[Delirium]

Heather Scoffield and David Ebner
Ottawa/Vancouver — Globe and Mail Update
Last updated on Sunday, Jul. 19, 2009 08:28PM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/vancouver-ranks-first-for-net-worth/article1223946/

Vancouver ranks first for net worth

Vancouver has stolen Calgary's crown as the city with the highest net worth.

In a soon-to-be-published database that looks at how Canadians handled their wealth during the rapid change of fortunes that marred 2008, Environics Analytics exposes profound changes in the way people approach their wealth.

Canadians have seen their nest eggs shrivel, beefed up their savings, scaled back their borrowing, and embraced caution, an abrupt change in attitude that will likely persist, says Catherine Pearson, vice-president of Environics Analytics in Toronto.

Generally, the research, which crunches and dissects numbers from 80 different sources and goes into deep local detail, found that the richer Canadians were, the harder they fell.

“The more money you have, the more you have to lose,” Ms. Pearson said.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00131/networthnew_131263a.jpg

In Calgary, net worth fell as the value of household investments plunged and debt climbed.

In Vancouver, though, consumers saved more and real estate fared better last year.

Net worth, which measures someone's assets minus debts, dropped 6.2 per cent for Canadians as a whole last year. But Calgary residents saw their wealth plunge 12.3 per cent, while Vancouver's residents were able to hang on to much of their riches. There, net worth fell just 3.1 per cent between December, 2007, and December, 2008.

Now Vancouver's residents have taken first place for household net worth, while Calgary has fallen to second place.

Vancouverite Sebastian Albrecht rode that Pacific wave. He has a lot of his money tied up in real estate. And it's these investments – with prices down less than 10 per cent from their peak last year – that has made the city surrounded by mountains and ocean the richest in Canada, supplanting the country's energy capital Calgary.

Mr. Albrecht bought his first condo a decade ago, after university. He stretched himself – and slept in a sleeping bag on the floor for a couple months in the unfurnished home.

A decade later, he lives in a $600,000 home that he bought two years ago for $500,000 and also owns – and rents out – a $350,000 town home and a $300,000 condo. He has some money in stocks, but only about 10 per cent of his net worth.

Born in the city, an entrepreneur at heart, the 34-year-old worked in IT and then started a clothing import-export business and dabbled in real estate – until he became a realtor himself three years ago, a perch from which he sees a cross-section of Vancouver and the people who generate the city's wealth. From movie makers to junior mining players, it is a diffuse mix.

“The difference in Vancouver is it's more diverse than a lot of areas in Canada,” Mr. Albrecht says. “Calgary has oil. Toronto is finance. Here, there's a lot of creativity. I'm amazed how some people make money here.”

Vancouver's net worth per household is an average of $575,826, while Calgary's is $569,926, the research shows.

Compare that with Newfoundland, where household net worth is typically $140,706, or even to Ontario, where average household wealth is $354,968.

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00131/debtnew_131262a.jpg

Most of Calgary's losses stemmed from a plunge in the value of investments held by households, such as stocks, bonds and mutual funds. At the same time, Calgarians took on large liabilities in the past year, and Calgary is now the home of the most heavily indebted people in Canada. Albertans in general have 30 per cent more consumer debt than the average Canadian, the research shows. And the mortgage debt of many young people has soared.

“Perhaps they simply haven't realized the fact that the heady boom days are now over,” the researchers said in their analysis.

Vancouver residents, on the other hand, were able to mitigate their exposure to the ravages of the recession by increasing savings, and by benefiting from more stability in the housing market in 2008.

The survey doesn't cover 2009. In the first six months of this year, prices for existing homes were down 8.6 per cent in Vancouver from the same period of last year, and 9.8 per cent in Calgary, resale statistics show.

Perhaps because they're less wounded than the rest of the country, British Columbians are piling back into the stock market faster than elsewhere.

But people in Quebec and Ontario are gun-shy, and are stashing away any extra money they have in safe places. Quebec households in particular have low credit card debt, and boosted their holdings of sure-thing guaranteed investment certificates by 5 per cent over the course of the year. Deposits in banks and credit unions have risen 4.9 per cent.

People in Ontario, where the recession has hit hardest, increased their term deposits by 15.3 per cent and increased their debt loads by just 3.0 per cent – much less than the national average increase of 8.1 per cent.

“Hats off to Ontario households for being fiscally responsible,” the researchers said.

