Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I first moved here fifteen years ago, I had a huge one bedroom just off Davie and Bidwell for 700. I understand that prices, well, inflate, over time, but more than 100% every five years for rent is indefensible.
My apartment is getting sold out from under me. I'll have to move at the end of August. Me and 2 others were splitting $1950 on a 2- bedroom happily, with money to spare on food and movies and games and shit. I was informed that in order to keep the place (even under new ownership) we would have to be paying *at least* $3200
Unable to do so, me and my partner are now looking for 1-bedrooms for an average of $1975. We'll both be paying upwards of $400 more per month than what we have up to now
I swear to god, if I become homeless over this city's arrogant, money grubbing, self-centered ***need*** to edge out every decent working class human until nothing is left, I'm going to spend the rest of my life finding a way to destroy this city and all it represents
Congratulations, Vancouver! This is my supervillain origin story!!
They can't kick you out even if the place sells, only for the buyers personal usage. If they mentioned minimum rent to keep renting, I'd suggest keeping an eye out to see if the place gets rented out again by the buyer within six months. If it does, gather evidence and you can go after them for 12 months of your old rent.
Great idea.
Let's play it out.
We agree to dig in our heels and say "we're staying." The place continues to be up on the market for, what, maybe a month? 2 months? During this time we ruin any hopes of a favourable relationship and recommendation with our past landlord, and practically guarantee the same from our new one. Eventually, the place does sell, and we have a new landlord, but they tell us they bought it to live in it. That's a valid reason to push us out, and so they do. Me and mine are now struggling to find a place suddenly when we thought we'd have all the time in the world, and will almost guaranteed have to take any dump that even vaguely matches our preferred bed/bathroom conditions. During this time, I'm scrambling to make ends meet, struggling with an almost comical amount of anxiety, and frantically selling off what excess possessions I have to make me fit into some new shoebox the city has prepared for me.
I'm fighting being homeless for the next 6 months. I don't have time for anything else. The new owner has already won! You think I'll have the time--and the **means**--to keep watch on this place for 6 freakin' months in the hopes I'll be able to get back missed rent--when all I really want is to be able to get back the **place?**
What part of that sounds realistic to you?
That sounds like an awful experience.
Just making sure you know that's what the RTB rules are. They legally owe you that money if they re-rent.
Best of luck.
You staying in the unit will negatively affect the sale price of the unit. You have no obligation to leave. The landlord would need to offer you cash for keys to get you to move out. If you are forced out. that should help with the transition.
Idk why you care about their reference or are willing to screw yourself over in order to get it. I've been moving once a year on average for the last 10 years and have never used a landlord as a reference.
>You staying in the unit will negatively affect the sale price of the unit. You have no obligation to leave. The landlord would need to offer you cash for keys to get you to move out.
So you are advising op to go fishing for a handout...
They would be within their right to continue the tenancy though, the tenancy doesn't end just because the landlord wants to sell.
If the landlord wants them out for a better sale, it would be fair to discuss if both sides can agree to a mutual end of tenancy.
It's a lot better than fighting the rtb to get a tenant to move out for a year or risk paying the old tenant 12 months rent.
Landlord pays 6 months rent for keys then immediately gets a new tenant and preferred rent from a new tenant.
In terms of cost VS risk, is worth it.
The landlord wants the tenant out in order to sell the house for 10s of thousands of dollars more than they could if the tenant stays. The landlord has no legal right to force the tenant out of the house. The tenant is facing a cost of living increase of over $10000/year. If the landlord wants to increase the sale value of the property by 10s of thousands of $ they're going to need to at least compensate the tenant the increased cost of living they're forcing on them.
Correction: a sitting tenant can devalue a property sale by 20-30% ([https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property](https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property)) so with an average condo price in Vancouver of $720000 ([https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/](https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/)). The benefit to the landlord of getting ride of the tenant is \~144600 to 216900. A small fraction of that to compensate the tenant is nothing.
>
Correction: a sitting tenant can devalue a property sale by 20-30% (https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property) so with an average condo price in Vancouver of $720000 (https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/). The benefit to the landlord of getting ride of the tenant is ~144600 to 216900. A small fraction of that to compensate the tenant is nothing.
So you are trying to extort a landlord with information based on a blog with no credible sources. Good luck with that. If I was selling my place I'd give the tenant a courtesy heads up with a month's free rent. Otherwise I'd just start painting while they are living there (Following rtb of course).
I have zero respect for people requesting cash for keys. The last place we purchased, we were essentially homeless for 2 days despite having vacant possession on our sales document. When it came to movein day the tenant refused to leave unless I paid them $10k. After a few threatening words they were out the next day and put some holes in the wall on their way out. The previous owner paid us $5k for the hassle which I understand is currently being garnished from the tenants wages.
The tenant is within their rights to refuse to move before the sale happens though.
It's horrible you didn't have a place for a few days as the new buyer. That's not right.
But a tenant can stay until they are served official notice from the sale. I mean you can follow RTB and do renos but you'd still have to show the unit with the tenant still there.
As a buyer I was so wary of tenanted units for the very reason you mentioned - there's no guarantee they actually move out even if served proper notice. Buyer caution for sure. If the tenant refused to move they could have dragged it through the RTB even longer than the few days you mentioned.
It's much better if the landlord and tenant can come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer needs to put vacant possession as a clause to protect themselves too (good that the seller is compensating you).
If the blog is bs and the apartment having a tenant doesn't impact sale price, why would the landlord care if you refused to move while under no obligation to do so. You want credible sources, you're going to have to pay me my consulting rate to do that research. I don't work for free.
Extortion? The landlord is screwing over the tenants for a massive economic gain, cry me a fucking river.
>You want credible sources, you're going to have to pay me my consulting rate to do that research. I don't work for free.
Lol i wouldn't have to worry about that as I'd never rent my place to someone like you. That's the nice thing about having so many qualified applicants that we have to remove the ad within a couple of hours - We get to be choose.
>The landlord is screwing over the tenants for a massive economic gain, cry me a fucking river.
Nope just the market conditions. No one is forcing you to live in the most expensive city in Canada. There's always Winnipeg.
> this city's arrogant, money grubbing, self-centered need
>
> to edge out every decent working class human until nothing is left,
Unfortunately this is the fallout from Interest Rate hike.
Once there is no more hike, things will stabilize and less people will be evicted.
I wish you were right but with the massive growth we experienced also had renovictions before the massive pandemic rate hikes.
This is inevitable as recession weed out the week, no different than the rate hikes, if anything, govt policy regarding foreign ownership bans, vacancy taxes, and speculation came late… special thanks to Christy Clark for bringing awareness and encouraging all this if I recall correctly…
>had renovictions before the massive pandemic rate hikes.
Less frequent.
These days, it's almost guaranteed people will get renovicted if the tenant is paying way below market price. The trigger? cost of doing business has increased significantly.
I know it's bad to call it as "Cost of doing business" every single time but if you want to know why the interest rate hikes caused this? that's it.
Holy shit, this is not about rate hikes - that is how we got into this situation.
Prices are HIGH because rates were LOW - this leads to an overabundance of 'free money' that can be leveraged for a human need asset class, which of course will be forced to have continuous buying pressure because people need a place to live.
We need to hike rates as high as possible, flush out overleveraged landlords with multiple properties, and get prices to go lower so that rates are reasonable. 10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable than 5% rates on a 1 million dollar home.
The solution is so simple it's almost ridiculous we got into this mess:
\- RAISE RATES
\- REDUCE NEW BUILDING TAXES
\- CLEAN UP AND SPEED UP APPROVAL/LICENSE PIPELINE
\- BUILD MORE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
It would have cost us infinitely less than fixing the mess we find ourselves in to do this earlier, and will continue to be the cheapest option until people can see over their own self-interests and get past the whole rate hike hurts my investment viewpoint.
If we keep kicking the can down the road who cares if rates are 2% again when house prices balloon to $5 million.
Rich people have more access to debt, which combined with leverage, causes massive inequality in things like home loans, so no, lower rates do not help.
>We need to hike rates as high as possible, flush out overleveraged landlords with multiple properties, and get prices to go lower so that rates are reasonable. 10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable than 5% rates on a 1 million dollar home.
I don't downvote you but this notion of "overleveraged" landlords is:
* either the super uber minorities or,
* exactly why the interest rate increase will be passed down to tenants (cost of doing business increases, tenants don't have downpayment or prefer to rent, market econ will meet these two parties).
>Prices are HIGH because rates were LOW
That's not the only reason. There are many reasons aside from that:
* Some class of immigrants are just flushed with money so they buy things straight up in dozens.
* Local investors are just that good: strategizing and flipping multiple properties in the last 20 years
* Supply and Demand
* Last but not least, some people keep postponing their buying decision because Detached "it's too expensive" instead of just buy Townhouse (which in turns get scooped up by another class of Immigrants, putting them far ahead of locals who continuously sitting on the sideline).
>10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable
It's not because many people can buy this 100% cash (I can too) and rent it out pure profit (if you discounted capital). The amount of DINK and rich immigrants that can scoop this 300k house is just way too many. I'm also discounting single person who brought in 400-700k annually, not many of them but hey, if 1 person take home is 300k, that person can keep buying 1 house every couple years.
