Why two twenty-somethings left the Lower Mainland for the North

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by tonyvan

Most buyer restrictions wouldn't work.

Examples:

Australia has strict restrictions targeting rich foreign buyers but the country still is still one of the most expensive in the world. Vancouver would be considered very affordable in Australia.

China itself has one of the most strict policies in the world to stop speculators. In most big, desirable cities, you have to live and pay taxes to the city for at least 5 years in order to be eligible to buy a property. And in most cities, first property you have to pay at least 40% down payment, with 60% down payment on your second property. Third property is usually completely banned. Mortgage interest rate is also much higher at ~6% and only variable rates are available. Also, when selling your second property, an extra 20% is taxed on the increased value of the property. Even with such strict restrictions, desirable cities like Shanghai and Shenzhen still see double digit price increase every year....

The reason is simple - as long as there are people moving to your city, price will increase unless you build more units to accommodate these people.

The bottom line is supply and demand - in order to slow price increase, there's only one way: build more condos and demolish the single family houses. And this has to be done near the city centre otherwise you would have a low density core with sky-high prices surrounded by affordable high-rise condos in the near suburbs (which is sort of happening already).

Also the same economics happens in localized parts of the city. If you stop densifying downtown, it will get more expensive as the supply has stopped growing and more people moving to the city want to live there. This will gradually push lower income people to undesirable areas of the city. So densification is the ONLY solution. Forget about taxation, restrictions and manipulation. They won't work....

And if policy makers reject densification, San Francisco is the future - extremely high price within the city simply because vew few new housing stocks are added to the city. The whole city gradually became Vancouver's west side - a resort for the super rich.

Then the solution is to destroy demand.

Not as awful as it sounds, as the outrageous price increases are being driven by one demographic. The only effect low interest rates have is allowing some local wage earners to even stay in the game.

So how to destroy demand without harming the larger economy? Simple:
1) Stop accepting international students into elementary and secondary schools.
2) Restrict international students at publicly funded universities and ensure available spots area allocated to a wide basket of countries.
3) Implement US style declaration of global income and taxes.
4) Require three years of Canadian tax returns before one can purchase property.
5) Forbid the use of numbered companies or trusts to purchase residential real estate.
6) Forbid the construction of monster houses on residential lots.

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then the solution is to destroy demand.

Not as awful as it sounds, as the outrageous price increases are being driven by one demographic. The only effect low interest rates have is allowing some local wage earners to even stay in the game.

So how to destroy demand without harming the larger economy? Simple:
1) Stop accepting international students into elementary and secondary schools.
2) Restrict international students at publicly funded universities and ensure available spots area allocated to a wide basket of countries.
3) Implement US style declaration of global income and taxes.
4) Require three years of Canadian tax returns before one can purchase property.
5) Forbid the use of numbered companies or trusts to purchase residential real estate.
6) Forbid the construction of monster houses on residential lots.

Won't work.

My examples are clear. Australia completely forbids foreigners from buying second-hand properties while China has very strict tax, residency and downpayment requirements. None of these countries can control the housing price.

The only way to reduce demand is to stop population growth, which will inevitably stop economy growth. Think Detroit and Chicago.

If the population is growing, even if you don't allow people from buying, they will still need to rent. A hot rental market will in turn drive up the real estate market.

Face it buddy, the only solution is on the supply side, unless you want to tank Vancouver's economy. There's a reason as cities grow in population, they most likely will grow taller at the same time.

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Most places I've seen with housing market crashes are a direct relation to the economy tanking. So if the Vancouver economy crashed suddenly you'd likely see some prices start to drop. As much as you see in Calgary or Edmonton? No because there is foreign investment compensation.

Either way, I think Vancouver is a bit of a unique snowflake in that it is likely not to see some drastic 50% drop in prices any time soon. Also I think the fact that we always say "Vancouver" when we talk about high prices but many people think "Metro Vancouver" when truely the high prices are really Vancouver and a bit outside.

You can afford to buy a house in many parts of Metro-Vancouver (and there are affordable houses even in East Vancouver) if you just look. Our biggest issue is as has been pointed out, 20 year old kids expecting to buy a brand new house 2km from downtown Vancouver.