Still, Ontarians were paying dearly for such debt. Residents were using 7.1 per cent of their disposable income to pay interest charges – 20-per-cent higher than the national average of 6.3 per cent. In Alberta, servicing non-mortgage debt ate up just 6.1 per cent of discretionary income, despite the rising debt loads.

Indeed, Albertans' discretionary income was higher than anywhere else in the country, at $53,237 per household. That was 29-per-cent higher than second-place Ontario.

The oil-rich province may have been hammered by the global recession, but households still have plenty of wealth. “Alberta's got the spending power,” the researchers conclude.

[ue]

No mention of Edmonton, even though this article had a lot of talk on BC/AB. Just another furthering people's thought that Calgary is the only city that matters and is of importance in Alberta. I don't mean to come off rude to the Calgary forumers, but I hate how we're just brushed aside for people outside the province. There are many situations, and while this one makes a little more sense to mention Calgary, why not both?

/off topic.

Anyways very interesting to hear, but I'm not overly surprised. Though I didn't think Vancouver would fare so well.

[mylesmalley]

I'm a bit surprised to see that great a difference in debt levels between provinces, and how they didnt' always match the differences in net worth.

[vid]

It doesn't mention Montreal either, and Toronto is only referred to in passing.

[Bigtime]

“Perhaps they simply haven't realized the fact that the heady boom days are now over,” the researchers said in their analysis.

Yup, we here in Alberta had no clue about what was happening around the globe. :rolleyes:

I was just buying gold pants yesterday...

[Yume-sama]

Yup, we here in Alberta had no clue about what was happening around the globe. :rolleyes:

I was just buying gold pants yesterday...

Oh, you too? Yeah, I was going to put them in my 1200 square foot shower. (EDIT: this made sense when I thought you said plants not pants :()

Anywho, the study is interesting. People in Vancouver do tend to "show" their wealth more than people in Alberta... but I am surprised they are actually more wealthy now!

[Nicko999]

Good to see Vancouver first but it's obvious VAN/CAL will dominate the net worth list since houses are so expansive.

Was also surprised by the consumer debt stats...

[LeftCoaster]

Houses are expensive Nicko, not expansive.

Houses out here are actually quite small on average.

In fact completely off topic but I would be curious to see the average single detached and multi unit house size in the major Canadian cities. Anyone know if that info would be available on stats can or elsewhere?

[240glt]

^ more interesting would be a year over year comparison.

I think you'll find that average house sizes are the same in most cities. What'd really be notable is how large the average house has gotten from say, the 50's to today.

[NetMapel]

Good to see Vancouver first but it's obvious VAN/CAL will dominate the net worth list since houses are so expansive.

Was also surprised by the consumer debt stats...

Luckily net worth is the difference between assets and liabilities. We have less debt than Ontario and Alberta for some reason :O Good job Quebec for keeping debt low... maybe that's because Quebec students pay very little tuition compared to the rest of Canada ?

[drew]

Can someone explain what exactly "net worth" means? It obviously correlates to the market value of your home, but to me it seems a little unbelievable that average net worth per household in Canada is this high, after you minus liabilities. I live in Manitoba, and if the average net worth of a household is really around $250k I am obviously doing something very wrong financially...

Pardoning my ignorance on this, it is interesting that looking at Alberta compared to Man/Sask the "net worth" is basically double, which correlates to approximately a double in consumer debt.

I am not sure what exactly this is indicative of, but perhaps it points towards people in Alberta becoming more "house poor"?

[240glt]

^ Assets minus liabilities I'd assume. Likely most people have most of thier net worth tied up in their homes.

Obviously, though, mortgage debt isn't factored into the household debts, and I'm wondering if they are including mortgage debt into the net worth calculation ?

I know a lot of people with $600k homes, but most of them don't have that kind of net worth though & many are mortgaged to the hilt.

240GLT is pretty happy- minus mortgage liability my personal debt is zero :cool:

Pretty sure I don't have half a mil net worth though. Yet.

[SpongeG]

the news said it this way its assets to debt ratio

[1ajs]

what do u mean by liabilities?

[Architype]

what do u mean by liabilities?

That would mean debt.

The only province to show any increase is Nfld, which is the lowest to begin with. The net worth is very much tied to property values, with Nfld's rural areas typically being very cheap. Net worth should not by any means be taken as a real indicator of living standards. I live in Vancouver, and many people I know here actually have a living standard somewhat lower than Nfld.

