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
April 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Agents open house on the westside were dead today (my wife is a realtor) … all the brokers were joking about the fact that they were at there own “opens” so they coudn’t go on “tour”.
Price changes on listings all -ve on realtylink
all anecdotal, but …..
April 16th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
ex vancouverite ” People need shelter, a home. *Not* in terms of leverage, but in terms of staying alive, against the elements, for awhile.” Sorry but what exactly are you trying to say? Seems to me like yoiur arguing against the very folks that believe that. What if I may ask is your point? Most of the people on the blog agree as you said “We’re a couple ready to retire, with 6 figures for a downpayment, and still earning 6 figures, and still would not touch any property with a barge-pole.
If this RE cult in Raincouver isn’t heaving its’ last breath, then it’s time to exit to sunnier, warmer and cheaper places to live.quote unquote? And your point is its bad to rent and invest for a little stability?. We too are an Older couple, so I am having a problem with your attitude that investing surplus money (which we do because we rent and are not stupid enough to buy) in other investments is some how NOT astute? Clarify please? Maybe I am missing something in your points?
April 16th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
.
“Go buy an RV, then. No need to blow your wad on an overpriced POS. In the meantime, I will rent.”
Yeah, we’re doing that too – 5th wheel, going south a few months in the winter but keeping the rental townhouse.
Sometimes I envy Americans, they can live in any kind of climate they want. We, in Canada, have to pretend that Vancouver and the surrounding gulf islands are like the Caribbean. Anyone who’s been there knows the difference, but we have to keep up the pretense. We’re idiots to buy into it.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
For the article:
Calgary market adjusting to new reality, says expert
Well no. It’s the same old reality – asset prices always adjust to fundamentals. Calgary had just been trying to ignore it for a while.
“New paradigm”, “new reality”, blah, blah. The song remains the same.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“People need shelter, a home. *Not* in terms of leverage, but in terms of staying alive, against the elements, for awhile.”
Go buy an RV, then. No need to blow your wad on an overpriced POS. In the meantime, I will rent.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Alta Vista
“I just left the sales office for the Beasley, to be built in Yaletown, over 70% sold at $800 plus a square foot.”
I think you’ll find that none of them are SOLD. People are trading condo futures, all they pay up front is 10% or so.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
What in Calgary!!!!
http://www.canada.com/calgaryh.....25d8762860
“The market has been softer than we anticipated, but we’re just a bit under what we budgeted for,” he says.
“It’s so much different than it was last year. I think everyone sensed it would be, but I don’t think anyone thought it would be as challenging as it has been so far.”
While builders are adjusting to the new reality, some are making the shift more quickly than others, says Bobyk.
Yes, it’s hard to believe. Builders overestimated demand.
This is just a few months after their “experts” were talking “shortage of land” “resource boom” and oh yeah the China and India thingamajigger.
Sure hope negative equity, and negative cash flow, is as good for Albertan specuvestors, as Rob says is good for BC specuvestors.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Newsflash: not everything is about you.
Really, Professor? I stand corrected. It’s all about you, instead.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“I don’t know about some of you, but I have really gotten used to being able to divert so much of my income into non-real estate related investments. The idea of parting with them in exchange for highly illiquid housing which effectively ties my fortunes to that of Vancouver has made me consider never buying real estate.”
Ditto. We save, I dunno, 2k a month or so without really trying. The portfolio is getting to be of an interesting size, it offers the opportunity to diversify (profit take on upswings, buy on opportunity), and the best part, IT IS LIQUID! I figger if both of us lost our jobs tomorrow, we could coast for 4 or 5 years on our savings. Nice comfy secure feeling. Perhaps at some point we’ll even have a big enough nut to live on dividends alone. Buy a house, and all that’s out the window, and, worse, staked 100% to the fate of the Vancouver market.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Well, it’s nasty sounding off to ordinary people and to younger folk just trying to get by.
