The next big development…
City council unanimously endorsed a plan Tuesday night to create a high-density, mixed-use neighbourhood of about 7,000 people around BC Place Stadium and GM Place on the final undeveloped section of the former Expo lands.
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=99d209cf-02b9-4a4f-aca4-4abc8f7fb86a
The controversial concept includes a new civic plaza plus four million square feet of residential space and 1.8 million square feet of office space.
What it doesn’t include is the 2.75 acres of park space per 1,000 people that city council holds as a goal.
So less parkland, but parks are green right, and city council wants Vancouver to be the “greenest city” right? …few parks in this development sadly.
As proposed, densities in northeast False Creek will be among the highest in the downtown peninsula, the report said, noting the high-density push is being driven by the city’s goal of becoming the greenest city in the world by 2020.
Will this be a success? Will it result in a Vancouver’s first ghetto thus making us truly an international city complete with concrete all rental ghetto?
RSS 2.0 comments feed. leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
1
X
Anonymous Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
Not a ghetto but a paradise for international students attending ESL schools here. There was a report recently that this category is a huge contributor to BC’s economy.
2
X
patriotzed Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
From previous thread:
@Boombust:
Quebeckers do not have a cultural preference for owning over renting and thus will not pay more to own than to rent. That’s ALL it takes to prevent a bubble – just say no to high selling prices.
Also true of Germany BTW.
3
X
GJW Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Let’s look at it this way, perhaps Vancouver is taking a lesson from cities and states across the line, how their revenues have all but dried up from the housing bubble and credit crisis, Vancouver, moving aggressively on the next big tax revenue stream and potentially the last for the cities core, locks in the tax net for years to come, capturing revenues. Wait a minute, government officials learn lessons, maximize income utilization and give the electorate what they want? What was I thinking?
Maybe this initiative can be placed in the contrary indicator column as one more small piece of evidence that we maybe beyond the housing shift, point of no return ( no pun intended).
4
X
Boombust Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
“ESL schools here. There was a report recently that this category is a huge contributor to BC’s economy”
That has slowed considerably. Numbers are way down.
5
X
Supraboys helper Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
SCULLBOY IS OFFICIALLY OUT OF HERE! NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOODBYE!
6
X
Drugs "R" Us Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
I believe it should read:
NAH NAH NAH NAH, NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY, GOODBYE!
7
X
Supraboys helper Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Here’s what SCULLBOY should watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE
LET’S STAND UP AND SING BOYS AND GIRLS! NAH NAH NAH NAH, HEY HEY HEY, GOODBYE!
Only thing that came out of Nova Scotia is Sidney Crosby. Scullboy is ready to play some hockey!
8
X
Grapes of Wrath Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
I think some of the bears’ hate-based commentary are just total sour grapes. What is wrong with this development.. a rental ghetto.. come on… geesh. Relax.
9
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Why would this area be a ghetto more than any other area?
The park rule “issue” seems a little silly when you are putting this neighbourhood in between a big park north of Expo Blvd, and right on the False Creek seawall. Clearly there are prime outdoor public areas all around this area.
10
X
Purp Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
This article reeks a bit of NIMBYism. To Warren’s point there’s parks and public space all around this area.
Calling this proposed development a ‘ghetto’ is absurd.
This land has been undeveloped for almost 25 years, let’s just move forward.
11
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yes, I forgot to mention the residents of CityGate bring NIMBY to a whole new level. These people have the dregs of Main St on their back door, yet complain constantly about any proposed changes in their area. They are the reason the Skytrain crawls along that stretch. It was “too noisy” (!!). Nevermind that it was there long before them.
12
X
Purp Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Don’t forget that awful racket that the Indy used to bring one weekend a year. Thank god that’s gone.
13
X
mk-kids Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I know someone who lives along that Main Street stretch of skytrain and holy crap, it is SOOOOO noisy! I would never live there, I don’t care how great the view is. I live close to the Canada Line and am very happy it is underground.