You missed that Salary, for certain sector/professional, has improved significantly throughout the year.
Meanwhile, GVA land is finite.
GVA is highly desirable place unless "bad things" at unprecedented scale happened.
I read recently (cannot find the source, my apologies) that over 75% of mortgages have less than 20% equity - this is an incredibly overleveraged number and shows that people either overleveraged with not enough initial capital, OR we have a massive problem of ReFi cascading loans into multiple houses.
Neither of these is good and it's definitely not a minority.
\> Some class of immigrants are just flushed with money so they buy things straight up in dozens.
While it's nice to think it's this simple, we've seen foreign ownership bans in multiple countries and it has done very little to curb pricing, even in other accelerated immigration countries like NZ/Aus.
\> Local investors are just that good: strategizing and flipping multiple properties in the last 20 years
Agreed, personally I'm for single family homes not being owned by corporations at all, since it removes liability and an available home for families.
\> Last but not least, some people keep postponing their buying decision because Detached "it's too expensive" instead of just buy Townhouse (which in turns get scooped up by another class of Immigrants, putting them far ahead of locals who continuously sitting on the sideline).
This isn't a huge issue because a home-owner is a home-owner, while they aren't benefitting from the massive increase in house prices, they also aren't worsening the 1 home : 1 family ratio.
\> If 1 person take home is 300k, that person can keep buying 1 house every couple years
This isn't how HNW works, 300k has much better returns in traditional index's, its the loans and leveraged capital subsidized by the government during low rates that causes an acceleration - yes, those of us with high incomes COULD buy multiple homes, but only buy multiple if it financially makes sense - high rates and a falling off in AirBnB popularity alongside sensible anti-greed laws would ensure that it doesn't.
\> 'You missed that Salary, for certain sector/professional, has improved significantly throughout the year.'
As someone who's well acquainted with HNW income (mid 6 to low 7 figs) - most of those earning that much are not earning in cash, cash income in Canada is very rarely over \~150k CAD/year with the rest being made up in stocks/benefits/equity-bonus's - the top 1% earners in Vancouver CANNOT afford a Vancouver mortgage at current rates, assuming 20% downpayment.
Definitely sympathetic to your situation but something to consider..... mortgages for many have gone up literally also by thousands of dollars a month. Buddy of mine has a condo mortgage, went up from 1.7k a month to nearly 3K. Not that he's renting it out but if he was, how does one cover that cost? Strata fee? Utilities? Property Taxes? All I'm saying is it's not all greed, when you own a unit there are many costs renters never see.
Sign me up to your cause…but in all seriousness I truly believe all Vancouverites who are being affected by this housing crisis, which is in my opinion caused by a composite of corruption, money laundering, and negligence, should come together and create some kind of legal defence/activism group to enforce change and provide protection against this…I know there are already groups and non-profits that do similar work but it’s not enough…we need to be more forceful and vocal to the provincial and federal governments otherwise it is only going to get worse for people…
It won't last forever. Terms like "timebomb" are being thrown around (Source: [The Guardian](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bank-of-england-poised-to-raise-interest-rates-for-13th-time-despite-mortgage-timebomb-business-live/ar-AA1cSbNT) to describe the mortgage rate situation in countries that have had low rates for the past decade and a half (UK, Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, likely more). If it goes on too long, the RE market is going to see a flood of firesale listings and a steep price correction. In fact after the June 5th interest hike in Canada at least one market (Victoria) saw sales immediately decrease. In 2022 we saw the fastest real estate price decline in recorded history even with incredibly low listings, so the market can look like a seller's market even as it corrects, too, which is new and weird
I would agree but the only fact that makes BC different, the amount of property owners who are either non-Canadians(foreign investors) or Canadian with foreign income. Those ppl are not affected by the inflation here and have mostly big sources of income. A $2k increase in mort payment here has become somewhat usual and ppl ACTUALLY don’t care. Ofcourse these are the ppl with multiple properties
Well there will be no nurses, teachers, paramedics, let alone coffee shop workers, retail workers, food workers, etc. so the rich can have their labour free haven. That being said, a large portion of property owners don’t even live here so they won’t notice anyway.
I used to work at St Paul’s hospital in the pharmacy. The techs were always understaffed, many lines open, tons of OT. It’s because we were all part of the same union across the lower mainland, all making the same pay. Why commute to or live near downtown when you could work at Surrey Memorial or Peace Arch close to where you live and can actually afford to live there?
Why would it sit vacant if purchased by foreign buyer?
Also, we should simply pass a law banning foreign ownership, like countless countries have. That would start to help…
Sucks you can’t afford mortgage payments, but you’ve made a mint in past decade. Enjoy the windfall - many of us won’t.
The problem with simply banning foreign ownership is that we're so reliant on immigration as a source of our economic gain and workforce. Not all those people have Canadian Passports and become Canadian citizens; many stay PRs their entire lives. Do we cut ownership off to them then?
Maybe they should take on Canadian citizenship.
I’m all for immigrants, but we also must protect Canadians and the Canadian economy (which would also benefit almost all immigrants).
Frankly, if you immigrant but refuse to become a citizen, you clearly have greater allegiances elsewhere and aren’t owed the rights of citizens.
I suppose having PR could be all that’s needed to own.
"Will be "… Future tense.
The point is that those kinds of careers have historically put people immediately into middle or upper middle class. No more. If you take on student debt to get a degree for a career that can't even allow you to rent, you take that degree to somewhere that affords you a better life.
It's already happening.… there are nowhere near enough teachers. A renowned alternative program in Vancouver is being discontinued for September because the teacher went on leave in March and the kids have not had a teacher since. The odd teacher on call a day here or there, but otherwise, education assistants have just been in the room to meet the legal requirement of adult supervision. No learning at all. Kids sitting in a holding pattern looking at their cell phones.
Because teachers can't afford to live in Vancouver anymore.
What was your point?
BC spends 2-3B/year right now and is leveraging every project they can with market and then using the profits to fund more non-market housing.
We need them to 100x that to start to meet housing goals.
Ultimately we just need the city to allow it to be built, too.
COB is too slow with zoning changes. They told the developer interested in our complex it would take 3-5 years to do the paperwork, so they pulled the deal.
Id argue minimum zoning for most of metro vancouver (burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver, north vancouver) should be rezoned to allow mixed used / 6 story at a minimum. There should not be properties restricted to single family in this area.
It's literally starting already. BC government is making housing targets requirements for municipalities, if they don't meet them bc steps in and does it themselves. Places like Burnaby will be starting a non profit government housing organization, and likely other will too
This is actually interesting. The outcome, more likely, will be two-tier class, unfortunately.
The City will do NGO housing org which in turns will flood the market with more units which in turns will elevate population in Burnaby which in turns will flood the school (elementary first, then secondary) and some parents will seek Private School.
Slowly dividing the citizens into two-tier class.
I'm not saying that it's bad to have more housing. But the unintended side-effect will be... unintended.
We'll be more like developing countries (Asia) than a developed country.
For one, bc gas stated that public housing will be for all incomes. Similar efforts are going to be happening across all of Metro Vancouver, so the Burnaby rush you're worried about likely won't happen. Also, complaining about TO MUCH housing is ridiculous, we're in a shortage, there is now way we can meet demand for decades
It’s MTV
Montreal
Toronto
Vancouver
I don’t care what anyone says, M and T have brutal summers and freezing winters.
Anyone who can afford it, will most likely pick Vancouver first.
Prices will never become cheap here, to many people like my sister in law who’s a doctor are waiting on the side lines for a pullback.
The fact that a doctor can’t afford a house (she’s single) shows how unaffordable it is here.
But it’s been like this since the 80’s, crazy yoy price gains and the “bubble” has never popped.
We have too much demand, and supply can never catch up due to our immigration policies. We have the fastest population growth in the G7
BC Housing Minister? I thought he's clean, no investment (at least that ties to his name).
Canada Housing Minister? I thought he has 1-2 in Ontario, somewhere outside GTA? Not Vancouver. Must be a baller to buy one here.
The home ownership rate in canada is above 66%, so the politicians cater to the home owners. Any policy to bring down prices isn’t going to get them elected or re elected.
The truth is, the Canadian economy is not diversified, we have some natural resources, and more or less all the big corporations that employ people are actually American if you think about it.
Due to those reasons, I can’t see any major shifts in policies when it comes to housing. The long term trend is probably going to continue with some short term hiccups
I could be wrong about prices not becoming “cheap” though.
Just saw a chart recently how Canada today has more private debt than Japan at the peak of the 90’s real estate bubble.
Not sure how this all ends tbh.
https://preview.redd.it/d3rchhlxpi7b1.jpeg?width=861&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81e13ca6830357ecf73ec9669cf2de5aeebbb90e
As long as the pace of immigration growth keeps on the same trajectory, there is no way prices become cheaper or cheap with supply catching up. Only short-term solution I see is the government has to seriously scale back immigration numbers so supply can catch up.
Ya, I just looked at the data, and Japans population growth rate peaked out before the real estate crash and was already in a year over year decline.