Huh? We are ordinary people. We’re not rich, we just happen to make decent money after sacrificing for years in university and paying off student loans afterward. Together, we have a 6-figure income, but neither of us do singly. I know a lot of people who make more than we do.
it’s important not get crazy with this rubbing people’s noses in their misfortune. It’s not helpful.
Newsflash: not everything is about you.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I just left the sales office for the Beasley, to be built in Yaletown, over 70% sold at $800 plus a square foot. Certainly someone who can afford these prices must be brighter than me, what gives? Who are these wealthy people and what is their rationale, when even the bulls I speak with are thinking of a correction(albeit no where near Drachen’s.)
April 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“Well, it’s nasty sounding off to ordinary people and to younger folk just trying to get by.
I have been a single parent, and I’ve been horribly strapped for cash all my life. Now I’m old, and circumstances happened that I finally catch a break … it’s important not get crazy with this rubbing people’s noses in their misfortune.”
what does this mean?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Not only do you not need to own in order to have shelter.
One could have two (rented) apartments for the price of one mortgaged unit!
Maybe have one in Fairview and one Downtown?
Perhaps you’d prefer one in Richmond and one Downtown?
Who’s to say that the both even have to be in B.C.?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“People need shelter, a home. *Not* in terms of leverage, but in terms of staying alive, against the elements, for awhile.”
But they don’t need to own a home. I’d say you’re the one with little grey matter or understanding.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:42 am
.
(Yes, I know I should think long term and in terms of leverage – I do both in my daily investment decisions.)
Therein, lies the gap in your understanding.
Therein, lies the gap between your ears.
People need shelter, a home. *Not* in terms of leverage, but in terms of staying alive, against the elements, for awhile.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I don’t know about some of you, but I have really gotten used to being able to divert so much of my income into non-real estate related investments. The idea of parting with them in exchange for highly illiquid housing which effectively ties my fortunes to that of Vancouver has made me consider never buying real estate.
(Yes, I know I should think long term and in terms of leverage – I do both in my daily investment decisions.)
April 16th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I am not even considering to buy in Vancouver.
I am considering to move away from here though, including lower mainland.
I havent seen any 100% increases in my wages, so no sense to buy here. Makes sense to move though.
And the medical field staff shortage is getting worse…
Oh well, have to take care of myself too.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Our frugal choices:
Coffee: Never buy prepared coffee drinks. Free coffee at work. At home, buy Fairly Traded coffee in bulk with relatives.
Eating out: Twice a month. Take out once or twice a week because we save on tips and drinks.
Transport: One 7 year-old Nissan Sentra (don’t laugh, its paid for). Wife likes to walk to work in good weather and bus in the winter.
Housing: Large upper flat in four-plex with fair rent. Decent neighbourhood, and old-school, handy landlord who likes long-term tenants.
Clothing: Often from thrift stores, but wife does go nuts at Zellers sometimes
Household items: 6 year-old 20 inch Sony TV, very old (1999) IMAC and near new IBook. Small appliances always bought on discount (regret buying microwave in Sears bargain basement, though).
Vacation: Visited Victoria and attended a wedding. Total expense about $800.
Biggest expenses lately have been on furniture because of some of the deals. Bought with cash, no financing.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
.
We’re saving $4k per month, and total savings are well into 6 figures. Another couple years of renting and we’ll buy a townhouse for cash, no mortgage.
Well, it’s nasty sounding off to ordinary people and to younger folk just trying to get by.
I have been a single parent, and I’ve been horribly strapped for cash all my life. Now I’m old, and circumstances happened that I finally catch a break … it’s important not get crazy with this rubbing people’s noses in their misfortune.
It’s not helpful.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I earn over 65k and have 40k for a downpayment but still not planning to buy anytime soon. Renting and waiting…. If things don’t change soon I don’t mind moving. I don’t feel like raising a kid in the closest of my condo.
I have a few people from Australia here in my office and none would agree that Vancouver is a better place to live then Sydney. They show me how beautiful their beaches are and warm it gets. They are only here for a year and then heading back home. After a year I might be joining them.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
One area that i find surprising when i read this blog is the number of posters who claim to have saved huge (6 figures in the case of “exx”)wads of cash while renting for years.