14
X
mk-kids Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
With respect to the lack o green space with the new development, I think it is shameful. I spend a lot of time on the seawall from Granville Island around Science World to English Bay and it is generally really crowded. I look at the area north of Science World, around to Yaletown and there really is a lack of green space. What makes False Creek south, Yaletown and the West End desirable is the amount of green – small parks, tree-lined roads, art installations, views of tress and water. Now, if they built this area with “living” walls & roofs and large tree lined streets and an expanded seawall bike/ walk path… that might be a good compromise.
15
X
Boombust Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“I live close to the Canada Line and am very happy it is underground.”
Funny (as in strange, not ha ha)that it was put underground through a well-to-do neighbourhood.
Any thoughts about that?
16
X
mk-kids Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Yeah boombust, isn’t that just the way the world works, huh? And yet Cambie wasn’t well-to-do enough to move the thing entirely like the Arbutus Corridor folks…
Seriously if they had put that train above ground up Cambie it would have ruined the area entirely – not just the noise but te sight of it too. I think all our future rapid transit (if ever there is anymore) should be subterranean, especially if it is in an urban neighbourhood.
17
X
realpaul Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
i listened to an investment conferance this morning. There was a lot of talk about intrest rates going up ‘very quickly’ several hundred basis points. The advice was for companies to lock in any loans in a hurry. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, these business guys know something that the government ain’t saying?
18
X
Bubble Lad Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
A rental ghetto seems like a logical progression: they’re working day and night to turn the DTES into a quaint little yuppie fiefdom. It has “character”, is (unlike the rest of Vancouver) scaled for pedestrians, and has a great view of the north shore. All the bars are being converted to more douche-friendly environments, and if you’ve got a swingin’ new restaurant, a DTES/gastown location in a must have.
There seems to be this belief that everyone on the DTES (and how you feel about the issue personally is of little relevance) are just supposed to vanish into thin air once their stomping ground is stolen from them. I’m sorry, they have to go SOMEWHERE, so why not just a few short blocks over to where everyone is trying to make some cash back on their tanking condo (God knows they won’t be able to sell it in a year) by renting out…to ANYONE.
19
X
Drachen Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
@realpaul:
The government (and the BOC) has said for a while now that the current low rate won’t last through the summer. Carney’s hinted from time to time that hikes may come sooner if people don’t back off on the debt spending (which has become worse not better since he started saying it).
Not exactly a secret, just one of those things that doesn’t get reported by the mass media.
The impact on Vancouver could be pretty heavy with even a small movement because there are many people out there who can’t even afford to lock in right now, they’re living at the very edge of affordability and even a 1-2% increase in rates will sink them.
20
X
Purp Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@Mk-kids “I think all our future rapid transit (if ever there is anymore)” – Interesting commment, you doubt whether more rapid transit would be built? What do you think would prevent that?
Re. the Arbutus corridor route, putting aside the nasty NIMBYism during that debate, it IS actually better located down Cambie route (past VGH/city hall/Oakridge etc.) than through the lower density arbutus corridor.
Personally, I think the entire whole downtown waterfront area is spectacular with the seawall and all the parks from Kits all the way to Canada Place. I think sometimes Vancouverites take for granted how nice our waterfront really is. Take a look at Seattle for an example of terrible planning.
21
X
Vic Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Greenest city in the world by 2010..and still have the highest density? The only way I can see that happening is by building the park on the roof top — which has its own set of problems.
DTES is a disaster and it sounds like they just want to steam roll that area and just build condos.
22
X
Deliverator Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip238118
23
X
Supraboys Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Looks like things are inflating yet again. Gold prices shot up. I think 1200 is a high possibility before year end.
24
X
logic Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
21 Vic – the city usues the notion that high densisty ADDS to greenness as it reduces transport needs cos they can walk/trasit to to work – as long as all those folks then work downtown – but where one asks?
As for the ELS thing – friends in that industry tell me that the past 6 months have been brutal. Massive drop offs in numbers of Asian students, which I guess is also adding to the downtown/west end vacancy increases.
25
X
Anonymous Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I really wish douchetards would actually listen to the lyrics of a song.
“Na na na na na na na na
hey hey hey goodbye
he’ll never love you
the way that I love you
cause if he did no no
he wouldn’t make you cry.
