estimate multiplied by 1.5 equals added housing capacity in Vancouver.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“We know Vancouver has been growing at a rate of 6000/year. So there is no oversupply of units.” How would you explain the massive number of vacant units advertised for rent? If the people moving in can’t afford to rent how could they buy at three to four times the monthly cost? It’s a total renters market if you are in the $1400/month plus bracket, you have a thousand to choose from in Vancouver West alone. And most of those are vacant ie: no income is coming in, the ads are plaintive begging, few come to look anymore.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
There is no oversupply in Vancouver as follows please keep in mind I am speaking of Vancouver proper not the Metro.
New supply=3000-4000/condo units a year.
Average household for condo 1.5-1.6
So new supply can house ~4500-6400people/year.
We know Vancouver has been growing at a rate of 6000/year. So there is no oversupply of units.
In fact we could argue that the city is undersupplied as we know a certain percentage is bought as second homes/vacation/no used at all.
If I’m missing something let me know.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“knocking down old houses and rebuilding a new one does not add anything to supply”
That’s not what’s happening in my neighbourhood where every time they tear down an old house they replace it with two or three townhouses and a carriage house. Or else they jack up the basement, put in a new foundation with at least eight foot ceilings and turn it into a two bedroom basement suite. One three bedroom house has been replaced with four townhouse/carriage house units.
The zoning on most of the lots is multifamily. So far they are all quite attractive and blend in well. If this is ecodensity, I’m all for it.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
My arguement was really only that there is not an oversupply in Vancouver
Could you explain how you arrive at that conclusion?
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
It matters because in all honesty it isn’t one market, it is made up with dozens of small markets. Let’s say there were hundreds of empty condos d/t and a shortage of sfhs on acreages, those condos wouldn’t put downward pressure on the price of those homes. We need to compare apples to apples. I’ll agree that if there are an abudance of condos in the burbs that will probably restrain price increases in the city as more and more people would look at them as an alternative. My arguement was really only that there is not an oversupply in Vancouver. There is high prices which will curtail demand. But supply is under control.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Within the city proper I don’t beleive we are seeing an oversupply.
Maybe we are and maybe we aren’t. But just what is so magical about the city proper anyway? The region is essentially one market. Does it matter what side of Boundary Road you’re on really?
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Where is the oversupply of condos d/t? I can beleive there will be an oversupply in the burbs but d/t?
Over the last few years and the next few years we are looking at about 3-4K completions/year in Vancouver. With an average of 1.5 people per condo that’ll house 6K people
Do you know what the population is for DT Vancouver? These are huge numbers in the relative sense. It was 80K as of 2007 (doubled from 40K 20 years ago). Six thousand a year is 7.5 percent of current population. Downtown is growing, but currently houses only about 3-4% of the Metro Vancouver poulation. If the area grows by 30K a year, based static on static proportions, DT would get about 1200 far below the 6K capacity. Of course things aren’t static, and DT is growing fast. But don’t scoff at 6K, it is probably far more than fundamental demand. Second, it remains to be seen whether living downtown is fad or a long term shift.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
bdk,
I agree with what you’ve said maybe I didn’t explain it clearly, what I meant is knocking down old houses and rebuilding a new one does not add anything to supply. Only when you upzone is there an increase in supply, we know there is no vacant areas getting new sfhs home in the city proper so really all new supply is coming from those condo completions. Within the city proper I don’t beleive we are seeing an oversupply. Wether those 6K new residents each year can continue to afford the every growing prices is the valid arguement.
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“knocking down old houses for new houses doesn’t increase supply”
Densification=an increase in the density of something
If you want specific best place on earth term then google “ecodensity”
http://www.vancouver-ecodensit.....t.php?id=2
I agree with your stats on completions, but it’s speculation and not immigration that’s driven the prices up.
There were also the same amount of people coming here between 1989 and 2004 and there was minimal appreciation in resale values of condominium units.
If you saw the same stats canada immigration numbers you’ll agree we have the lowest immigration right now since 1994?