Anyone posting here is going to be more money-conscious than the average consumer.
My wife and I spend money on some things, but we save it whenever possible. We like to go to movies, so we got into a group-purchase of cheap tickets, and we no longer buy popcorn & pop during movies.
We eat dinner out twice a week, but we look for good but cheap restaurants, even better if they have coupons.
If we buy a coffee when we’re out, we buy a coffee for $1.75, not a $4 latte.
We like to buy nice clothes, but nothing too expensive and almost always on sale.
We bought an answering machine for the phone instead of paying $ every month for voicemail. Little things add up.
We’re renting a 2-bd, main-floor suite (no one above nor below)in Burnaby; the place is near-new and rent includes heat, cable, internet, plus a big backyard. It’s small but cozy and suits me fine. Only downside is no garage for our Civic, but I can live with that.
We actually get a kick out of being frugal. My wife doesn’t understand why most people buy things to feel good for a short time, rather than feeling good all the time about having lots of money in the bank. When we save money, we talk it up and celebrate it.
We’re saving $4k per month, and total savings are well into 6 figures. Another couple years of renting and we’ll buy a townhouse for cash, no mortgage.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:04 am
.
We’re a couple ready to retire, with 6 figures for a downpayment, and still earning 6 figures, and still would not touch any property with a barge-pole.
If this RE cult in Raincouver isn’t heaving its’ last breath, then it’s time to exit to sunnier, warmer and cheaper places to live.
And *that* will not be hard to find.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Lager not logger and emile,
Well done folks you guys made it clear that even in your situation you have no mercy for rich and poor or homeless- not even for dogs and students as well,so what were you complaining about?
Please take no offence but there is always some one sitting on the bottom,have you ever heard that suckers born every minute.
I would call you joker with high income complaining,please follow the direction from Patiently Waiting and take a 360 degree turn to buy something-with 150k in pocket and you guys wanted to buy vancouver art gallery, thanks emile and lager not logger hope you don’t mind.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I know two people in the same building downtown with the same layout one faces south and one faces north and the assessed value of each is between $445-455k.
One pays $1350 rent for a unit that’s just shy of 700 sq ft and has a slightly better view plus the upgraded kitchen cabinets and counter top from the developer (the building is 8-10 years old) but to be fair the carpets are worn and it’s had a few more coats of paint done by a cheap property management company.
They moved in last summer and it was advertised in the Vancouver Sun.
The other couple has an identical suite , except they have the cheap laminate “hardwood’ floors and a mortgage of just over $400k (assessed value is $446k this year) and moved in late 2006 or early 2007.
They’re paying $2400 mortgage plus $350 for taxes, strata and content insurance.
Seeing as we all make around the same amount of money it wouldn’t be a stretch for the first party to be saving $1500 a month and still living in the “Best Place on Earth” in the same building.
The beauty is that if the first party wants to move away for any reason (newer building, better neighbours etc.) all they have to do is hire a moving truck and go whereas the second party has to pay to break their mortgage, pay a realtor $25,000, pay a lawyer $600 and then pay the movers etc. plus they’re missing out on $18,000 a year in opportunity costs (Or a 5 star trip to Cuba, New York and Europe for two).
Of course this will be lost on some trolls here who think traveling isn’t necessary once one lives on the “best place on earth” !
So unless the “owners” unit appreciates $100k a year the couple that’s saving $1500 a month is going to be laughing all the way to TV Towers, where they’ll be able to buy a 2 bedroom sub penthouse for $320,000 and be Krissh’ neighbour!
Although TV Towers is located in a poor mans almost Yaletown.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:03 am
My income and savings are modest by some standards here. Both are five figures. So I’m never going to be in the market for Westside SFH.
When the conditions are ideal, we will try to buy something nice in New West or Coquitlam or Port Moody. Something we can raise a child or two in, if we ever decide to do so. Something that is not crappy construction or old as the hills.