He might be thrilling Baby
but my love’s
so dog-gone willing so kiss him
go on and kiss him goodbye.
Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye.
Na na na na na na na na
hey hey hey goodbye
he’s never near you
to comfort and cheer you.
When all those sad tears
are falling Baby from your eyes
he might be thrilling Baby
but my love’s
so dog-gone willing so kiss him
go on and kiss him goodbye.
Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye.
Na na na na na na na na
hey hey hey goodbye
na na na na na na na na
hey hey hey goodbye… “
26
X
buff_butler Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Regarding the loonie and alternate ways of preventing appreciation that other countries are using.
http://www.progressive-economi.....ies-wings/
27
X
Disbelief Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Superboy
Looks like things are inflating yet again. Gold prices shot up. I think 1200 is a high possibility before year end.
Don’t confuse the sectors. The forces that drive Real Estate and Gold are very different. They are essentially polar opposites. I guess there are no books in that dungeon your parents have you locked away in.
28
X
patriotz Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@mk-kids:
Underground rapid transit is only cost-effective if the area served is developed to Toronto, Montreal, or New York levels of density. Cambie is nowhere near dense enough to make RAV pay. Compare to Yonge or Bloor streets in Toronto.
You want Calgary density, you get Calgary (ground level) LRT. You can’t have it both ways.
29
X
realpaul Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#19 Drac, Thats pretty funny “Carney threatens to raise rates if people don’t back off debt spending” Oh that is just side splitting. Hasn’t the federal government just added 700 billion to the national debt by buying back all the mortgages from the banks and hiding them inside the CHMC file?
30
X
scullboy Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Hey Arit, you asked when I’d be at the airport. I’ll be there around 6 pm. I’m a bit reluctant to post that here. Supraboy seems a little obsessed and frankly the last thing on earth I need is for him to get all dolled up in his best lady boy outfit and go stalking me through the airport screaming “scullboy!! You jealous!!! You jealous of me and my rich daddy!! I buy three condos and daddy buy me three more!! ”
brrrrrr what a mental image.
31
X
mk-kids Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
hey patriotz, my thinking exactly – that was what i was referring to when i said “if there is anymore” – seems like translink blew their wad for their owelympic pals. still, the canada line is nice but clearly not cost-effective given the density issues. agree with purp, density is way better on cambie though than it would have been on arbutus.
as someone who sold my car in ‘94 and haven’t owned once since, i am a frequent transit user and impressed with the canada line – it cut 10-15 min off my 25 min commute to work and is so much nicer than the overcrowded bus. it also doesn’t drive by me half empty as i wait in the pouring rain at the bus stop or give me attitude for no reason.
ps: not disagreeing with your purp on how pretty our little city is, just saying it is so because we have loads of green space especially bordering the seawall and its a shame the new development isn’t incorporating more, especially with all the density it plans to bring.
32
X
scullboy Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I wonder how “green” this plan really is. From what I can tell a lot of Vancouver isn’t mixed at all. There isn’t enough space in many homes for a decent sized dog, much less a couple of kids.
And then there’s the office/ commercial space issue. I don’t see any effort being made to attract any employers to Vancouver. Wouldn’t a key part of high density be bringing quality, middle class jobs into the city? I would think you’d need government agencies, financial jobs, IT, white collar jobs and the like.
I mean we can’t all work at those packed casual places surpa and his buddies frequent.
Annecdotally, food and bevvy are really taking a hot in this town. This time last year students were hired before they got out of school. Over the weekend I heard fro
some former classmates. They have all had to look outside the city and many have had to find work in other fields.
It’s not hard data but it’s information. Make of it what you will
33
X
observer Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Has anyone bothered to do a verifiable no BS no spin study of the supply and demand for housing (rental+owner combined) in Vancouver? I’ve never seen anything authoritative about this and it is puzzling it hasn’t been done (I think the silence means something). It is the first thing one should do in city planning.
I think the civic plaza smells like a hidden bailout of millenium. There is probably no need to move the art museum or library there except to help prop up the amenities for the olympic condos. But these are obviously more important than keeping city staff jobs or having less crowded transit.
