Vancouver's Housing Supply Myth

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

A bit of good news here:

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/housi...-proposal-2017

Looks like planners are starting to realize that we can densify further in CoV, and at the same time curb speculations.




Let's see if we can increase the density of Vancouver by implementing such strategies, would love to see doubling of numbers in skytrain station nodes, and neighbourhood centres such as Commercial/Broadway area, Kerrisdale and Oakridge mall.

Love this from Gordon Price too: But Price believes it has taken the city “way, way too long” for both the densification of single-family neighbourhoods and the release of such a comprehensive housing strategy.

I like reading Price's work, but this strikes me as him championing density for the sake of being dense and green rather than him actually caring about how it can ease housing affordability.

[s211]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I'd not disagree with this synopsis with the exception that it may not be that we're not building enough housing, we may not be building enough of the right type of housing

this!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I like reading Price's work, but this strikes me as him championing density for the sake of being dense and green rather than him actually caring about how it can ease housing affordability.

Agreed. But without the densification, how can we even put in the right type of affordable housing?

Looking around Vancouver, many of the SROs are located in buildings built from the 30s to the 60s. These are very high density buildings built at those time periods, and most were once market housing for either ownership or rental. Decades down the road, they turn into space for affordable housing. Fast forward to the present, if we don't increase the market housing density of today, where will we then find our affordable housing of the future?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Vin

Agreed. But without the densification, how can we even put in the right type of affordable housing?

Looking around Vancouver, many of the SROs are located in buildings built from the 30s to the 60s. These are very high density buildings built at those time periods, and most were once market housing for either ownership or rental. Decades down the road, they turn into space for affordable housing. Fast forward to the present, if we don't increase the market housing density of today, where will we then find our affordable housing of the future?

I'm all for densification, I just don't want us to go all in on it without considering other solutions alongside it, mainly those targeting speculation. I don't consider the existing regulations put in place by the City of Vancouver to be sufficient or satisfying in that regard.

[Changing City]

Nathan Lauster has just published a more detailed statistical analysis on supply and demand.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nathan Lauster has just published a more detailed statistical analysis on supply and demand.

Conclusion: We are indeed not overbuilding. All data info shows that population and household census meet the number of new homes built. The reason why people always feel that new homes are empty is probably because many of Vancouver's population is transient, in that they may live/work in other parts of the world even though they retain primary residence here. However, as most of these homes are currently expensive low density housing, we need to build a lot more highrise condo units to meet the demand of the younger generation.If this generation can afford their own dwellings, then perhaps the older folks can finally let go of their low-density dwellings and turn them high density when the City rezones those lots.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

The reason why people always feel that new homes are empty is probably because many of Vancouver's population is transient, in that they may live/work in other parts of the world even though they retain primary residence here.

I'd like to see some stats on that.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nathan Lauster has just published a more detailed statistical analysis on supply and demand.

Um, yeah, Nathan Lauster author of "The Death and Life of the Single-Family House", just to put biases in context.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Um, yeah, Nathan Lauster author of "The Death and Life of the Single-Family House", just to put biases in context.

I read the article and it seemed well reasoned and supported. What parts did you disagree with?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Rico

I read the article and it seemed well reasoned and supported. What parts did you disagree with?

Key sentence in the Lauster article quoted “I read this to suggest...” in other words, his interpretation. Look every academic has a bias, his book shows his. When you publish, you defend. Just as Rose defends his thesis. I’ve given two other sources advancing the same argument that building is being driven by speculative demand rather than housing demand. Also stats that show Vancouver housing starts outpacing much bigger cities with booming economies. In the end, everyone will take away what they want to.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Key sentence in the Lauster article quoted “I read this to suggest...” in other words, his interpretation. Look every academic has a bias, his book shows his. When you publish, you defend. Just as Rose defends his thesis. I’ve given two other sources advancing the same argument that building is being driven by speculative demand rather than housing demand. Also stats that show Vancouver housing starts outpacing much bigger cities with booming economies. In the end, everyone will take away what they want to.

What about his interpretation don't you agree with? To me his interpretations in the artivle were very well supported.
I just scanned the thread looking for your two sources and just found the Rose article. The post from Changing Cities pretty much crushes the premise of that article.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Key sentence in the Lauster article quoted “I read this to suggest...” in other words, his interpretation.

Data isn't self interpreting...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Rico

What about his interpretation don't you agree with? To me his interpretations in the artivle were very well supported.
I just scanned the thread looking for your two sources and just found the Rose article. The post from Changing Cities pretty much crushes the premise of that article.