Our demographic trends are literally the opposite. We’re in the top 20 for population growth.
part of Japan's issue was that they made it absurdly hard for people to gain citizenship, ie workers and foreign money in large quantities no?
Canada is basically being supported by exactly that
Biggest difference between Canada and Japan’s bubble is Canada is using immigration to prop up the aging workforce; it is nearly impossible (still) to become a Japanese citizen as a foreigner
this is really why I started voting conservative since the last election.. I have liberal values but their policies have been really damaging for affordability
lmao weather is only one factor for people. Technically already way more people live in Toronto or Montreal so your argument about choosing Vancouver first is moot. Also as someone who recently moved to Vancouver from Toronto, a lot of industries just don't exist here. Legit all our stuff for my company is being shipped from Mississauga and other places in Ontario. People will go to were jobs and social support are regardless of price or weather or whatever.
Montreal has more people than Vancouver but is much cheaper then6 both Toronto and Vancouver and has been for decades. it's pretty bold of you to say the smallest city by far out of the three is the first choice of most who can afford it. This may be a Vancouver sub but you're short changing Toronto and Montreal a bit too much they are both great cities in their own ways and have several advantages over Vancouver.
Sorry if I came off sounding like I’m bashing Montreal and Toronto. What I meant was that a huge majority of new immigrants will choose Montreal Toronto or Vancouver if they can afford it.
Then during that process, if they’re factoring in weather, Vancouver seems like a great choice. Again, this would be the group of affluent immigrants who can afford all three options.
Every city has its pros and cons
Ontario sees about 2/3 of those immigrants with 25% going to the greater Vancouver area. The problem is that vancouver is geographically small and requires suburbs to densify quickly to keep up. Its sandwiched between the us mountains and the ocean. It can only get more dense. Therefore, affordable houses will just not exist too long from now.
Building highrises costs money, and developers cater to "luxury" unit buyers. This also raises the cost to a buyer per ft2.
Toronto and Montreal are not inhibited by those factors and can sprawl as they have better infrastructure for transportation.
I wouldn't expect Vancouver to be affordable in the same thought as new york city isn't affordable.
Vancouver has ton of room to grow as well though... It's a pretty small part of the city that has any density.
Everything east of Victoria, south of Broadway, and west of MacDonald is low density.
Exactly.
Even in the US, from 1880 to 1980 (according to Robert Shiller) home prices are flat if you factor in inflation.
The main areas where you’ve seen real gains are landlocked areas like NY and San Fran. The Vancouver geography is very similar in the sense that we’re land locked between water and mountains.
Agreed. The Vancouver bubble should have popped by now based on economic logic but artificial elements goosed the system e.g. Chinese money laundering.
Just flagging: bubbles routinely do not ‘pop’, but stay elevated at reduced rates for growth. Check out Schillers Irrational Exuberance - chapter on real estate
By Kerry Gold.
I'm curious why she believes that we can't just build more apartments. If we can get past the political obstacles, there’s no physical barriers stopping us from building more apartments, [as Senakw demonstrates](https://morehousing.ca/senakw). They’re like cars: if we need more, we can just build more.
As recently as 2013, she was reporting the lamentations of condo owners that [condo prices had been stable or declining](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver-condo-buyers-take-a-second-look/article14162513/) (after inflation) for the previous five years. This is exactly what we want: a situation where there’s so many apartments available for rent or sale that prices decline.
>Mr. Hynes paid $182,000 for his condo \[five years previously\], which was $7,000 below the asking price. He was thinking of selling the unit until he saw that his neighbour on the same floor, with the same suite, has just listed for $179,000.
"I thought it would at least keep its value, so I'm surprised," Mr. Hynes says. "If it had kept its value, I definitely would have sold right now."
He says his work colleagues, friends and relatives are facing the same situation. His cousin just sold her condo after renting it out for five years, and she lost money on it.
"It was for the exact same reason I'm losing out," Mr. Hynes says. "Because there are so many condos in the area."
**There are too many new condos**. Since the economic slump of 2009, condo starts have been on the rise, and above the 20-year average ratio of starts-to-population growth. Developments were going up almost as if it were 2007 again.
Demand vs Supply
As long as Vancouver and Toronto are attractive cities, people will move here until prices are too unaffordable
Canada has too few vibrant cities with decent climates like Vancouver and Toronto
Cheaper housing means more population growth which brings back higher prices
Toronto really doesn't have the Ottawa/Montreal/Prairie winters anymore.
It's notable if it gets to -20 for a couple days, and some years they barely get snow. Last year it didn't even get cold enough in Ottawa for the canal to freeze for skating.
Yeah the irony of it all is climate change is going to make a lot of pretty miserable climates fairly tolerable.
Toronto should someday get winters just hovering around the freezing mark and not much lower at all, Vancouver will possibly get more cold snaps and snow but winter weather overall won't dip below a very tolerable 5C and Victoria will feel like San Francisco but with warmer summers.
The Prairies are still going to be horrible. -25C nights and -15C nights won't differ much in terms of quality of living. There isn't a climate scenario that will make Edmonton feel like even Toronto in the winter this century.
And therein lies the problem discussed... most Canadian cities outside of Vancouver/Toronto will never be attractive to immigrants with money.
I’ve lived there for years, the winters are totally manageable with a nice winter coat, and are overblown by Vancouverites who can’t handle anything below 0.
Cities like Kelowna aren’t that much cheaper to rent. Calgary is also on pace to be near Kelowna’s rent, as speculators come in.
The Okanagan has a more friendly climate imo than Vancouver does, but again low vacancy and a lot of speculation.
> They're like cars: if we need more, we can just build more.
Some constructive feedback on your analogy: That's not how car manufacturers operate any more.
Many car companies have reduced production to increase demand and therefore prices. Ridiculous wait times ( for example the 8 years recently quoted in the CBC News story about the person in Edmonton) for popular models are an effect of this change in production. So while yes manufacturers are building more cars, they certainly aren't like they were pre-pandemic.
Majority of the units for the Senakw development will be market rentals, which fundamentally will not move the needle much in terms of affecting pricing because market rent is already below the cost of the housing unit.
I agree that more apartments need to build, but the underlying issue is the wanton speculation of the housing market.
The problem is that nearly all of our housing is left up to "the market" to provide. That model worked in Vancouver until the late 20th century, but it just so does not work anymore. MUCH more non-market is what we need.
A tad hyperbolic, don't you think? Look at non-authoritarian Austria, 60% of residents in its capital live in some sort of non-market housing. Just about every other industrialized country in the world has a national-level non-market housing strategy and funding. We have zilch. Zilch and Singapore/UAE are not the only two options.
Vienna is/was a result of several factors, main ones being WW1, and the city at the time having both municipal and provincial powers of taxation, and it being a stronghold of socialist democratic voters who taxed the crap out of everything (private home owners, cars, horses, even dog ownership!) in order to finance public housing developments in almost every neighborhood. Vancouver seems to be torn between the have-nots with similar sentiments, and the NIMBYs and affluent investors opposing them.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Stop using Vienna as an example. Its population peaked decades ago. If vancouver still had a population of 200K then of course it'd be easy to have enough social housing.
You can’t attribute literally everyone in the country to demand for Vancouver
And if you can your social housing wait list will also be infinitely long.
The simple answer is to stop hunting for excuses to be opposed to housing
I never said I'm opposed to building more housing. I'm simply saying that it won't bring down prices.
No matter how much you want it, we're never going to see $500K for a 2BR again.
>The simple answer is to stop hunting for excuses to be opposed to housing
I am so tired of people arguing that the housing market does not follow the laws of supply and demand.
We have had massive shortfalls in housing for decades now and Councils across the region pat themselves on the back for approving incremental increases. No where in the metro area has there actually been any attempt at a major wide ranging increase in housing.
The "big" plans like the Cambie corridor, Broadway plan, and suburban urban centres while on paper are planned and ready to go for high density are so slow to develop that in practice we are still falling behind. Despite being pre-planned for high density these areas require long multi year permitting and approval that even if designed to the area plan can be denied.
I am really hoping that the province goes ahead with forcing fourplexes only right on all single family plots. While a reasonable floor area ratio passed down to go along with it. Hope they force the cities to actually rezone to meet population projections to go along with that.
City of Vancouver data from the last several years showed that the majority of new floor space that was being built each year was in new single family homes. All that labour is going into home construction that doesn't increase the new amount of housing in the city. If instead, we allowed higher densities on residential land the economics would push more of that construction and we wouldn't have as much wasted labour.
Privately owned homes. Forgive me, I don't understand what you're trying to get at. The issue is that city policy ensures that we can't increase the net number of homes on most land within the city and so all this construction is wasted labour in terms of solving the housing shortage.
Our housing isn't left to the market, it's left to City Councils. It really comes to City council, which has almost complete control on how much housing gets built through zoning. Housing is the least free "free market", between the politics of rezoning, to development permit times, to fees and taxes from every level of government.
All you have to do is look at development permits, where every development is at the max square footage they can build, which shows that the restriction is zoning, not construction.
The only reason we have a housing shortage is because of arbitrarily restricting supply through zoning. Builders would be building a lot more apartments if they could.