34
X
other ted Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Patriotz you bring up a good point about density. Here in Calgary everyone thinks they need more density like vancouver. Living in both cities I feel Calgary is more dense in its neighbourhoods. The average lots in Calgary are more than half the size than vancouvers. I was shocked to see you packed in every house was here. Vancouvers densification is a myth. Also stats on densification mean nothing if they don’t compare apples to oranges. One thing helping Vancouver is the large amounts of condos in downtown. Calgary needs to catch up in this area but in all other residiential areas it is more dense. Also I would say vancouvers was an overbuild as the demand isn’t there, if it was it wouldn’t be specuvestors owing the majority. But what the stats don’t show is that Calgary has all of its industy inside the city and there are large swaths of land not developed at all.
I believe Vancouver could densify a lot more. In fact other than allwoing for more condos downtown Calgary has gone overboard. I would never buy one of these shoeboxes with no yards.
35
X
other ted Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
In fact I just looked Greater vancouvers population density is way lower than Calgary’s. People just cherry pick vancouver proper to show how dense it is. Considering the bulk of condos are downtown and vancouver proper is a very small area of course its somewhat dense. And ther is no industry in vancouver.
36
X
Drachen Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
@observer:
I think part of what is supporting the market is that turnover of housing is so fast that a decent chunk of available housing is constantly in a state of renovation/pre-renovation/post-renovation.
I know in my neighbourhood for the last 3-4 years the amount of housing which is unavailable due to renovation is about 10%. Right now the duplex next door is without tenants and awaiting planning approval, there’s another two in the same state within a block of me and a rental complex of 8-10 units that was bulldozed 2 1/2 years ago and has sat empty ever since.
This is a consistent pattern throughout the neighbourhood and it’s been at about that level for years now. Because of the inflation in prices owners aren’t in any rush and really don’t care much if the renovations take 2-3 years to complete because it just means the place will be worth more when they finally sell.
There was a big rush of activity last year around this time when prices were falling though which indicates to me that there will be a lot of properties listed in a relatively short time once a consistent downwards (or even neutral) trend emerges.
37
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Not sure where you are getting your baked stats on density.
Calgary city: 1360 people/sq km
Vancouver city: 5070 people/sq km
Calgary Metro: 211 people/sq km
Vancouver Metro: 735 people/sq km
I used stats from wikipedia. If you have been to both Vancouver and Calgary and looked around, any thought of Calgary more dense is laughable.
38
X
Disbelief Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
used stats from wikipedia. If you have been to both Vancouver and Calgary and looked around, any thought of Calgary more dense is laughable.
It’s definately more dense but has little to do with People/sq km. The prices in Calgary are almost as expensive as Vancouver.
39
X
Anonymous Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
5yr closed is 2%
P -0.25
Bansters et al know that it takes 3 generations to unlearn experience aka history, and another generation to fix it.
40
X
other ted Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Vancouver metro is a lower number than calgary from your own stats. I have no idea what Calgary metro is other than the huge swaths of farm land that surround the city. Nice cherry picking. There really is no such thing as calgary metro. Calgary does not have suburbs or municipalities. It is one city. Meanwhile Vancouver by itself is not where the city ends you can see burnaby, richmond and the north shore are cleary part of the city. there is no clear distincion where vancouver ends.
41
X
patriotz Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
@Warren:
Calgary city contains:
Huge parks (Nose Hill, Fish Creek, etc). Note that Pacific Spirit park is not part of CoV.
Huge railway yards (CP and CN). cf PoCo and Surrey respectively.
A reservoir (Glenmore). cf North Shore or Burnaby Lake.
Huge industrial areas. cf Delta, etc.
An airport. cf Richmond.
A large ring of undeveloped land. cf Langley, etc.
A large university campus. UBC is not part of CoV.
In other words Calgary city is a metro in itself as ted says.
42
X
baked Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
A Federal MP in ‘Question period ‘referred to BC LIBs plan to implement the HST in BC as ‘hoodwinking’ the population. Gee, word seems to getting around eh?
43
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
It makes sense this could become a ghetto.