[vanman]

^ That may be true but it depends on what you mean by "living standard".;)

[LotusLand]

^ That may be true but it depends on what you mean by "living standard".;)

Standards of living are subjective. I know my friends and I have pretty good living standards hear in Van. Work 40 hours a week, make a good salary, great weather, women, restaurants, beaches, activities etc... It's all relative to what one prefers and deems good standards of living. Just ask the amish.

[Nicko999]

That would mean debt.

The only province to show any increase is Nfld, which is the lowest to begin with. The net worth is very much tied to property values, with Nfld's rural areas typically being very cheap. Net worth should not by any means be taken as a real indicator of living standards. I live in Vancouver, and many people I know here actually have a living standard somewhat lower than Nfld.

Exactly!!! A Buying Power Index for every province would be a better indicator of living standards.

[Architype]

^ That may be true but it depends on what you mean by "living standard".;)
By living standard, or "standard of living" I mean how much you can afford, how much space you have, how well you can eat, dress, furnish your abode - if you have one, transport yourself, take vacations, provide kid's education, accomodate emergency situations, etc. It's different from "quality of life" which is much more subjective and more dependant upon environment.

[LotusLand]

By living standard, or "standard of living" I mean how much you can afford, how much space you have, how well you can eat, dress, furnish your abode - if you have one, transport yourself, take vacations, provide kid's education, accomodate emergency situations, etc. It's different from "quality of life" which is much more subjective and more dependant upon environment.

Then living standard has to be based on wealth, no? The main thing would be a decent job that pays well. You can live in Vancouver and have it all, you just got to work hard and SMART, much like the other big cities in the country.

[jeremy_haak]

Then living standard has to be based on wealth, no? The main thing would be a decent job that pays well. You can live in Vancouver and have it all, you just got to work hard and SMART, much like the other big cities in the country.

Not necessarily. Since housing is so much more expensive in Vancouver than, say, St. John's, you require far more wealth for equivalent housing.

[spaceprobe]

Ultimately, in finance, net worth is more of what counts than your cash on hand. Even though a lot of money can be tied up in a house, it is still usable money. One can re-mortgage a house, one can sell and downsize, one can move to a nearby rural area which cheap housing when they retire, etc. It is still usable assets; it just isnt' as liquid as cash.

[ssiguy]

This is misleading in the extreme.

Note this is the AVERAGE net worth not MEDIAN. I n Vancouver you have million dollar condos { and nothing under $300k} within quite litterally 2 blocks of the Downtown Eastside. That would result in the DTE looking like it had a decent average median net worth. If you were to look at a true revelation of how your citizens are doing you use the medien level and Vancouver would not fair near aswell.

Vancouver {and BC in general} has the highest rate of general poverty, child poverty, largest gap between the rich and the poor, and lowest minimum wage in the country. Vancouver also has the second lowest rate of home ownership in the country. It is second only to Montreal which, due to it's cheap housing, is more a choice than an income level issue. Go into the interior and it seems half the hhouses are trailers on rented pads.

Your standard Vancouverite has a much lower standard of living than your average Canadian city. This study should be a viewed as a shameful one for Vancouver..........Vancouver is the most non-egalitarian city in the country.

[jlousa]

do you know how child poverty is calculated? Or even poverty in general? The current method of calculation are meaningless. I have a colleague who makes over 6figures and he's single but would qualify as living in poverty thanks to the mortgage on his penthouse.
Canada does not use a min. income threshold to measure poverty instead it measures how much of a percentage of your income goes to housing/food/clothing. It does not mean those people are poor. Heck I can buy a super expensive condo, eat every meal at fine restaurants, shop only at Holt Renfrew for clothes and I to can be labeled as living in poverty.
It's only natural BC has the highest level of child poverty as we have the highest home prices, that drives the precentage into the poverty zone, that does not mean we have the most amount of childs starving or going to school in rags.

[Denscity]

This is misleading in the extreme.

Note this is the AVERAGE net worth not MEDIAN. I n Vancouver you have million dollar condos { and nothing under $300k} within quite litterally 2 blocks of the Downtown Eastside. That would result in the DTE looking like it had a decent average median net worth. If you were to look at a true revelation of how your citizens are doing you use the medien level and Vancouver would not fair near aswell.