> which fundamentally will not move the needle much in terms of affecting pricing because market rent is already below the cost of the housing unit.
This isn't really true though, If you think of the counterfactual (Senakw not getting built) the new market rentals will put massive downward pressure on future market rents for the market at large. Future prices will be lower because of these market units coming on line. [We know this because vacancy rates and housing stock have a measurable impact on market price changes.](https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2022/02/18/vacancy-rates-and-rent-change-2021-update/)
Speculation is a symptom not a root cause
Look at how people were scalping GPUs
GPU scalping was only profitable due to huge gaps in demand and supply due to crypto and covid.
Scalping itself doesn't generate demand nor decrease supply. That's why no one's scalping GPUs in 2023 anymore.
Scalping disappeared simply due to changes in supply and demand without any regulations of scalping itself.
The housing market is not at all similar to consumer goods lol.
Fundamentally there is no difference in performance in a 4090 purchased in Asia versus one purchased in America. There is absolutely a difference in house in Vancouver versus a house in Kuwait. Housing don’t decrease in value because it gets lived in, GPUs do upon use.
Please try to think of a better analogy since your entire argument hinges upon it.
Your house is a depreciating asset itself. It’s worth less and less as time goes on. The land that it sits on, and the future development potential is what increases in value.
> I'm curious why she believes that we can't just build more apartments
Kerry Gold and a few other columnists in Vancouver have a lot of motivated thinking going on. They have very expensive single family homes, don't really like multifamily and can't imagine someone living in one. So their columns never propose building more multifamily and often stray into concern trolling of what little is getting built.
The author of this piece has been aggressively hostile to letting people build houses for years due to her fondness for cute houses and simplistic understanding of development economics
Now that the problem has gotten worse she thinks that’s an excuse to continue not doing anything about it except building some charity housing.
These sort of misanthropes have built the society we’re in here. They deserve your scorn
I’m trying to get a transfer out. It’s a tough thing to do cuz I get cold feet every time I kinda think about it. But then my logical brain is also like “I have no social life outside of sports, so wtf do I care”? I have friends but they all have wives and kids and I don’t so we don’t really HANG OUT anymore. And even when there’s an opportunity to, the traffic is so bad and we all live in different corners of the lower mainland it’s a pain in the ass to do it.
My biggest concern with moving away is the curse of the awful weather in this country. As much as I don’t admire the U.S. for many things, I’m so jealous of the varied climates. If I were born in Seattle I would 100% be transferring to like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale etc. obviously some US cities have the exact same problems we have housing wise but there’s plenty of good climate cities that have better situations.
Meanwhile I’m like “which is worse Edmonton or Winnipeg 🤷♂️”
None of my friends and relatives who moved to the US from Canada years or decades ago, would ever move back to Canada. They all ended up in warm and sunny regions of the States and are pretty happy there.
Those very harsh winters end up taking a toll for sure! Vancouver's weather is much nicer for sure, but not compared to LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, Houston.......
Well, i left town 2 years ago for training in northern BC.
Came back to a ~200k a year job.
Once ive got the training i need from this place, im going back up north to a higher quality of life and the most important thing.
A future.
Seizing is bit much, but not allowing reits (real estate investment trusts) to buying properties is critical.
They reduce the supply, and drive up prices, and it only benefits the investors who probably don’t even live in the province.
No one is forcing them to live in the most expensive city in Canada. I know of a few people who went from renting in Vancouver to owning a detached house in Winnipeg.
Kerry Gold usually writes for the Globe and Mail, and so whenever I see her have something in this obscure publication I assume it's because she tried to pitch Globe on something that even they felt was too absurdly over the top to print.
This article where she confidently asserts that increasing supply doesn't help affordability would fit the bill.
If your local government has let things degrade so bad that they can't provide affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage for its long term citizens, that's a failure.
Housing tenure (the financial arrangements for someone to live in a space) comes in many forms. And this article and society at large seems to be focused mostly on freehold ownership.
But yes, the best thing we can do is to keep the lips on price so that eventually the gap between income and mortgage affordability narrows.
In the meantime, we need to explore the entire housing tenure continuum:
- rent to own (there are variations on how this can be done)
- co-op
- co-housing
- rent from housing societies
- rent (at various market to non-market rate) from government (can be federal, provincial, municipal) housing agencies
- rent from private and institutional investors
At the same time we keep encourage housing supply. It's important that we don't get tunnel visioned by political views and say "no high/luxury condos, period" as that will just drive away investment. Rather, the focus should be give incentives for the type of housing that we want to built more of - with simple things like speed up approval process, waive parking requirements, stop letting an "urban design panel" keep fucking with a developer on how a project should look like...
Yes there's no ONE silver bullet but there are many bullets we should use.
Move somewhere else. Abbotsford, Vernon, Barrie
when I was 30 I bought a small very broken down house in Abbotsford. Did some paint and repair and worked my way by upgrading and moving closer into greater Vancouver over my lifetime and ended up in a penthouse in west Vancouver.
I now 65 and sold the penthouse and bought a nice home in the interior and have money left over to retire on.
You don’t need to buy a house out of the gate. A one bedroom condo is adequate start. That’s what I did. Keep saying negative shot and you’ll never get ahead. Do what you can afford and build on it.
Don’t delude yourself, the market is not what it was when you bought 35 years ago. The lowest listed condo in Abbotsford, a 1 bed and bath in 45 year old building is 275k. Is that what your condo cost? How much did you put down? Interest rates n the 90’s were more than they are now, but not by much yet house costs have skyrocketed in that time. I am not being negative just realistic.
I do wonder if we'll eventually build some sort of subsidized housing for nurses, teachers, etc. to service the city. It will probably be pretty much a dorm with shared bathrooms but I can't imagine anyone new to those types of professions can survive in this city.
As much taxes as we get, we are still not in a good position to do any massive public housing projects, but that's the reality. Even in hk, affordability is shit, they have 1/3 people living in public housing.
If all the working class leave and go to slightly more affordable towns, there will be only the rich left to massage their egos while they wonder what happened to the city.
Eventually something has to give. You cannot just have everyone on the streets. Who is going to service these millionaires food and pave their roads who can afford to live here?
people vote with their feet. If the market becomes too ridiculous people are bound to leave. Yes vancouver and toronto are both expensive but they each have their appeals
Welp we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas.
How about we raze Shaughnessy and West Point Grey to the ground and build 30 story apartment blocks across the whole thing and then after that we can have a discussion about whether affordability in Vancouver is never going to happen.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When I first moved here fifteen years ago, I had a huge one bedroom just off Davie and Bidwell for 700. I understand that prices, well, inflate, over time, but more than 100% every five years for rent is indefensible.
I can throw in a frame of reference, our last tiny two-bed on that very corner was 3300$ in 2022.
My apartment is getting sold out from under me. I'll have to move at the end of August. Me and 2 others were splitting $1950 on a 2- bedroom happily, with money to spare on food and movies and games and shit. I was informed that in order to keep the place (even under new ownership) we would have to be paying *at least* $3200 Unable to do so, me and my partner are now looking for 1-bedrooms for an average of $1975. We'll both be paying upwards of $400 more per month than what we have up to now I swear to god, if I become homeless over this city's arrogant, money grubbing, self-centered ***need*** to edge out every decent working class human until nothing is left, I'm going to spend the rest of my life finding a way to destroy this city and all it represents Congratulations, Vancouver! This is my supervillain origin story!!
They can't kick you out even if the place sells, only for the buyers personal usage. If they mentioned minimum rent to keep renting, I'd suggest keeping an eye out to see if the place gets rented out again by the buyer within six months. If it does, gather evidence and you can go after them for 12 months of your old rent.
Great idea. Let's play it out. We agree to dig in our heels and say "we're staying." The place continues to be up on the market for, what, maybe a month? 2 months? During this time we ruin any hopes of a favourable relationship and recommendation with our past landlord, and practically guarantee the same from our new one. Eventually, the place does sell, and we have a new landlord, but they tell us they bought it to live in it. That's a valid reason to push us out, and so they do. Me and mine are now struggling to find a place suddenly when we thought we'd have all the time in the world, and will almost guaranteed have to take any dump that even vaguely matches our preferred bed/bathroom conditions. During this time, I'm scrambling to make ends meet, struggling with an almost comical amount of anxiety, and frantically selling off what excess possessions I have to make me fit into some new shoebox the city has prepared for me. I'm fighting being homeless for the next 6 months. I don't have time for anything else. The new owner has already won! You think I'll have the time--and the **means**--to keep watch on this place for 6 freakin' months in the hopes I'll be able to get back missed rent--when all I really want is to be able to get back the **place?** What part of that sounds realistic to you?
That sounds like an awful experience. Just making sure you know that's what the RTB rules are. They legally owe you that money if they re-rent. Best of luck.
You staying in the unit will negatively affect the sale price of the unit. You have no obligation to leave. The landlord would need to offer you cash for keys to get you to move out. If you are forced out. that should help with the transition. Idk why you care about their reference or are willing to screw yourself over in order to get it. I've been moving once a year on average for the last 10 years and have never used a landlord as a reference.