Currently Spectrum is considered the bottom of the barrel when it comes to location and class of occupants.
Citygate is not much better and Woodwards is vying for the top spot it just hasn’t completed yet.
The citygate folks have wanted a park , from concord pacific, for years and years already.
Both areas are the armpit of Vancouver.
1.Main and Terminal
2.Beatty and Dunsmir
3.Cordova and Abott
Now imagine paying $2,500 a month in mortgage payments to live in the POOREST postal code in all of Canada!
44
X
jesse Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The real story is how desperate city hall is to get back building permit revenue. Any look at their finances shows how dependent the city bureaucrats have become on developers. And now in order to stave off more cuts like a dtes junkie they approve a project that generates short term gain for poor long term planning. Maybe it’s time for some introspection — the joke of a Olympic rental permit program is a great example of tax dollars hard at work.
Dudes, it’s a recession. Start looking long and hard at the city’s pay structure and start living like the rest of the city’s taxpayers.
45
X
Supraboy Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
@Disbelief:
Well, wait till you see what happens with housing prices in the United States, you’ll throw out all the books and lame theories that you studied in University.
46
X
other ted Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
thanks patriotz you make sense as usual.
47
X
aiyaya Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
“The real story is how desperate city hall is to get back building permit revenue.”
……
Burnaby Metrotown is following suit.
- Bosa’s new residential/commercial complex coming up soon at the corner of Kingsway and Willingdon.
- Polybon’s residential 36-storey highrise + townhouses at Nelson/Bennett, a stone throw away from Kingsway.
- Station Square where BestBuy/FutureShop and Holiday Inn are located, next door to Metrotown and leaky Corniche towers, is slotted for mega redevelopment, residential again no doubt.
Above facts one can say. But there are stuff that one can’t mention. Just beware that when GREED gets out of hand, Metro Vancouver won’t be any different from Santa Clara or Saipan. Some people just can’t handle their own greed and bankers/BOC/CHMC are no different from Alan Greenspan: “I don’t see it coming”.
48
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@Warren:
When did we start downvoting cited facts. Not every statement that might support our view is correct. Calgary is no where near as dense as Vancouver. If you have any doubt about that you’re clearly not living in reality.
49
X
Purp Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
You can try and spin the numbers any way you like but the fact is that there is no way Calgary is a denser urban area than Vancouver.
Calgary city is 1360 people/km2 (from above data).
If you take a Vancouver area including Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond, New West, Coquitlam, Delta, Surrey, North Van, West Van and Poco you get a population 1,957,000 and an area of 1300 for a population density of 1506 people/km2. This is including an airport and resorvoirs and railyards and big open farms and big parks and universities etc. etc. etc.
50
X
marcello Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
There are NO parks in that area, apart from a sliver near Science World, and a tiny square near the astroturf soccer fields.
The Creekside Park planned for that area was a PRE-CONDITION for Concord to get the contract to develop False Creek. The FC plan went through an extensive consultation process (I met people who were there) and Creekside was part of the deal.
So they are now flat out breaking a deal made with the public as a pre-condition to development. Concord and the COV have stalled and delayed for years, and the while paying lip service to their legal commitment. Then City staff engineered a re-wording of the deal which allowed Concord to develop other areas before making the park. Now the SOBs have practically taken the park out altogether. We have been royally scammed.
so it has nothing to do with NIMBY – it was a DEAL, and the SOBs at the COV and Concord flat out lied to the public here and broke their promise. Now the area has sh**loads more people, and zero amenities. no open space. no community centre. zilch. (BTW, roundhouse is Yaletown, and not local to the NEFC)
51
X
patriotz Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
However Calgary is more compact than Vancouver. That is, the average distance of the population from downtown (or from each other), normalized by population (i.e. radius increasing with the square root of population), is smaller in Calgary. That is, Vancouver being about twice as populous as Calgary, a smaller % of people live within a circle of radius 1.4*x as opposed to x in Calgary.
This is due to Vancouver’s highly off centre downtown and physical discontiguity, which of course is a big factor in why its transportation problems are so intractable.