Vancouver {and BC in general} has the highest rate of general poverty, child poverty, largest gap between the rich and the poor, and lowest minimum wage in the country. Vancouver also has the second lowest rate of home ownership in the country. It is second only to Montreal which, due to it's cheap housing, is more a choice than an income level issue. Go into the interior and it seems half the hhouses are trailers on rented pads.
Your standard Vancouverite has a much lower standard of living than your average Canadian city. This study should be a viewed as a shameful one for Vancouver..........Vancouver is the most non-egalitarian city in the country.

Vancouver BC is number one in yet another category and being from east of the Rockies sounds like you just cant take it.

[LotusLand]

This is misleading in the extreme.

Note this is the AVERAGE net worth not MEDIAN. I n Vancouver you have million dollar condos { and nothing under $300k} within quite litterally 2 blocks of the Downtown Eastside. That would result in the DTE looking like it had a decent average median net worth. If you were to look at a true revelation of how your citizens are doing you use the medien level and Vancouver would not fair near aswell.

Vancouver {and BC in general} has the highest rate of general poverty, child poverty, largest gap between the rich and the poor, and lowest minimum wage in the country. Vancouver also has the second lowest rate of home ownership in the country. It is second only to Montreal which, due to it's cheap housing, is more a choice than an income level issue. Go into the interior and it seems half the hhouses are trailers on rented pads.

Your standard Vancouverite has a much lower standard of living than your average Canadian city. This study should be a viewed as a shameful one for Vancouver..........Vancouver is the most non-egalitarian city in the country.

Yep you are so right there guy :tup: Just don't tell the residents of Kits, Yaletown, Coal harbour, Point Grey, Shaughnessy, Marpole, South Vancouver, Fraserview, Killarney, Commercial Drive, Kerrisdale, Fairview and you'll be surprised with the gentrification of gastown and now the DTES. The west end ain't too shabby either. People in Vancouver have money and lots of it, if we didn't we wouldn't have high end restaurants popping up all over the place.

Face it Vancouver rates high for a reason. I don't know if you are from here but as a child I grew up in south east Vancouver and I kid you not 30% + of the households drove in luxury cars like infiniti, lexus, acura and the rest rolled around in escalades, camrys and civics. This what west siders consider a lower class part of town.

Jlousa is right the child poverty calculation is a misguiding figure.

[vanman]

^There's alot of wealth in the suburbs as well. Ever go to a mall in Coquitlam or Richmond or Burnaby? The majority of cars in the parking lots are less than 10 years old with a significant amount luxury vehicles. Which reminds me I went to Whytecliff Park in West Van last weekend and literally all the cars in the jammed parking lot were a varied mix of only luxury sedans and suvs. Except for mine and my buddy's haha.

Either way I definitely know that money isn't everything, I'm just trying to prove a point. It seems alot of people on these forums think the majority of Vancouver is impoverished when the complete opposite is true.

[LotusLand]

^ true the suburbs close to Vancouver are well to do. Don't know about the Valley though.

[socialisthorde]

do you know how child poverty is calculated? Or even poverty in general? The current method of calculation are meaningless. I have a colleague who makes over 6figures and he's single but would qualify as living in poverty thanks to the mortgage on his penthouse.
Canada does not use a min. income threshold to measure poverty instead it measures how much of a percentage of your income goes to housing/food/clothing. It does not mean those people are poor. Heck I can buy a super expensive condo, eat every meal at fine restaurants, shop only at Holt Renfrew for clothes and I to can be labeled as living in poverty.
It's only natural BC has the highest level of child poverty as we have the highest home prices, that drives the precentage into the poverty zone, that does not mean we have the most amount of childs starving or going to school in rags.

Actually, I think you are wrong. The level of poverty is set at an average estimated cost of housing, food etc across the country, so your friend, no matter what he personally spends on housing would not be classified under this definition as living in poverty. This is how I read it anyway. If someone cares to provide a citation to prove me wrong, my feelings won't be hurt.

[jlousa]

As per Stats Canada low income is measured as anyone who spends more then 58.5% on shelter/food/clothes leaving less then 41.5% nor non-necessities.

This is the Canadian definition of poverty, in most countries if you have any money left for non-necessities you're doing fine.

[ue]

I think Vancouver just has a larger disparity between the rich and the poor. The city is obviously rich, but then there are bad areas, and from what I've seen and read about...there doesn't seem to be a big inbetween. Could be wrong.