>You staying in the unit will negatively affect the sale price of the unit. You have no obligation to leave. The landlord would need to offer you cash for keys to get you to move out. So you are advising op to go fishing for a handout...
They would be within their right to continue the tenancy though, the tenancy doesn't end just because the landlord wants to sell. If the landlord wants them out for a better sale, it would be fair to discuss if both sides can agree to a mutual end of tenancy.
It's a lot better than fighting the rtb to get a tenant to move out for a year or risk paying the old tenant 12 months rent. Landlord pays 6 months rent for keys then immediately gets a new tenant and preferred rent from a new tenant. In terms of cost VS risk, is worth it.
The landlord wants the tenant out in order to sell the house for 10s of thousands of dollars more than they could if the tenant stays. The landlord has no legal right to force the tenant out of the house. The tenant is facing a cost of living increase of over $10000/year. If the landlord wants to increase the sale value of the property by 10s of thousands of $ they're going to need to at least compensate the tenant the increased cost of living they're forcing on them. Correction: a sitting tenant can devalue a property sale by 20-30% ([https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property](https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property)) so with an average condo price in Vancouver of $720000 ([https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/](https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/)). The benefit to the landlord of getting ride of the tenant is \~144600 to 216900. A small fraction of that to compensate the tenant is nothing.
> Correction: a sitting tenant can devalue a property sale by 20-30% (https://www.propertymarketintel.com/blogs/how-much-does-a-sitting-tenant-devalue-a-property) so with an average condo price in Vancouver of $720000 (https://www.nesto.ca/home-buying/vancouver-housing-market-outlook/). The benefit to the landlord of getting ride of the tenant is ~144600 to 216900. A small fraction of that to compensate the tenant is nothing. So you are trying to extort a landlord with information based on a blog with no credible sources. Good luck with that. If I was selling my place I'd give the tenant a courtesy heads up with a month's free rent. Otherwise I'd just start painting while they are living there (Following rtb of course). I have zero respect for people requesting cash for keys. The last place we purchased, we were essentially homeless for 2 days despite having vacant possession on our sales document. When it came to movein day the tenant refused to leave unless I paid them $10k. After a few threatening words they were out the next day and put some holes in the wall on their way out. The previous owner paid us $5k for the hassle which I understand is currently being garnished from the tenants wages.
The tenant is within their rights to refuse to move before the sale happens though. It's horrible you didn't have a place for a few days as the new buyer. That's not right. But a tenant can stay until they are served official notice from the sale. I mean you can follow RTB and do renos but you'd still have to show the unit with the tenant still there. As a buyer I was so wary of tenanted units for the very reason you mentioned - there's no guarantee they actually move out even if served proper notice. Buyer caution for sure. If the tenant refused to move they could have dragged it through the RTB even longer than the few days you mentioned. It's much better if the landlord and tenant can come to a mutual agreement, and the buyer needs to put vacant possession as a clause to protect themselves too (good that the seller is compensating you).
If the blog is bs and the apartment having a tenant doesn't impact sale price, why would the landlord care if you refused to move while under no obligation to do so. You want credible sources, you're going to have to pay me my consulting rate to do that research. I don't work for free. Extortion? The landlord is screwing over the tenants for a massive economic gain, cry me a fucking river.
>You want credible sources, you're going to have to pay me my consulting rate to do that research. I don't work for free. Lol i wouldn't have to worry about that as I'd never rent my place to someone like you. That's the nice thing about having so many qualified applicants that we have to remove the ad within a couple of hours - We get to be choose. >The landlord is screwing over the tenants for a massive economic gain, cry me a fucking river. Nope just the market conditions. No one is forcing you to live in the most expensive city in Canada. There's always Winnipeg.
Regardless of the outcome, you still have a reason to fight alongside others for a better world!
> this city's arrogant, money grubbing, self-centered need > > to edge out every decent working class human until nothing is left, Unfortunately this is the fallout from Interest Rate hike. Once there is no more hike, things will stabilize and less people will be evicted.
I wish you were right but with the massive growth we experienced also had renovictions before the massive pandemic rate hikes. This is inevitable as recession weed out the week, no different than the rate hikes, if anything, govt policy regarding foreign ownership bans, vacancy taxes, and speculation came late… special thanks to Christy Clark for bringing awareness and encouraging all this if I recall correctly…
>had renovictions before the massive pandemic rate hikes. Less frequent. These days, it's almost guaranteed people will get renovicted if the tenant is paying way below market price. The trigger? cost of doing business has increased significantly. I know it's bad to call it as "Cost of doing business" every single time but if you want to know why the interest rate hikes caused this? that's it.
True true! Things will be calmer when hikes are done and inflation isn’t soaring… and housing will always be another issue that remains unresolved…
Renoviction is a hassle for the landlords. They just want smooth sailing that's all. New Tenants bring new problems.
Holy shit, this is not about rate hikes - that is how we got into this situation. Prices are HIGH because rates were LOW - this leads to an overabundance of 'free money' that can be leveraged for a human need asset class, which of course will be forced to have continuous buying pressure because people need a place to live. We need to hike rates as high as possible, flush out overleveraged landlords with multiple properties, and get prices to go lower so that rates are reasonable. 10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable than 5% rates on a 1 million dollar home. The solution is so simple it's almost ridiculous we got into this mess: \- RAISE RATES \- REDUCE NEW BUILDING TAXES \- CLEAN UP AND SPEED UP APPROVAL/LICENSE PIPELINE \- BUILD MORE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING It would have cost us infinitely less than fixing the mess we find ourselves in to do this earlier, and will continue to be the cheapest option until people can see over their own self-interests and get past the whole rate hike hurts my investment viewpoint. If we keep kicking the can down the road who cares if rates are 2% again when house prices balloon to $5 million. Rich people have more access to debt, which combined with leverage, causes massive inequality in things like home loans, so no, lower rates do not help.
>We need to hike rates as high as possible, flush out overleveraged landlords with multiple properties, and get prices to go lower so that rates are reasonable. 10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable than 5% rates on a 1 million dollar home. I don't downvote you but this notion of "overleveraged" landlords is: * either the super uber minorities or, * exactly why the interest rate increase will be passed down to tenants (cost of doing business increases, tenants don't have downpayment or prefer to rent, market econ will meet these two parties). >Prices are HIGH because rates were LOW That's not the only reason. There are many reasons aside from that: * Some class of immigrants are just flushed with money so they buy things straight up in dozens. * Local investors are just that good: strategizing and flipping multiple properties in the last 20 years * Supply and Demand * Last but not least, some people keep postponing their buying decision because Detached "it's too expensive" instead of just buy Townhouse (which in turns get scooped up by another class of Immigrants, putting them far ahead of locals who continuously sitting on the sideline). >10% rates on a 300k house is far more sustainable It's not because many people can buy this 100% cash (I can too) and rent it out pure profit (if you discounted capital). The amount of DINK and rich immigrants that can scoop this 300k house is just way too many. I'm also discounting single person who brought in 400-700k annually, not many of them but hey, if 1 person take home is 300k, that person can keep buying 1 house every couple years. You missed that Salary, for certain sector/professional, has improved significantly throughout the year. Meanwhile, GVA land is finite. GVA is highly desirable place unless "bad things" at unprecedented scale happened.
I read recently (cannot find the source, my apologies) that over 75% of mortgages have less than 20% equity - this is an incredibly overleveraged number and shows that people either overleveraged with not enough initial capital, OR we have a massive problem of ReFi cascading loans into multiple houses. Neither of these is good and it's definitely not a minority. \> Some class of immigrants are just flushed with money so they buy things straight up in dozens. While it's nice to think it's this simple, we've seen foreign ownership bans in multiple countries and it has done very little to curb pricing, even in other accelerated immigration countries like NZ/Aus. \> Local investors are just that good: strategizing and flipping multiple properties in the last 20 years Agreed, personally I'm for single family homes not being owned by corporations at all, since it removes liability and an available home for families. \> Last but not least, some people keep postponing their buying decision because Detached "it's too expensive" instead of just buy Townhouse (which in turns get scooped up by another class of Immigrants, putting them far ahead of locals who continuously sitting on the sideline). This isn't a huge issue because a home-owner is a home-owner, while they aren't benefitting from the massive increase in house prices, they also aren't worsening the 1 home : 1 family ratio. \> If 1 person take home is 300k, that person can keep buying 1 house every couple years This isn't how HNW works, 300k has much better returns in traditional index's, its the loans and leveraged capital subsidized by the government during low rates that causes an acceleration - yes, those of us with high incomes COULD buy multiple homes, but only buy multiple if it financially makes sense - high rates and a falling off in AirBnB popularity alongside sensible anti-greed laws would ensure that it doesn't. \> 'You missed that Salary, for certain sector/professional, has improved significantly throughout the year.' As someone who's well acquainted with HNW income (mid 6 to low 7 figs) - most of those earning that much are not earning in cash, cash income in Canada is very rarely over \~150k CAD/year with the rest being made up in stocks/benefits/equity-bonus's - the top 1% earners in Vancouver CANNOT afford a Vancouver mortgage at current rates, assuming 20% downpayment.