The dream of owning a nice new house in Kits and being able to roller blade the sea wall or hang out at the beach in the summer.

Guess what kids, you're going to need to start in the suburbs like in every other major city if you want to own a house. Happens in every other major city out there. Young people buy on the outskirts. Or they buy very very small somewhere near the center.

Exactly, very well said. When I started looking at housing prices, Vancouver is actually quite affordable both in terms of buying and renting, compared to other desirable cities, as long as you are not fixated on the single family houses in the City. Also, attractive cities with International immigrations usually weather crashes much better than cities focusing on one sector. For example, NYC and San Francisco didn't really fall much in 2008 and recovered much more quickly compared to Houston, Miami and Las Vegas. That's also why long term investment in Vancouver and Toronto is much better compared to Calgary and Edmonton because their economy is more heavily dependent on a single sector.

Friend of mine bought a place in Sydney Australia, half an hour on the freeway from downtown (like Surrey distance), two bedroom condo low-rise new construction costing him $800K.

Some other friends in Silicon Valley working in tech, earning $150K+ per year but only viable housing options are far south in South San Jose or across the bay in East Bay. Either case, 30-60min commute on the freeway. Regular engineers that are single cannot afford anything there. Property tax alone is 5x of Vancouver. The only options that are under $750K in the Valley are old two-bedroom condos built in the 1960s, with ridiculous maintenance fees due to their age. Why is this? because Silicon Valley hasn't been adding housing for decades.

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

A well written post, thank you. One small quibble, whilst I lived in Toronto, one constantly heard people bemoaning the inability to buy SFHs in the Old City of Toronto. That's every bit as common there as it is here in Vancouver.

Thanks! Yeah... Toronto I am not completely sure of. But the bigger cities you would definitely not even think about buying a SFH in the city.

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it.

But NYC is a different beast. They also have a more robust transit system, and most of the general public take transit. We don't have that here in Vancouver. People living farther and farther out are forced to commute by car. It's not possible (at this moment, or time) to take transit from Maple Ridge, or even Surrey. Our system is just not quite there yet, and may never get there in our lifetimes. There's no enough political will to create a more robust transit system.

Yes, that's why transit is extremely important to solve the affordability issue. Good transit makes central areas having less appeal compared to areas farther away. Thus it will slow the price increase of the core.

[MIPS]

For a lot of these people I've found they manage to function well enough with social media but if you are one of those people who can't make the daily quota of social interaction through talking over skype or Facebook because they prefer to interact in person, relocating north or east simply to afford a place to live can mentally be extremely hard. It is equally as hard on a person when the only possible way they can even try to interact with people is paying $1800/month for a scummy suite in Surrey. Forget Vancouver in that aspect.
You get bitter.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by tonyvan

Yes, that's why transit is extremely important to solve the affordability issue. Good transit makes central areas having less appeal compared to areas farther away. Thus it will slow the price increase of the core.

Tonyvan, do you think that the current rail alignment and Coquitlam terminus location allows for the Evergreen line to be extended easily to Maple Ridge and beyond in any future system expansion plan?

[tonyvan]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Tonyvan, do you think that the current rail alignment and Coquitlam terminus location allows for the Evergreen line to be extended easily to Maple Ridge and beyond in any future system expansion plan?

Honestly I don't think we should extend to Maple Ridge in the first place. There are plenty of land in Vancouver and Burnaby that can be densified. More transit should be developed in Vancouver and Burnaby. For starters, Broadway Line, Hastings Line, 41st Ave B-Line, and Arbutus Corridor is much more important than extension to Maple Ridge. Transit works the best with density and Maple Ridge won't be dense even with Transit, making Transit not fully utilized there.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by tonyvan

Won't work.

My examples are clear. Australia completely forbids foreigners from buying second-hand properties while China has very strict tax, residency and downpayment requirements. None of these countries can control the housing price.

The only way to reduce demand is to stop population growth, which will inevitably stop economy growth. Think Detroit and Chicago.