I don’t know if I’m asking too much of Vancouver. We’ll see…
April 16th, 2008 at 8:33 am
One area that i find surprising when i read this blog is the number of posters who claim to have saved huge (6 figures in the case of “exx”)wads of cash while renting for years.
Given that we have a negative savings rate i find that this cannot possibly be the norm. Most people don’t calculate the savings between buying and renting and invest the difference. I’m sure some do, but most just don’t – not with a negative savings rate.
I agree, my savings rate is definitely NOT the norm. My coworkers don’t understand how I can put ~$2K/mo into savings. I just tell them “I don’t have a mortgage, I pay $1000 for rent. I don’t have kids. I would literally need some sort of drug addiction to not save a significant amount.”
The whole purpose of renting, for me, is to save enough for a large down payment. That has been my goal all along and I think I’m pretty much there, but then again this is very obviously, in most of our opinions, NOT the time to buy.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:12 am
And California’s GDP isn’t that high. It’s only 35% more than Canada’s 2007 est. GDP (1.274 trillion).
Yes, I meant BILLION thanks for the correction, but where do you get your numbers for California GDP? If California was a country it would be the eighth richest in the world. This page says their GDP is $2.15 TRILLION (about the same as France.
http://strangemaps.wordpress.c.....ilar-gdps/
For a moment there I thought you were saying California GDP was only 35% bigger than our province, but I see you compared it to the entire country of Canada.
Well I guess we don’t have to worry about a california style housing crash here – the less you have the less you have to lose.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Person posing as exx
“Wow. Really? History? Historical review somehow points you to a %60 drop in real estate prices? When might this happen?”
Well when is not as predictable as if. You have to realize that one is a binary conclusion, the other is on a scale. If you’d bothered to check any sources before responding to me you’d see that ANY commodity which spikes upwards in price without a fundamental shift in it’s value will eventually revert to the fundamental curve. In this case property prices have tripled without any fundamental change in the market which would account for the price change.
My educated guess as to WHEN is: Starting this year, declining through 2011.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Kit, did you find work in PDX before you moved or after? Are you an American or did you get a work permit?
April 16th, 2008 at 8:02 am
My savings is similar to exx – I’m debt free and saving is easy if you don’t have a giant mortgage payment so I’ve got no motivation to change that.
I agree that the readers on this blog are more likely to be savers than the population at large, I’d be interested in hearing how much people are able to save by renting and how ready they are for an economic downturn.
Either prices decline here to a reasonable level at which point I’ll buy, or I’ll take my cash elsewhere. Vancouver is an acceptable city, but I’ve enjoyed living in other cities and I’ll happily do it again. Not interested in squeezing the family into a 700 sq. foot condo for the same price as a house in most other North American cities.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:55 am
when property values decline the overall impact will be felt far beyond just the real estate and housing sector and it will not be pretty.
Thats the problem with building an economy on a bubble – look whats happening in the US, the very first step was houses became ridiculously overvalued, then prices started to decline. Once prices started to decline THEN the economy started to falter. I have no doubt we’ll see the same thing here since we’ve built an economy based on condo construction and speculative demand.
In the US if house prices continued to appreciate there would be no ‘subprime’ problem, but there’s no way for real estate to appreciate at those rates seperate from the rest of the economy, you run out of buyers.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:51 am
..or find a decent looking homeless person.”
Hahaha! the solution to the childcare problem. If anyone needed any proof that Krrish was a joker there you go.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:41 am
I think the negative savings rate shows that we have shifted economically into a territory where assets appreciation has replaced real earnings and savings for the average person. If this is true then in my mind when(?) property values decline the overall impact will be felt far beyond just the real estate and housing sector and it will not be pretty.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:16 am
Maybe all the bloggers here are just that much more disciplined than the general population.
Maybe? I thought it was self-evident.
Our negative savings rate, like in the US, is directly related to the housing bubble.
One, higher mortgage payments – both for owner-occupiers and specuvestors – consume income and leave nothing left to save.