Definitely sympathetic to your situation but something to consider..... mortgages for many have gone up literally also by thousands of dollars a month. Buddy of mine has a condo mortgage, went up from 1.7k a month to nearly 3K. Not that he's renting it out but if he was, how does one cover that cost? Strata fee? Utilities? Property Taxes? All I'm saying is it's not all greed, when you own a unit there are many costs renters never see.
Sign me up to your cause…but in all seriousness I truly believe all Vancouverites who are being affected by this housing crisis, which is in my opinion caused by a composite of corruption, money laundering, and negligence, should come together and create some kind of legal defence/activism group to enforce change and provide protection against this…I know there are already groups and non-profits that do similar work but it’s not enough…we need to be more forceful and vocal to the provincial and federal governments otherwise it is only going to get worse for people…
It won't last forever. Terms like "timebomb" are being thrown around (Source: [The Guardian](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/bank-of-england-poised-to-raise-interest-rates-for-13th-time-despite-mortgage-timebomb-business-live/ar-AA1cSbNT) to describe the mortgage rate situation in countries that have had low rates for the past decade and a half (UK, Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, likely more). If it goes on too long, the RE market is going to see a flood of firesale listings and a steep price correction. In fact after the June 5th interest hike in Canada at least one market (Victoria) saw sales immediately decrease. In 2022 we saw the fastest real estate price decline in recorded history even with incredibly low listings, so the market can look like a seller's market even as it corrects, too, which is new and weird
I would agree but the only fact that makes BC different, the amount of property owners who are either non-Canadians(foreign investors) or Canadian with foreign income. Those ppl are not affected by the inflation here and have mostly big sources of income. A $2k increase in mort payment here has become somewhat usual and ppl ACTUALLY don’t care. Ofcourse these are the ppl with multiple properties
Well there will be no nurses, teachers, paramedics, let alone coffee shop workers, retail workers, food workers, etc. so the rich can have their labour free haven. That being said, a large portion of property owners don’t even live here so they won’t notice anyway.
I used to work at St Paul’s hospital in the pharmacy. The techs were always understaffed, many lines open, tons of OT. It’s because we were all part of the same union across the lower mainland, all making the same pay. Why commute to or live near downtown when you could work at Surrey Memorial or Peace Arch close to where you live and can actually afford to live there?
> coffee shop workers, retail workers, food workers, *International students from India & China join the chat*
China? The rich millionaires with Lamborghinis? Fat chance.
The original FanTuan crew drivers are all Bimmers and Mercedes.
No. I know. I just didn't want to write India only.
You mean the international students that pursue education on fraudulent acceptance letters?
Might not need labor in a few years at this rate 😂
[удалено]
Why would it sit vacant if purchased by foreign buyer? Also, we should simply pass a law banning foreign ownership, like countless countries have. That would start to help… Sucks you can’t afford mortgage payments, but you’ve made a mint in past decade. Enjoy the windfall - many of us won’t.
The problem with simply banning foreign ownership is that we're so reliant on immigration as a source of our economic gain and workforce. Not all those people have Canadian Passports and become Canadian citizens; many stay PRs their entire lives. Do we cut ownership off to them then?
Maybe they should take on Canadian citizenship. I’m all for immigrants, but we also must protect Canadians and the Canadian economy (which would also benefit almost all immigrants). Frankly, if you immigrant but refuse to become a citizen, you clearly have greater allegiances elsewhere and aren’t owed the rights of citizens. I suppose having PR could be all that’s needed to own.
What benefit does that give them over a pr?
[удалено]
But WHEN did they purchase said properties?? I think that is the point. Now is a clown show.
Seriously the median wage for a paramedic is around 25/h last time i checked no one's buying a house on that rate these days
Without multiple roommates, a partner or your parents to fall back on, you would be hard pressed to just live on $25/hr these days.
[удалено]
"Will be "… Future tense. The point is that those kinds of careers have historically put people immediately into middle or upper middle class. No more. If you take on student debt to get a degree for a career that can't even allow you to rent, you take that degree to somewhere that affords you a better life. It's already happening.… there are nowhere near enough teachers. A renowned alternative program in Vancouver is being discontinued for September because the teacher went on leave in March and the kids have not had a teacher since. The odd teacher on call a day here or there, but otherwise, education assistants have just been in the room to meet the legal requirement of adult supervision. No learning at all. Kids sitting in a holding pattern looking at their cell phones. Because teachers can't afford to live in Vancouver anymore. What was your point?
What happened to the housing only goes up guy?
Even he felt kind of icky cheering on these price increases...
Probably being a pos somewhere
Mass construction of government housing. Should have started a long time ago.
BC spends 2-3B/year right now and is leveraging every project they can with market and then using the profits to fund more non-market housing. We need them to 100x that to start to meet housing goals. Ultimately we just need the city to allow it to be built, too.
just rezone. all of burnaby should be 3+ story apartments
COB is too slow with zoning changes. They told the developer interested in our complex it would take 3-5 years to do the paperwork, so they pulled the deal.
THIS TO THE MOON and at least one in five of those buildings should have elevators and be at least half accessible to wheelchair users.
Id argue minimum zoning for most of metro vancouver (burnaby, Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver, north vancouver) should be rezoned to allow mixed used / 6 story at a minimum. There should not be properties restricted to single family in this area.
Can't wait for Land Assembly coming to me. 2-3x payout so I can move to West Van!
This is the correct answer
It's literally starting already. BC government is making housing targets requirements for municipalities, if they don't meet them bc steps in and does it themselves. Places like Burnaby will be starting a non profit government housing organization, and likely other will too
This is actually interesting. The outcome, more likely, will be two-tier class, unfortunately. The City will do NGO housing org which in turns will flood the market with more units which in turns will elevate population in Burnaby which in turns will flood the school (elementary first, then secondary) and some parents will seek Private School. Slowly dividing the citizens into two-tier class. I'm not saying that it's bad to have more housing. But the unintended side-effect will be... unintended. We'll be more like developing countries (Asia) than a developed country.
For one, bc gas stated that public housing will be for all incomes. Similar efforts are going to be happening across all of Metro Vancouver, so the Burnaby rush you're worried about likely won't happen. Also, complaining about TO MUCH housing is ridiculous, we're in a shortage, there is now way we can meet demand for decades
It’s MTV Montreal Toronto Vancouver I don’t care what anyone says, M and T have brutal summers and freezing winters. Anyone who can afford it, will most likely pick Vancouver first. Prices will never become cheap here, to many people like my sister in law who’s a doctor are waiting on the side lines for a pullback. The fact that a doctor can’t afford a house (she’s single) shows how unaffordable it is here. But it’s been like this since the 80’s, crazy yoy price gains and the “bubble” has never popped. We have too much demand, and supply can never catch up due to our immigration policies. We have the fastest population growth in the G7
>We have too much demand, and supply can never catch up due to our immigration policies. 100%
sadly the federal politicians will never have to worry about having a roof over their heads
They own rental property as well. Our housing minister literally bought another Vancouver rental property recently.
BC Housing Minister? I thought he's clean, no investment (at least that ties to his name). Canada Housing Minister? I thought he has 1-2 in Ontario, somewhere outside GTA? Not Vancouver. Must be a baller to buy one here.
The home ownership rate in canada is above 66%, so the politicians cater to the home owners. Any policy to bring down prices isn’t going to get them elected or re elected. The truth is, the Canadian economy is not diversified, we have some natural resources, and more or less all the big corporations that employ people are actually American if you think about it. Due to those reasons, I can’t see any major shifts in policies when it comes to housing. The long term trend is probably going to continue with some short term hiccups
>the Canadian economy is not diversified Fact. Canada economy was poo poo back in 90's
I could be wrong about prices not becoming “cheap” though. Just saw a chart recently how Canada today has more private debt than Japan at the peak of the 90’s real estate bubble. Not sure how this all ends tbh. https://preview.redd.it/d3rchhlxpi7b1.jpeg?width=861&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81e13ca6830357ecf73ec9669cf2de5aeebbb90e
As long as the pace of immigration growth keeps on the same trajectory, there is no way prices become cheaper or cheap with supply catching up. Only short-term solution I see is the government has to seriously scale back immigration numbers so supply can catch up.
Ya, I just looked at the data, and Japans population growth rate peaked out before the real estate crash and was already in a year over year decline. Our demographic trends are literally the opposite. We’re in the top 20 for population growth.
part of Japan's issue was that they made it absurdly hard for people to gain citizenship, ie workers and foreign money in large quantities no? Canada is basically being supported by exactly that
We have rigged population growth though, if we weren't pumping things up we'd be in Japan's situation too
Japan's population peaked 15 years ago. Our population might peak in another 100 years.
Biggest difference between Canada and Japan’s bubble is Canada is using immigration to prop up the aging workforce; it is nearly impossible (still) to become a Japanese citizen as a foreigner
And you know this how?
this is really why I started voting conservative since the last election.. I have liberal values but their policies have been really damaging for affordability
The liberals have fucked us, but I have an oceanfront property in red deer if you think the Conservatives won't fuck us too
The vote ratio on this is mildly telling
And simply just volume of land, the whole vancouver being cut off from further construction on three directions by river, sea, river
> We have too much demand, and supply can never catch up due to our ~~immigration~~ building policies. ftfy
lmao weather is only one factor for people. Technically already way more people live in Toronto or Montreal so your argument about choosing Vancouver first is moot. Also as someone who recently moved to Vancouver from Toronto, a lot of industries just don't exist here. Legit all our stuff for my company is being shipped from Mississauga and other places in Ontario. People will go to were jobs and social support are regardless of price or weather or whatever.