If the population is growing, even if you don't allow people from buying, they will still need to rent. A hot rental market will in turn drive up the real estate market.

Face it buddy, the only solution is on the supply side, unless you want to tank Vancouver's economy. There's a reason as cities grow in population, they most likely will grow taller at the same time.

Not true. The Australian example illustrates the failure of attempting to purely legislate against foreign owners buying property. I gave you concrete steps that don't attempt that, rather they destroy the conditions that make a locale attractive to that particular demographic driving up prices, thus there will be little desire to circumvent heavy handed ownership bans.

At the same time, outside of a few BMW and Benz dealers, there would be minimal economic impact on local businesses.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by tonyvan

Honestly I don't think we should extend to Maple Ridge in the first place. There are plenty of land in Vancouver and Burnaby that can be densified. More transit should be developed in Vancouver and Burnaby. For starters, Broadway Line, Hastings Line, 41st Ave B-Line, and Arbutus Corridor is much more important than extension to Maple Ridge. Transit works the best with density and Maple Ridge won't be dense even with Transit, making Transit not fully utilized there.

Although there is a caveat that rapid mass transit rail can and does attract density! Thus it is conceivable to see dense urban sprawl all the way to Maple Ridge given the possibility of cheaper housing.

[Metro-One]

Maple Ridge does / will need more rail transit now and in the future.

This is where expanding WCE services would be great.

Bi-directional, all day service would be fantastic for Maple Ridge.

Maybe with Evergreen Line being built to Coquitlam, this can now be done

Only the section from Coquitlam to Maple Ridge could be somewhat frequent bi-directional service (every hour / 30 mins?) with the Maple Ridge to Mission and Coquitlam to Waterfront services remaining morning / evening unidirectional only.

This is the cheepest portion of the WCE line to add new (dedicated?) track.

[Bdawe]

I would like to see the math on building an all-day Maple-Ridge Port Moody regional rail service, which could then offer peak-only express service like the WCE does today to Waterfront, given the cramped right-of-way beyond Coquitlam, leaving through-travelers to transfer to the Evergreen Line the rest of the day.

Given the not insubstantial performance the current model elicits for a five-a-day peak only express, I feel as though this could be more viable than it might at first seem

[SpongeG]

what kind of frequency for the WCE would be good? every 30 minutes during the day? or maybe every 45 minutes?

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

when i flew back from vancouver to ft st john last week, there were two girls in the seats across from me, and they were both from the lower mainland, born and raised down there and they were on their way back up north, the one girl said she was a hairdresser and was at a party somewhere down in vancouver area and a girl at the party said she was a hairdresser making $16 an hour and the girl who moved up north said oh nice i make $65 an hour as a hairdresser.

Its kinda weird cause FSJ is my hometown but i lived in coquitlam longer and its my home now, but FSJ has grown like crazy, while i was driving around i saw quite a few apartments going up, one hotel, i think another is planned, and a new burger king/esso. There are a lot of Koreans there now and a lot of africans. With Site C getting built, despite protests, the town is really booming.

I could live with the weather but i would never want to live there again. It is really beautiful country though.

what the. i can't imagine that. what would it cost to get a haircut?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

what kind of frequency for the WCE would be good? every 30 minutes during the day? or maybe every 45 minutes?

WCE doesn't need and won't need 30 minute frequency during the day for at least another 20 years.

Ideally I'd like to see this:

Morning Rush Hour
Every 30 minutes towards Downtown
Hourly towards Mission

Daytime
Hourly in each direction

Evening Rush Hour
Every 30 minutes towards Mission
Hourly towards Downtown


We'd have to see some triple tracking done along the route which is definitely feasible for relatively little money (assuming CP allows it, but I dont' see why they wouldn't be happy at getting their track upgraded without paying!).

[Bdawe]

Here in Vancouver I would have guessed that we'd all have a better sense of the value of frequency, and hourly train service simply isn't all that useful outside of peak. Peak rail service has it's own value regardless of frequency by way of bypassing peak congestion, but off peak low frequency service to suburban areas doesn't enjoy that bonus, and since catching a particular train at a particular time is far more likely to be a routine activity for peak express service, average headways are less important.