Two, the move to 40 year mortgages greatly reduces the principal part of the mortgage payment, which is savings.
Three, when someone sells an existing property and moves into a more expensive one, which has increased during the bubble, they start a new mortgage amortization which greatly reduces the principal payments from the level of the previous mortgage.
Four, refinancing a mortgage to a higher balance for spending money (so-call “equity extraction”) is negative savings.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:10 am
well maybe high income was a slight exaggeration(cut and paste quotes) , but professional is apt. we fixed our lifestyle by moving to an affordable city where one of us can afford to stay home with the toddler, and we can buy a house. still lots of homeless people here if I need a babysitter though.
The point is no matter how much greener Vancouver is it is a tough place to buy a house.
Good luck to the next couple who know how to take advantage advantage of that
April 15th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
One area that i find surprising when i read this blog is the number of posters who claim to have saved huge (6 figures in the case of “exx”)wads of cash while renting for years.
Given that we have a negative savings rate i find that this cannot possibly be the norm. Most people don’t calculate the savings between buying and renting and invest the difference. I’m sure some do, but most just don’t – not with a negative savings rate.
After some RRSP conributions many people just spend their money. The old maxim is there for a reason. Despite pay raises many people don’t really feel better off or save any extra money.
Maybe all the bloggers here are just that much more disciplined than the general population.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Krrish 2 has an excellent sense of humour:
“The best thing is if people can find likewise friends they can fix their schedule or buy a decent home and accommodate a single elder or find a decent looking homeless person.”
Asking a decent looking homeless to take care of my toddlers… What a great idea! I am gonna go shopping on Hastings right away. As for the single elder, sorry, but our “elders” are all healthy married boomers enjoying life on the other side of the world.
However, Kirrsh 2 does not seem to understand other people’s sarcasm:
“I think there is no city where rich or singles does not keep their dogs with them.”
Kirrsh 2, could you show us some sound statistics about the dogs of the upper class, worldwide? Thanks.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Here you go Krissh, there are more than two buildings here:
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/c.....&sro=1
I’m glad I was able to open your eyes, it makes a lot more sense now that I realize you thought there was only another 700 units coming and that Vancouver was immune from natural disasters and terrorism. You must feel foolish right now.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
KIT,
The problem with you guys is that you have left that high income for next couples may be they know how to take advantage out of that.
The “EMILE’S”problem is not a place or income their problem was they were disconnected from their parents for that they have to spend atleast$1600 per month to baby sit their kids
I don’t know if you have a same problem the best thing in this case is if people can find likewise friends they can fix their schdule or buy a decent home and accommodate a single elder or find a decent looking homeless person.
Other than that it doesn’t seems to be anything else can fix your life style.The rest of emiles complaint about dogs and student.
I think there is no city where rich or singles does not keep their dogs with them.
All student cheer in their life I did that for long time you did it at your time so the student world wide keep the cheer up style to impress the public and their friends.
I hope you guys will be back as once exvancouverites discovered the grass is actually greener in Vancouver B.C.
All the best kit,emile
April 15th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
“if you look at downtown for those numbers,those are elan and raffles so your calculation comes to 700 units”
“there are almost 350 units per towers so how many towers are going to complete in 2008?.”
The number I saw was 10,000 between now and the Olympics, from looking at one assignment website and thinking off the top of my head I have compiled a list of Vancouver area projects, that you must not have been aware of.
1.Atelier
2.Camera
3.Crossroads
4.Donovan
5.Espana
6.Flatiron
7.Flagship
8.First on First
9.Grace residences
10.L’Hermitage
11.Loft 495
12.Metroliving
13.02
14.Ritz
15.Raffles
16.Sapphire
17.Shangri La
18.Two Harbour Green
19.TV Towers
20.Terminus
21.Touchstone (Burnaby)
22.Woodwards
23.33 Pender
24.Vita
That was off an assignment list
Plus off the top of my head
Patina,Coopers Lookout,Beasley, Crossroads, Millenium Water, Dolce, Residences at Georgia (Ritz), the Hotel Georgia Residences, 1212 Howe, Erickson
Are you familiar with the North American Free Trade act Krissh? Do you think Canada can stop California from taking our water? Does Canada have a superior emergency evacuation procedure compared to the U.S? If yes please explain.