52
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Clearly Calgary is less dense in their urban area and the whole urban/suburban sprawl. No surprise as nothing limits their growth.
Check them both out on wikipedia. It is true that most of Calgary’s population is in what is defined as “Calgary city”, bur even that is relatively sparse in urban terms. Vancouver City is extremely dense, even Toronto is less at 3972 people/sqkm.
Arguing with facts is like trying to talk down a wall, you look pretty stupid doing it.
53
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@marcello 50:
You’re forgetting Andy Livingston Park. Granted this is mostly sports field, you could argue the same of many parks. Plus the kids’ play area to the west of it.
54
X
Drachen Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Warren, Spectrum;
You’re both saying the same thing. You AGREE read carefully, you’re both saying Calgary has a less dense population than Vancouver (in the pop.-geo. sense anyhow).
55
X
Purp Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@Warren:
Warren, are illiterate?
“a tiny square near the astroturf soccer fields”
56
X
Warren Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
It’s not a tiny square, so who knows what marcello is talking about. Clearly they are representative of the bitter NIMBYs in the area. Take a look at a satellite image from google maps and compare it to other areas of Vancouver. Anybody who says that area is under-represented in greenspace is a complete idiot.
57
X
Supraboy Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
that area is under-represented in greenspace
58
X
RennieWhereRU? Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Got lovely letter today from my RBC. My unsecured credit line is going up a full point in January to prime + 2%, still ridiculously low but a true sign of what is to come. Why cant CMHC insure my credit line so I dont have to get this increase in rate and go up to my tits in debt. Not fair.
Will call RBC to see if that means the interest rate on my shitty TFSA will go up 1% also, to a whopping 1.75%! Whoo hoo. Was starting to lose patience with all this debt crap but inflation is a coming big time so buckle up big spenders. Gold at $1,200 very soon. Can someone tell me what high interest rates do to real estate values? But my mortgage broker said rates wont go up. HA HA HA, this is going to be good folks. Glad that the market is way bigger than any stupid government, which we cant blame, as they represent the people and clearly majority of the people in Canada and particuarly vancouver are absolute morons.
59
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@Drachen: Yes we agree my complaint is that he is getting downvoted when stating an obviously true fact and providing a citation.
60
X
Rent-o-rama Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
@spectrum: I agree with your port.
The question becomes whether or not the poorest postal code is going to get kicked down the road to the east side of main street as the condo gentrification continues.
If the gentrification takes hold, the quality of tenants will increase, if not, a ghetto is almost inevitable as the early adopters bail-out
61
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
@patriotz: Are you kidding? Look at Google maps your claim is flat out false. Not even close to true.
62
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
@Rent-o-rama:
Thing is all the services are down in the woodwards area.
I am in the area everyday and see entire block long lineups of really miserable people. It’s not like they can move elsewhere, there are no support services for them in White Rock….
Putting in some really expensive condos ,with fast internet connections, won’t solve the highest rate of Hep C and HIV in the developed world, being the poorest postal code etc.
The current asking rents of $1500 for woodwards aren’t very tempting when new buildings in yaletown can be had for $1350, with pets.
63
X
spectrum Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 pm
And the early adopters are still waiting for gastown to improve and it’s been 30 years.
64
X
Rent-o-rama Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@spectrum: I still think that the push will happen eventually. I don’t see the problem moving all the way to White Rock but the areas just east of Main out to around Victoria are at risk. Recall, Yaletown used to be just warehouses and gay prostitutes in the early nineties. What will foil the developer plans will be if the boom ends and there is no further gentrification. Then all the buildings (Woodwards, Espana etc) will get orphaned just like the first wave of condos that were built in old buildings on Alexander street in the early to mid-nineties.
My personal hope is that the gentrification will fail as it will just push a problem onto a new neighborhood. That said, I also said the same thing about Yaletown and that didn’t exactly work out the way I hoped. Go figure.
65 X “In my neighbourhood, for the last 3-4 years, the amount of housing which is unavailable due to renovation is about 10%” « Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 pm
[...] resulted in a larger ‘reservoir’ of off-market renos? A very interesting idea from Drachen at vancouvercondo.info 23 Nov 2009 4:51 pm [...]