If you have an hourly service, than your average wait time is going to be 30 minutes. Using current WCE times, that's 120% of the rail trip from Port Moody, 91% of the trip time from Coquitlam Central, 83% of the trip from Port Coquitlam, and 60% of the trip from Maple Meadows, and so on, and off peak that's getting to the point where average wait+trip time is starting to measure up poorly against the plain ol' bus+skytrain, without the trouble of having to trundle down to the station, much less our suburbanites' convenient cars. At least the 701 comes roughly ever 15 minutes or so midday, so why wait for the train?

I would hazard that if significant investment is required for all day service, that half hourly frequencies should be a minimum at least as far as Port Haney. If we can't pull that off viably, it's probably not worth the trouble in the first place.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Maple Ridge does / will need more rail transit now and in the future.

This is where expanding WCE services would be great.

Bi-directional, all day service would be fantastic for Maple Ridge.

Maybe with Evergreen Line being built to Coquitlam, this can now be done
Only the section from Coquitlam to Maple Ridge could be somewhat frequent bi-directional service (every hour / 30 mins?) with the Maple Ridge to Mission and Coquitlam to Waterfront services remaining morning / evening unidirectional only.
This is the cheepest portion of the WCE line to add new (dedicated?) track.

I think more dervice to Maple Ridge would be great, too, but is the answer to my question simply because there isn't enough mid-day commuter volume, and from Coquitlam, it would be
Skytrain to downtown.
However, is there an additional or other reason, such as passenger #/$ yield stuff, or maybe engineering issues?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

Here in Vancouver I would have guessed that we'd all have a better sense of the value of frequency, and hourly train service simply isn't all that useful outside of peak.

I can't image there being enough demand for half-hourly frequency for the train outside of peak hours.

I don't think we'll see demand for all day frequency happen for another 20 or so years.

But there should be at least 2 trains in the opposite direction during rush hour...

[whatnext]

It's not just high housing costs that make Vancouver unattractive for the young, turns out the wages are crappier than elsewhere too.


Why Vancouver is Canada’s worst city for young professionals

....Between 2006 and 2010, Vancouver gained a net 4,199 interprovincial migrants between the ages of 25 to 34. Between 2011 and 2015, however, the city lost 2,350 people within that same range to other provinces.

Many have rightly cited expensive housing as the reason for this, but in fact there are a number of systematic hurdles that, when taken together, have turned Vancouver into one of the worst cities in North America for the young and educated. For example, while we’ve known for a while that Average-Joe incomes in Vancouver don’t support home prices (median family incomes here ranked just 22nd among 28 Canadian cities in 2013), it turns out our best and brightest are no better off. The median income for 25-to-34-year-old degree-holders in Vancouver is $36,484, compared to $41,419 nationally....
http://vanmag.com/city/why-vancouver...-and-educated/

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It's not just high housing costs that make Vancouver unattractive for the young, turns out the wages are crappier than elsewhere too.


Why Vancouver is Canada’s worst city for young professionals

....Between 2006 and 2010, Vancouver gained a net 4,199 interprovincial migrants between the ages of 25 to 34. Between 2011 and 2015, however, the city lost 2,350 people within that same range to other provinces.

Many have rightly cited expensive housing as the reason for this, but in fact there are a number of systematic hurdles that, when taken together, have turned Vancouver into one of the worst cities in North America for the young and educated. For example, while we’ve known for a while that Average-Joe incomes in Vancouver don’t support home prices (median family incomes here ranked just 22nd among 28 Canadian cities in 2013), it turns out our best and brightest are no better off. The median income for 25-to-34-year-old degree-holders in Vancouver is $36,484, compared to $41,419 nationally....
http://vanmag.com/city/why-vancouver...-and-educated/

The argument (possible or not, you decide), is that Vancouver is such a desirable place to live, many qualified people are willing to move here for the lifestyle, thus increasing the labour supply and decreasing wages (demand being constant). At least that's what the headhunters tell me. I would surmise this is becoming less the norm of people don't move here because of punishing housing prices. I know I could make dramatically more in Toronto or Calgary.