So here you have three respected figures from academia refuting the claim we can build our way to affordability:

Don't be distracted by claims from the real estate industry that adding more housing supply will solve Metro Vancouver's broken housing system, housing experts told delegates to the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities conference.
“The supply claims are mainly about distracting us from doing things on the demand side,” Josh Gordon told the city councillors and local government staff gathered for a morning session as the conference started on Sept. 25. “They do not want us to tackle demand: they want to be able to build endlessly for the world's rich.”

Gordon, an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University's School of Public Policy, presented along with David Ley, a professor emeritus in the University of British Columbia's Department of Geography, and urban planner Andy Yan, director of SFU's City Program.
All three highlighted the staggering, and widening, disconnect between local incomes and house prices. Ley highlighted a measure of affordability developed by the Demographia survey: housing is considered severely unaffordable at a rate of 5.1, and Vancouver is currently rated at 11.8.
Since July 2016, foreign nationals buying property in Metro Vancouver must pay an additional 15 per cent property transfer tax. While single family home sales flattened for a time, they've begun to rebound, while the condo market has taken over when it comes to speculative frenzy...
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouv...s-experts.html

You can't build your way out of a speculative bubble. That is akin t throwing fat on the fire, and Vancouver is rated as one of the biggest housing bubbles in the world by UBS.

[Smooth]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So here you have three respected figures from academia refuting the claim we can build our way to affordability:

Don't be distracted by claims from the real estate industry that adding more housing supply will solve Metro Vancouver's broken housing system, housing experts told delegates to the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities conference.
“The supply claims are mainly about distracting us from doing things on the demand side,” Josh Gordon told the city councillors and local government staff gathered for a morning session as the conference started on Sept. 25. “They do not want us to tackle demand: they want to be able to build endlessly for the world's rich.”

Gordon, an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University's School of Public Policy, presented along with David Ley, a professor emeritus in the University of British Columbia's Department of Geography, and urban planner Andy Yan, director of SFU's City Program.
All three highlighted the staggering, and widening, disconnect between local incomes and house prices. Ley highlighted a measure of affordability developed by the Demographia survey: housing is considered severely unaffordable at a rate of 5.1, and Vancouver is currently rated at 11.8.
Since July 2016, foreign nationals buying property in Metro Vancouver must pay an additional 15 per cent property transfer tax. While single family home sales flattened for a time, they've begun to rebound, while the condo market has taken over when it comes to speculative frenzy...
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouv...s-experts.html

You can't build your way out of a speculative bubble. That is akin t throwing fat on the fire, and Vancouver is rated as one of the biggest housing bubbles in the world by UBS.

Funny, sounds like Mr. Lauster agrees that the demand side of the equation also needs to be addressed. If you read his blog post that preceded the detailed statistical analysis he addresses what these academics are saying: https://homefreesociology.wordpress....ousing-supply/

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Smooth

Funny, sounds like Mr. Lauster agrees that the demand side of the equation also needs to be addressed. If you read his blog post that preceded the detailed statistical analysis he addresses what these academics are saying: https://homefreesociology.wordpress....ousing-supply/

Yes, and No.

For instance, his bias against the SFH is clearly visible here: "...So yes, I’ll continue to argue for more supply – especially by enabling more housing options on all that single-family residential (RS-zoned) land in and around Vancouver currently reserved only for millionaires..."

He doesn't ask why houses that were worth well under $1 million ten years ago are now reserved for millionaires. He just accepts it as unchangeable fact, and advocates for more multifamily.

[whatnext]

Check out this graph. It's clear there's a bubble bursting and all this supply is about to get dumped on the market:

https://twitter.com/yvrhousing/statu...808832007?s=21

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Check out this graph. It's clear there's a bubble bursting and all this supply is about to get dumped on the market:

https://twitter.com/yvrhousing/statu...808832007?s=21

"We just need to build more supply and it'll all be okay"

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

"We just need to build more supply and it'll all be okay"

Yep. It looks like a classic overshoot.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Check out this graph. It's clear there's a bubble bursting and all this supply is about to get dumped on the market:

https://twitter.com/yvrhousing/statu...808832007?s=21

How many of those under construction are already sold though? Most likely >90%. Not exactly being "dumped" onto the market.

Single family market is a different story though, especially in the higher price brackets.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

How many of those under construction are already sold though? Most likely >90%. Not exactly being "dumped" onto the market.

Single family market is a different story though, especially in the higher price brackets.

How many are sold to speculators? Those who thought they could flip them for a quick buck? What happens when they can't?

The graph illustrates perfectly a speculative mania. There's no historical precedent or need for that level of construction.