66
X
Supraboy Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
@scullboy:
STFU, you don’t belong in Vancouver, go play some hockey in Halifax, perhaps you can buy a property when you become the next Sidney Crosby.
67 X “My unsecured credit line is going up a full point in January to prime + 2%. Still ridiculously low, but a true sign of what is to come.” « Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive Says:
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
[...] November 2009 · Leave a Comment This from RennieWhereRU? at vancouvercondo.info 23 Nov 2009 10:33 pm [...]
68
X
SpitfireS Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 12:32 am
@realpaul:
We may get a hint on interest rates tomorrow, as the US Treasury is scheduled to sell $42 Billion of 5 Year US treasuries. On Wednesday, they will sell $32 Billion of 7 Year Treasuries.
Then again, last week the Fed bought up $75 Billion of treasuries, while foreigners bought only $11 Billion. So the Fed will probably manipulate the interest rate… again.
69
X
jesse Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:07 am
@patriotz:
Still, I have little doubt occupancy per SFH in Vancouver city is higher than Calgary. The difference in Calgary is how long you need to travel from DT before you’re in a morass of true SINGLE family dwellings, not the “SFHs” that are actually multi-unit dwellings common in Vancouver and its near-burbs.
Vancouver, as you mention, is constrained by geography that will tilt its density to be less but its geography may lend itself to plan for more density sooner. Plowing an LRT through Cambie Village and over Broadway would have been difficult; it is as busy as stretches of Yonge St. They should, however, have brought it above ground after 33rd IMO. Oakridge and south is LRT material and will remain so for the next several generations.
70
X
scullboy Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Technically Sid the Kid is from Cole Harbour, not Hakifax. And hell yeah I’ll play me some hockey sucka!!
What’s the matter, don’t you play? I guess what with the lady boy nails and hair it’s pretty impractical. Still i’d recommend you not hang out by the locker room offering to love him long time Supra. It probably wouldn’t go over as well on the East Coast as it does in Richmond.
71
X
patriotz Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:36 am
@spectrum:
Just did. The furthest out built up area of Calgary, 194 Ave SE, is 20 km (12 miles) from downtown (and just a km past the end of the LRT system). The other two legs of the LRT extend almost to the limits of development in the NW and NE as well. How many people in metro Vancouver live over 20*1.4 = 28 km (17.5 miles) away from downtown? That’s what I mean by more compact.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl.....CA0Q8gEwAA
72
X
patriotz Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 am
While we’re talking about Calgary, note that the city did not see fit to extend the LRT system to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.
In addition to the questions of just how cost-effective it will be, the timing of the construction of the RAV – during BC’s biggest RE bubble and construction boom – could not have been more wrong from a macroeconomic perspective. Compare with Calgary which held the Olympics and built its NW and NE LRT legs during the 80’s oil and construction bust.
http://www.calgarytransit.com/....._stop.html
73
X
Hogtown Hozer Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“….to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.”
Hmmm, I think Sydney did.
74
X
Purp Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 8:19 am
@Warren : #55 was not me.
75
X
Purp Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 8:41 am
@Patriotz: You always have some really insightful comments about the economy, but you’re dead wrong on this one.
Now you’re claiming that it’s not the density that matters, but the ‘compactness’, ie more dense in the middle than the fringes. Are you trying to say that DT vancouver, and burnaby are somehow ‘less compact’ than Calgary? Nonsense.
“How many people in metro Vancouver live over 20*1.4 = 28 km (17.5 miles) away from downtown?” – Not very many, since this radius would encompass all of Vancouver, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Richmond, North Van, West Van, North Delta, North Surrey. In other words 90% of the population of the GVRD. And this despite the fact we’ve chosen the center point in downtown at the very Western end of development (due to the water constraint), not smack in the middle of the population center like Calgary.
76
X
Purp Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 8:47 am
@Patriotz: “In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.” – Is this implying that building a passenger rail link to the airport is a bad idea and Calgary was smart for not doing it even when they were only a couple of km short????