[NetMapel]

Don't know where ssiguy is from, but based on his comment, me thinks he's not been to BC lower mainland before. There is a ridiculous amount of luxury cars driving on the streets here. Makes me wonder what I am doing wrong with my job because I drive a Nissan Versa :haha

[ssiguy]

I NEVER said there wasn't a huge amount of wealth in Vancouver. West Vancouver has the highest income level in the country.........but that's the point.
By using the average as opposed to medien net worth it totally distorts the reality of the situation.
Like I said W.Van has the highest income but the DTE has the two lowest income postal codes in the country. If you were to average those numbers out it would look great for all but it's not.
When you have million dollar + condos blocks from people with literally no net worth it warps the numbers. You have a few gazzilionaires right beside the 12,000 in the DTE {9,000 of whom are drug adicts} "average" net worth is meaningless. Medien net worth {or income for that matter} is what matters.
This is no different from some of these oil kingdoms where percapita average incomes look like Western levels but in reality only a few families have 80% of the wealth and most live in extreme poverty.
This is classic South American syndrome where income levels look decent in places like Mex & Brazil until you realize that tens of millions live in third world slums because so few make the money and own the wealth.
It is MEDIEN net worth that matters, average net worth says nothing.

[Nicko999]

LOL, now we calculate the wealth of a city by the amount of luxury cars:haha:

[vanman]

^Obviously not but it is somewhat of a vague indicator.

[LotusLand]

ssiguy you say West Vancouver and then you look at the DTES. Two opposites indeed however you mention that the DTES has like 9000 or 12000 poor people, great. Then you begin to paint this picture of West Vancouver as some hand ful of rich homes. Population of West Van is 42,000 plus. Again you fail to include all other neighbourhoods in Vancouver! Why because you some how want to distort the facts to support your nonsensical argument. There are poor areas in all cities. I'm sure there is atleast one in yours. Vancouver's poor areas are the DTES, Chinatown. Gastown is more of a mix, as is the West End, Strathcona. Most people living in Vancouver make decent money because houses on the west side (not West Vancouver) start at $1 million (detached, decent shape). At least 250,000 people live in the west side of Vancouver (approx). The east side has gentrified quite a bit this past decade and continues to do so. Burnaby, Richmond, Tri-Cities are well to do suburbs. Oh yeah as is North Vancouver.

So seriously attain proper stats before you comment.

^ nicko, obviously not, but in order to drive them you have to have some sort of cashola. :tup:

[samne]

nicko, obviously not, but in order to drive them you have to have some sort of cashola.

luxury cars are a terrible indicator. Financing or leasing a car is the easiest thing to do.

You can go through some of the higher end neighbourhoods in inner Toronto(>$600K) and you'll see not much more than Matrix, Mazda 3 and Subaru.

Meanwhile, go into some of the crappy inner suburbs and you'll find BMW, Lexus, etc.

[240glt]

^ Yup. I know a few guys with leased BMW's that still live in their moms' basement or shitty bachelor apartments!

Hell, I'm in a lower income area of Edmonton and my next door neighbor just bought (or leased) a new X5, and a neighbor up the street has a Cayenne (and no, they're not drug dealers or pimps!)

[ssiguy]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. This is basic Soc/Eco 101.
I know what I'm going to do..........I'm going to open my own Holt Renfrew in the DTE because Lee moved into the area and seeing he is worth billions it makes for a decent income level for all. This is exactly what you are saying.

This is why booming cities that offer opportunity for all usually find a corresponding rise in the homeless. Thou booming many get left behind as the soaring rents and real estate prices put them in a worse place than they were before they left.

Averages distort everything and are completly meaningless...medien net worth is what counts. I don't understand why you are debating such a basic fundamental of wealth/income measures.

[LotusLand]

^ And I don't see why you don't answer the questions I've posed. The way you seem to indicate things Vancouver is full of DTESiders sprinkled with a few rich people here and there. If you own a house in Vancouver you got atleast $500,000 in equity minimum then factor in other investments and holdings. If this person in Vancouver was to sell and move to say Newfoundland, I'm pretty sure he'll be fine. If the reverse were to happen I can't say....

[Trantor]

This is classic South American syndrome where income levels look decent in places like Mex & Brazil until you realize that tens of millions live in third world slums because so few make the money and own the wealth.

I wonder if when other people say "so few make the money and own the wealth" for a country like Brazil for example, thats still a HUGE population.