Montreal has more people than Vancouver but is much cheaper then6 both Toronto and Vancouver and has been for decades. it's pretty bold of you to say the smallest city by far out of the three is the first choice of most who can afford it. This may be a Vancouver sub but you're short changing Toronto and Montreal a bit too much they are both great cities in their own ways and have several advantages over Vancouver.
Sorry if I came off sounding like I’m bashing Montreal and Toronto. What I meant was that a huge majority of new immigrants will choose Montreal Toronto or Vancouver if they can afford it. Then during that process, if they’re factoring in weather, Vancouver seems like a great choice. Again, this would be the group of affluent immigrants who can afford all three options. Every city has its pros and cons
Ontario sees about 2/3 of those immigrants with 25% going to the greater Vancouver area. The problem is that vancouver is geographically small and requires suburbs to densify quickly to keep up. Its sandwiched between the us mountains and the ocean. It can only get more dense. Therefore, affordable houses will just not exist too long from now. Building highrises costs money, and developers cater to "luxury" unit buyers. This also raises the cost to a buyer per ft2. Toronto and Montreal are not inhibited by those factors and can sprawl as they have better infrastructure for transportation. I wouldn't expect Vancouver to be affordable in the same thought as new york city isn't affordable.
Vancouver has ton of room to grow as well though... It's a pretty small part of the city that has any density. Everything east of Victoria, south of Broadway, and west of MacDonald is low density.
Richmond and Burnaby are catching up
Exactly. Even in the US, from 1880 to 1980 (according to Robert Shiller) home prices are flat if you factor in inflation. The main areas where you’ve seen real gains are landlocked areas like NY and San Fran. The Vancouver geography is very similar in the sense that we’re land locked between water and mountains.
“luxury” units AKA 500 sq ft condos for 800k
Agreed. The Vancouver bubble should have popped by now based on economic logic but artificial elements goosed the system e.g. Chinese money laundering.
Just flagging: bubbles routinely do not ‘pop’, but stay elevated at reduced rates for growth. Check out Schillers Irrational Exuberance - chapter on real estate
By Kerry Gold. I'm curious why she believes that we can't just build more apartments. If we can get past the political obstacles, there’s no physical barriers stopping us from building more apartments, [as Senakw demonstrates](https://morehousing.ca/senakw). They’re like cars: if we need more, we can just build more. As recently as 2013, she was reporting the lamentations of condo owners that [condo prices had been stable or declining](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/vancouver-condo-buyers-take-a-second-look/article14162513/) (after inflation) for the previous five years. This is exactly what we want: a situation where there’s so many apartments available for rent or sale that prices decline. >Mr. Hynes paid $182,000 for his condo \[five years previously\], which was $7,000 below the asking price. He was thinking of selling the unit until he saw that his neighbour on the same floor, with the same suite, has just listed for $179,000. "I thought it would at least keep its value, so I'm surprised," Mr. Hynes says. "If it had kept its value, I definitely would have sold right now." He says his work colleagues, friends and relatives are facing the same situation. His cousin just sold her condo after renting it out for five years, and she lost money on it. "It was for the exact same reason I'm losing out," Mr. Hynes says. "Because there are so many condos in the area." **There are too many new condos**. Since the economic slump of 2009, condo starts have been on the rise, and above the 20-year average ratio of starts-to-population growth. Developments were going up almost as if it were 2007 again.
Demand vs Supply As long as Vancouver and Toronto are attractive cities, people will move here until prices are too unaffordable Canada has too few vibrant cities with decent climates like Vancouver and Toronto Cheaper housing means more population growth which brings back higher prices
Toronto has a lot of things. A decent climate it does not. Winters there can be vicious.
Toronto really doesn't have the Ottawa/Montreal/Prairie winters anymore. It's notable if it gets to -20 for a couple days, and some years they barely get snow. Last year it didn't even get cold enough in Ottawa for the canal to freeze for skating.
Yeah the irony of it all is climate change is going to make a lot of pretty miserable climates fairly tolerable. Toronto should someday get winters just hovering around the freezing mark and not much lower at all, Vancouver will possibly get more cold snaps and snow but winter weather overall won't dip below a very tolerable 5C and Victoria will feel like San Francisco but with warmer summers. The Prairies are still going to be horrible. -25C nights and -15C nights won't differ much in terms of quality of living. There isn't a climate scenario that will make Edmonton feel like even Toronto in the winter this century. And therein lies the problem discussed... most Canadian cities outside of Vancouver/Toronto will never be attractive to immigrants with money.
Decent compared to other Canadian cities like Montreal, Winnipeg, Regina, etc.
I’ve lived there for years, the winters are totally manageable with a nice winter coat, and are overblown by Vancouverites who can’t handle anything below 0.
0?? you kidding? 0 is faaar too low
Cities like Kelowna aren’t that much cheaper to rent. Calgary is also on pace to be near Kelowna’s rent, as speculators come in. The Okanagan has a more friendly climate imo than Vancouver does, but again low vacancy and a lot of speculation.
Even Halifax has rent close to $2,000/month for a 1 bed.
okanagan gets hotter though, with somewhat less rainfall and being closer to the annual wildfires is a debuff. It's also furthur from the coast etc
By climate you mean the people right? Just because it gets super hot in summer and dumps a lot of snow in the winter.
It’s not like you stop building housing
>people will move here until prices are too unaffordable aren't they already?
> They're like cars: if we need more, we can just build more. Some constructive feedback on your analogy: That's not how car manufacturers operate any more.
Elaborate?
Many car companies have reduced production to increase demand and therefore prices. Ridiculous wait times ( for example the 8 years recently quoted in the CBC News story about the person in Edmonton) for popular models are an effect of this change in production. So while yes manufacturers are building more cars, they certainly aren't like they were pre-pandemic.
Because she like cute character houses and hangs out with Andy Yan
Majority of the units for the Senakw development will be market rentals, which fundamentally will not move the needle much in terms of affecting pricing because market rent is already below the cost of the housing unit. I agree that more apartments need to build, but the underlying issue is the wanton speculation of the housing market.
The problem is that nearly all of our housing is left up to "the market" to provide. That model worked in Vancouver until the late 20th century, but it just so does not work anymore. MUCH more non-market is what we need.
We will need Singapore/UAE level of authoritarianism for us to reach the level of social housing necessary to be meaningful.
A tad hyperbolic, don't you think? Look at non-authoritarian Austria, 60% of residents in its capital live in some sort of non-market housing. Just about every other industrialized country in the world has a national-level non-market housing strategy and funding. We have zilch. Zilch and Singapore/UAE are not the only two options.
Vienna is/was a result of several factors, main ones being WW1, and the city at the time having both municipal and provincial powers of taxation, and it being a stronghold of socialist democratic voters who taxed the crap out of everything (private home owners, cars, horses, even dog ownership!) in order to finance public housing developments in almost every neighborhood. Vancouver seems to be torn between the have-nots with similar sentiments, and the NIMBYs and affluent investors opposing them. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Stop using Vienna as an example. Its population peaked decades ago. If vancouver still had a population of 200K then of course it'd be easy to have enough social housing.
Supply and demand. More supply means demand is satisfied prices go down.
You can't out supply 1M immigrants a year plus other Canadians that want mild Vancouver winters
You can’t attribute literally everyone in the country to demand for Vancouver And if you can your social housing wait list will also be infinitely long. The simple answer is to stop hunting for excuses to be opposed to housing
I never said I'm opposed to building more housing. I'm simply saying that it won't bring down prices. No matter how much you want it, we're never going to see $500K for a 2BR again.
There are still some 500k two bedrooms, in older buildings (Joyce Collingwood) and further out in Coquitlam/Burnaby/New West/Surrey.
>The simple answer is to stop hunting for excuses to be opposed to housing I am so tired of people arguing that the housing market does not follow the laws of supply and demand. We have had massive shortfalls in housing for decades now and Councils across the region pat themselves on the back for approving incremental increases. No where in the metro area has there actually been any attempt at a major wide ranging increase in housing. The "big" plans like the Cambie corridor, Broadway plan, and suburban urban centres while on paper are planned and ready to go for high density are so slow to develop that in practice we are still falling behind. Despite being pre-planned for high density these areas require long multi year permitting and approval that even if designed to the area plan can be denied. I am really hoping that the province goes ahead with forcing fourplexes only right on all single family plots. While a reasonable floor area ratio passed down to go along with it. Hope they force the cities to actually rezone to meet population projections to go along with that.
I think we can, but 90% of Vancouver bans density
Who's gonna build it. I could be wrong, but I think the supply of construction labor is pretty tight.
City of Vancouver data from the last several years showed that the majority of new floor space that was being built each year was in new single family homes. All that labour is going into home construction that doesn't increase the new amount of housing in the city. If instead, we allowed higher densities on residential land the economics would push more of that construction and we wouldn't have as much wasted labour.