“Compare with Calgary which held the Olympics and built its NW and NE LRT legs during the 80’s oil and construction bust.” – Huh? So you’re also claiming that Vancouver didn’t time it’s bid correctly for the Olympics to co-incide with an economic downturn to reduce construction costs????
No doubt that Vancouver has made a lot of mistakes along the way, but trying to hold Calgary up as a model of urban planning is laughable. You need to take off the Calgary-coloured glasses, these are some really incredulous claims….
77
X
oldguy Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@patriotz
Calgary is less dense than Vancouver it is a fact. I’ve been following this blog since VHB was around and I have to say the level of discussion has fallen pretty low. Is it the fact that the market hasn’t dropped like we feel it should that is driving you guys to make (and defend) flat out false points? You know you make us all look bad when you cling to simply false (and easily verifiable) facts.
It seems every time Vancouver is compared to another city a couple of people take it on them selves to praise the other city and heap scorn on Vancouver. I understand this insofar as it is true but when you start holding up Halifax as anything but a hellhole and Calgary as a model of urban planning you have simply lost the plot. Vancouver has its faults but a lack of density and low livability (compared to Halifax) arn’t among them.
78
X
logic Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
73 X Hogtown Hozer Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“….to the airport for the 1988 Winter Olympics, even though it was only a few km way from the end of the existing line across empty prairie. In fact no host city apart from Vancouver has done so.”
Hmmm, I think Sydney did.
——————
Err, Sydney did not host the WINTER Olympics.
79
X
patriotz Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@Purp:
No I’m not. I’m saying that both compactness and density matter for transportation issues. That should be self-evident.
According to Yahoo Maps the Guildford Mall is 30 km from downtown. That’s not as the crow flies, but commuters don’t fly.
Also of course the GVRD (or Metro Vancouver as it’s now called) is not the whole metro de facto. But just within the GVRD, the two Langleys, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge have about 200K people, and that’s not counting South Delta, South Surrey, and White Rock. So I don’t think the areas you’ve noted comprise 90% of GVRD population.
80
X
patriotz Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 9:56 am
@Purp:
No, I’m claiming that the rapid transit link to the airport was in no way required to host the Olympics, and therefore building it during a time of high construction costs was a bad choice in itself, whatever the link’s other merits, which I’m not convinced of either.
I’m also not critical of the bid timing, I’m critical of the bid itself. I’m opposed to the Olympics, period, and voted against it in 2003.
And I’m not engaging in Calgary-worship, just pointing out that it has a rationally planned rapid transit system that is suited to the density of the city and is more cost-effective and comprehensive than the politically driven hodge-podge that Vancouver has ended up with.
81
X
Warren Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:01 am
The Canada Line is among the most successful lines in terms of ridership so far. Consider for $2b we already have over 80,000 people riding every day.
The Seattle LINK system (total cost $3.6b) has yet to extend to the airport, but what is built so far (over $2b) is lucky to attract 20,000 riders per day.
I would have liked to see the Canada Line built with Skytrain technology, but it’s not the end of the world. The politically driven “hodge-podge” is more the result of classic Vancouver NIMBYism than anything else.
The fact that this is the first rapid transit link to the airport in any Canadian city is an example of forward thinking, not some “Olympic driven mistake”.
82
X
Warren Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Sorry, apparently the Seattle LINK ridership is only 12,000 per weekday. Must be like a ghost train.
83
X
oldguy Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 10:37 am
@patriotz
OK your claiming that Calgary is more dense than Vancouver and to support your point you assert that Guildford mall (IN SURREY) is 30km from downtown. You’ve been around a while so I’m going to assume you name has been hijacked.
84
X
other ted Says:
November 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
guys ease off it was me who claimed calgary was more dense. Well not exactly, I claimed when looking at Calgary we should compare it to van metro which everyone’s stats do show to be less dense. I am pointing out that there is a lot of industry in the city limits. I don’t think anyone is saying that is good urban planning. But houses are on average on smaller footprints. In the inner city almost all 50ft lots have been rezoned to be split into infills. compare this to 70′ lots common in places like coquitlam. And I do think calgary could use more condos downtown. But that will come in time.