[ssiguy]

Vancouver has a medien average income of almost exactly the national average but housing can be up to three times the cost of other major cities.....they may be worth more but that also means a FAR higher mortgage indebtness.
I truely don't realize why you don't understand how averages are not a truue reflection of how the community is doing in terms of wealth or income.
Also as far as the DTE is concerned the reason I use it is because it has he 2 lowest income levels in the country and few have any net worth at all while W.Van has the most expensive housing and highest income levels in the country.
Vancouver is a very soc/econ stratified city. In the early 70's BC had tyhe 2nd lowest gap in income in the country........that now has reversed itself into having the largest gap between the rich and poor.

[raggedy13]

^That isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the 70s there was less of a gap because Vancouver was a backwater industry-centric blue-collar town... everybody was poorer therefore there was less of a gap. Now the poorest of the poor are still poor as before but more people have more money than before. At least the poor stand to benefit in social services from increased tax collected from the growth in wealth.

[spaceprobe]

Vancouver has a medien average income of almost exactly the national average but housing can be up to three times the cost of other major cities.....they may be worth more but that also means a FAR higher mortgage indebtness.
I truely don't realize why you don't understand how averages are not a truue reflection of how the community is doing in terms of wealth or income.
Also as far as the DTE is concerned the reason I use it is because it has he 2 lowest income levels in the country and few have any net worth at all while W.Van has the most expensive housing and highest income levels in the country.
Vancouver is a very soc/econ stratified city. In the early 70's BC had tyhe 2nd lowest gap in income in the country........that now has reversed itself into having the largest gap between the rich and poor.


When calculating NET worth, that would include deducting the mortgage as a mortgage is considered debt. Even with the mortgages, BC's household debt is lower than that of Alberta or Ontario.

[LotusLand]

Most people in Vancouver put down more for a mortgage on a house than what they are worth in other cities. Hence that is why they have a higher net worth.

[Architype]

Most people in Vancouver put down more for a mortgage on a house than what they are worth in other cities. Hence that is why they have a higher net worth.

Most people in Vancouver can't afford a house, maybe a small condo. Isn't the percentage of home ownership quite low here?

[Gerrard]

Most people in Vancouver can't afford a house, maybe a small condo. Isn't the percentage of home ownership quite low here?

No it's high(er). As are the property values, hence the larger net worth.

[LotusLand]

Most people in Vancouver can't afford a house, maybe a small condo. Isn't the percentage of home ownership quite low here?

Percentage of home ownership is actually quite high and most people even in the city of Vancouver live in homes than in small condos.

[someone123]

A relatively small percentage of homes go on the market in any given year, particularly in the more expensive neighbourhoods. There are plenty of people in Vancouver who own properties they inherited, bought decades ago, or "traded up" for houses they wouldn't be able to fully mortgage at the present market value.

[Architype]

Here are some figures from the 2006 census:

Atlantic Canada continues to have the highest rates of homeownership in the country, according
to the census. Of the 197,185 households in Newfoundland and Labrador, 78.7% owned their dwelling, the highest proportion in Canada. In New Brunswick, three-quarters (75.5%) of the 295,960 households
owned their home, as did 74.1% of the 53,135 households in Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia ranked fifth, behind Alberta. About 72.0% of Nova Scotia's 376,845 households
owned their home.

The census counted 1,643,150 households in British Columbia in 2006, of which 69.7% owned
the dwelling they lived in. This was up from 66.3% five years earlier.

The census counted 817,225 households in the census metropolitan area of Vancouver. Of
these, close to two-thirds (65.1%) owned their accommodation and 34.9% rented it.

Rates of condominium ownership were highest in the four British Columbia census metropolitan areas.
Condominium owners accounted for about 31.0% of owned households in Vancouver in 2006,
23.8%, in Abbotsford, 21.2%, in Victoria, and 21.1%, in Kelowna. However, the proportion of
condominium owners increased at the fastest pace in Calgary.

http://www.pbase.com/image/115579670/original.jpg

Source:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/shelter/pdf/97-554-XIE2006001.pdf

There are some significant differences, though not as much as you might expect, but if you look through the tables that I did not post here, you find that BC has higher figures on some other stats (but not always the highest) for such things as percentage of income going to shelter, mortgages, etc. There isn't a good breakdown here though for specific cities, but it does say that in the Vancouver CMA only 65.1% are homeowners, and only 69% of Vancouver self-owned homes are non-condominium, and I expect that it's dropping. Also, some of the differences may lie more in tradition than in economics.