Is Vancouver at any risk of having a massive earthquake?
Is the threat greater here or in Cleveland (aka the second best place on earth)?
What source informed you that Vancouver is the greatest place on earth? Have you been anywhere other than wherever you came from and Vancouver?
Do you even hold a passport?
If it’s so obvious Vancouver is the greatest place on earth doesn’t that make it a more attractive target to Terrorists in comparison to lesser cities like Los Angelos, New York, Sydney, Toronto and Cleveland?
Do you have an emergency evacuation plan yourself if this happens? Does it involve sellig your condo?
What if there is a SARS outbreak?
Or perhaps some world class foreign investor version of SARS?
April 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
We left Vancouver for Portland “there go two more young professional high-income earners”
Now we are house hunting, no price drops here- portland real estate market is still healthy and good deals go fast with multiple offers. however, lots of inventory in the 400-500′s which buys nice house in a nice city.
good luck vancouver
April 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Bdk,
Percentage is bs unless you throw in real numbers from what is left over to occupy.there are almost 350 units per towers so how many towers are going to complete in 2008?.
if you look at downtown for those numbers,those are elan and raffles so your calculation comes to 700 units. if all those unit does not sell there won’t be any crash but those units are already sold so no crash again.
there is always demand for all category the problem for flippers or seller after completion is that “there is no method to give a secure exposer to assignments” unless all the unit hit the MLS system once those get listed in MLS it’s very easy to sell any over hang.Because of that fillipers are mostly strong investors buying or flipping is not a child’s play only people with strong hands were making millions you can imagine all the previous completed projects were possessed without any sound.
Crabman,A,
Thanks to write a response the way it should be so you guys know there are lots of problems,In California there are three extra problems those are different than rest of America those are water,gases,and because of huge population there are no arrangement for emergency evacuation compare to the nature of threats(terrorism,natural disasters).
April 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Thanks for the poll page the Pope
I’m in the pent-up demand, waiting for a greater than 20% drop group. Going on the historical appreciation (something like 3%/year?), what percentage do we have to drop to get back to “normal” again? Anyone have the percentage handy?
That’d be a nice constant sidebar graphic – a percent drop back to normal counter.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
^ Uh.. that wasn’t me.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Wow. Really? History? Historical review somehow points you to a %60 drop in real estate prices? When might this happen?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Anonymous
“Uh, that’s a little optimistic, dontcha think? Maybe just concede home ownership isn’t for you.”
Funny thing. I have history, economics and mathematics telling me one thing. And you telling me another. On the whole I think I’ll side with data, numbers, facts, you know all those wishy washy ‘hippie’ notions. Your uneducated guess does not sway me.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I think you meant 180 BILLION.
And California’s GDP isn’t that high. It’s only 35% more than Canada’s 2007 est. GDP (1.274 trillion).
April 15th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
alum “Otherwise, as long as prople have jobs and there no massive layoffs (as in the US), a crash is not on the horizon” no massive layoffs huh? so when the 200,000 of the 220,000 condo construction workers get laid off this fall would you consider that a massive layoff?
and the remaining 20,000 next year after Canada line is completed? Construction is the ONLY sizable economy Vancouver has, high tech doesn’t even come close to those numbers.We are not Seattle, no Microsoft, Boeng, or any head offices except may Lulemon! 
Tell Lullemon they have to expand big time. 25000 new employees every quarter I think?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“I’ll look at buying when the metrics are down to normal levels. 40% or less of current prices.”
Uh, that’s a little optimistic, dontcha think? Maybe just concede home ownership isn’t for you.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You can’t compare BC to California. In 2006 the BC GDP was MORE THAN 180 MILLION DOLLARS. California’s GDP in 2006 was only around 1.7 trillion.