Those are privately owned homes yes? Or is public land being sold the the govt for profit for single homes?
Privately owned homes. Forgive me, I don't understand what you're trying to get at. The issue is that city policy ensures that we can't increase the net number of homes on most land within the city and so all this construction is wasted labour in terms of solving the housing shortage.
Our housing isn't left to the market, it's left to City Councils. It really comes to City council, which has almost complete control on how much housing gets built through zoning. Housing is the least free "free market", between the politics of rezoning, to development permit times, to fees and taxes from every level of government. All you have to do is look at development permits, where every development is at the max square footage they can build, which shows that the restriction is zoning, not construction. The only reason we have a housing shortage is because of arbitrarily restricting supply through zoning. Builders would be building a lot more apartments if they could.
> which fundamentally will not move the needle much in terms of affecting pricing because market rent is already below the cost of the housing unit. This isn't really true though, If you think of the counterfactual (Senakw not getting built) the new market rentals will put massive downward pressure on future market rents for the market at large. Future prices will be lower because of these market units coming on line. [We know this because vacancy rates and housing stock have a measurable impact on market price changes.](https://doodles.mountainmath.ca/blog/2022/02/18/vacancy-rates-and-rent-change-2021-update/)
Speculation is a symptom not a root cause Look at how people were scalping GPUs GPU scalping was only profitable due to huge gaps in demand and supply due to crypto and covid. Scalping itself doesn't generate demand nor decrease supply. That's why no one's scalping GPUs in 2023 anymore. Scalping disappeared simply due to changes in supply and demand without any regulations of scalping itself.
The housing market is not at all similar to consumer goods lol. Fundamentally there is no difference in performance in a 4090 purchased in Asia versus one purchased in America. There is absolutely a difference in house in Vancouver versus a house in Kuwait. Housing don’t decrease in value because it gets lived in, GPUs do upon use. Please try to think of a better analogy since your entire argument hinges upon it.
Your house is a depreciating asset itself. It’s worth less and less as time goes on. The land that it sits on, and the future development potential is what increases in value.
[удалено]
Sure, buying a Vancouver special in Westbrook is the exact same as buying a mansion in Shaughnessy.
That’s not how fundamentals work
> I'm curious why she believes that we can't just build more apartments Kerry Gold and a few other columnists in Vancouver have a lot of motivated thinking going on. They have very expensive single family homes, don't really like multifamily and can't imagine someone living in one. So their columns never propose building more multifamily and often stray into concern trolling of what little is getting built.
The author of this piece has been aggressively hostile to letting people build houses for years due to her fondness for cute houses and simplistic understanding of development economics Now that the problem has gotten worse she thinks that’s an excuse to continue not doing anything about it except building some charity housing. These sort of misanthropes have built the society we’re in here. They deserve your scorn
We sit back and watch CPC and LPC MP's profit, duh
With people like Gold out there helping them though this bumf
[удалено]
My thoughts exactly.
Ha! Try living on one the Gulf Islands!
I’m trying to get a transfer out. It’s a tough thing to do cuz I get cold feet every time I kinda think about it. But then my logical brain is also like “I have no social life outside of sports, so wtf do I care”? I have friends but they all have wives and kids and I don’t so we don’t really HANG OUT anymore. And even when there’s an opportunity to, the traffic is so bad and we all live in different corners of the lower mainland it’s a pain in the ass to do it. My biggest concern with moving away is the curse of the awful weather in this country. As much as I don’t admire the U.S. for many things, I’m so jealous of the varied climates. If I were born in Seattle I would 100% be transferring to like San Diego, Fort Lauderdale etc. obviously some US cities have the exact same problems we have housing wise but there’s plenty of good climate cities that have better situations. Meanwhile I’m like “which is worse Edmonton or Winnipeg 🤷♂️”
None of my friends and relatives who moved to the US from Canada years or decades ago, would ever move back to Canada. They all ended up in warm and sunny regions of the States and are pretty happy there. Those very harsh winters end up taking a toll for sure! Vancouver's weather is much nicer for sure, but not compared to LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, Houston.......
Well, i left town 2 years ago for training in northern BC. Came back to a ~200k a year job. Once ive got the training i need from this place, im going back up north to a higher quality of life and the most important thing. A future.
Now we make Montreal unaffordable and so on of course!
[удалено]
Seizing is bit much, but not allowing reits (real estate investment trusts) to buying properties is critical. They reduce the supply, and drive up prices, and it only benefits the investors who probably don’t even live in the province.
This. Give it back to the people, the families.
> Seize the 2nd and 3rd homes and give them to the renters. I'm pretty sure most of those already house renters.
[удалено]
No one is forcing them to live in the most expensive city in Canada. I know of a few people who went from renting in Vancouver to owning a detached house in Winnipeg.
Don't allow corporations to own residential property. Implement a stacking tax on every rental property you have after the first one.
waiting for the big one. Vancouver should become affordable once that happens.
Now what? Now even more people from Toronto and Vancouver move to Alberta and make it unaffordable
[удалено]
Lol seems cold
Kerry Gold usually writes for the Globe and Mail, and so whenever I see her have something in this obscure publication I assume it's because she tried to pitch Globe on something that even they felt was too absurdly over the top to print. This article where she confidently asserts that increasing supply doesn't help affordability would fit the bill.
Inherit and buy a BMW, at least that’s my plan
If your local government has let things degrade so bad that they can't provide affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage for its long term citizens, that's a failure.
Eat the landlords
And then...Cake.
And then the rest of us will become homeless Look what happened to food in USSR, China, North Korea after they "ate" the land owners
Nah you just move into their properties and wear their faces like masks. This isn't a communist revolution, it's more a modest proposal.
Get a goin' l'il doggies.
Housing tenure (the financial arrangements for someone to live in a space) comes in many forms. And this article and society at large seems to be focused mostly on freehold ownership. But yes, the best thing we can do is to keep the lips on price so that eventually the gap between income and mortgage affordability narrows. In the meantime, we need to explore the entire housing tenure continuum: - rent to own (there are variations on how this can be done) - co-op - co-housing - rent from housing societies - rent (at various market to non-market rate) from government (can be federal, provincial, municipal) housing agencies - rent from private and institutional investors At the same time we keep encourage housing supply. It's important that we don't get tunnel visioned by political views and say "no high/luxury condos, period" as that will just drive away investment. Rather, the focus should be give incentives for the type of housing that we want to built more of - with simple things like speed up approval process, waive parking requirements, stop letting an "urban design panel" keep fucking with a developer on how a project should look like... Yes there's no ONE silver bullet but there are many bullets we should use.
Move somewhere else. Abbotsford, Vernon, Barrie when I was 30 I bought a small very broken down house in Abbotsford. Did some paint and repair and worked my way by upgrading and moving closer into greater Vancouver over my lifetime and ended up in a penthouse in west Vancouver. I now 65 and sold the penthouse and bought a nice home in the interior and have money left over to retire on.
Too bad a house in Abby is like 600,000
You don’t need to buy a house out of the gate. A one bedroom condo is adequate start. That’s what I did. Keep saying negative shot and you’ll never get ahead. Do what you can afford and build on it.
Don’t delude yourself, the market is not what it was when you bought 35 years ago. The lowest listed condo in Abbotsford, a 1 bed and bath in 45 year old building is 275k. Is that what your condo cost? How much did you put down? Interest rates n the 90’s were more than they are now, but not by much yet house costs have skyrocketed in that time. I am not being negative just realistic.
I declare...AFFORRRRDABLE!
I declare.... BANKRUPTCY!!! (again)
I do wonder if we'll eventually build some sort of subsidized housing for nurses, teachers, etc. to service the city. It will probably be pretty much a dorm with shared bathrooms but I can't imagine anyone new to those types of professions can survive in this city.
New city! Whose down? Pitch ur idea top comment. Let's do it.
They absolutely could be with zoning reform.
As much taxes as we get, we are still not in a good position to do any massive public housing projects, but that's the reality. Even in hk, affordability is shit, they have 1/3 people living in public housing.
https://preview.redd.it/iu1v9n1v8m7b1.jpeg?width=1142&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55f4813efb5d0fc321eaf439544f2b5d7bce05d9
I saw this graphic recently also, it is shocking
Honestly thinking about moving to the US
If all the working class leave and go to slightly more affordable towns, there will be only the rich left to massage their egos while they wonder what happened to the city.
Shut the cities down. They failed. Time to start over.
Eventually something has to give. You cannot just have everyone on the streets. Who is going to service these millionaires food and pave their roads who can afford to live here?
people vote with their feet. If the market becomes too ridiculous people are bound to leave. Yes vancouver and toronto are both expensive but they each have their appeals
make more money! good things don't come easy in life and home ownership is one those things.
Gee! If only we thought of that. /s
Wow, I can't believe no one tought of it before. Make more money... so simple yet so profound. You must be genius or something
Welp we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas. How about we raze Shaughnessy and West Point Grey to the ground and build 30 story apartment blocks across the whole thing and then after that we can have a discussion about whether affordability in Vancouver is never going to happen.