HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 2:50 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Some good conversation. I think the bottom line is that not everybody gets a house, yard and a white picket fence. Sorry. Now, convincing people that's not what they need to have seems to be an entirely different problem.

Many people are stuck in the mindset "I grew up in a house so my family needs to have a house". Personally I grew up in basement suites, apartments and townhouses. So I understand it's not impossible to raise a family in anything but a SFH.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I have contempt for those who require a mortgage helper, but I do have to laugh at it a little. You're either sharing your home or you aren't. I'd much rather live in an apartment building when a tenant is somebody else's problem.

I have a feeling real estate will change from our savior to a four letter word in the next 5 years, as Vancouver has set itself up for a rough ride as interest rates begin to creep up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 5:49 PM
Yume-sama's Avatar
Yume-sama Yume-sama is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver / Calgary / Tokyo
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
What exactly does a place like Vancouver have to do with the low Birth Rate in Canada.

The low birth rate has nothing to do with Vancouver and would be low even if Vancouver did not exist.
I would have actually assumed the birth rate would be higher in Vancouver. Interesting!

This proves we need direct flights to India!
__________________
Visit me on Flickr! Really! I'm lonely.
http://www.flickr.com/syume
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2010, 7:43 PM
djmk's Avatar
djmk djmk is online now
victory in near
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
What exactly does a place like Vancouver have to do with the low Birth Rate in Canada.

The low birth rate has nothing to do with Vancouver and would be low even if Vancouver did not exist.
???

there are a lot of variables that can determine birth rate. one of them is where you live in relation to the urban centers. urban centers generally have smaller birthrates mainly because women have more access to employment, the living spaces are smaller and more expensive, and there is generally more things to do than have sex and raise kids.

also the birthrate is very very important to canada and vancouver. right now, the first baby boomers are hitting 65 and you can expect a good proportion of these men to be dead in 10 years. in 15-20 years, expect the first of the baby booming women to follow plus more men.

now we all know that birth rates are low and we are not replacing these elderly. also, we can not rely on immigration to replace these people because this is a global phenomenon. maybe there will be further rural/urban migration...

therefore, expect the population to decrease. all this talk about density is not going to matter much.
__________________
i have no idea what's going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 8:41 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,747
Thread has been reopened. If you are wondering why this thread disappeared for a bit, the initial user has been banned from the forum (for reasons not to be disclosed) and has had his/her posts deleted. As a result, it deleted this thread. But yeah, feel free to continue discussing!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 3:03 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
The problem is getting those 2 80' lots at the same time. One owner wants to sell but the other doesn't. Then next time it goes the other way.
Takes patience, definitely. It would happen slowly, but over time, it would work out nicely, I'm sure.
Quote:
Thing is you could get kicked out of any apartment. Of course there are rules to protect you when you are renting. I'm not saying it is the perfect living situation. But if it allows someone who might be single or is just a couple to live in the city.
It's much more difficult to get kicked out of an apartment. It's also much less likely. They're usually more professionally run. They usually have a building manager who isn't financially tied to the building. Yes, some buildings are better than others.
Quote:
The grid in Vancouver to me is actually better for people who take transit. While the sub division style is getting better. For a long time they built them with no way for a pedestrian to cut through. Which forces them to walk a longer route to a bus stop.
Yes, I agree. I like the grid for the arterials, but I prefer either a broken grid ( like the west end ) or curved streets like this block in East Vancouver. As a side benefit, it creates spaces where parks can go.
Quote:

The owner was thinking about it. And some of the older people were worried that a developer was going to buy all three lots and convert it into a row house complex.

Personally I wouldn't have cared. But you can see how it can be hard to get all the lots together.
If the zoning allowed for subdivision into smaller lots, I'd imagine those houses would've been sold and row-housing made. Nothing wrong with row housing... Sure beats some of the really bad stand-alone houses I've seen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 3:18 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
That's a real "let them eat cake attitude". How would you expect anyone with a "normal" job buying today to afford the insanely overinflated house prices in Vancouver without the income from a suite? Are they consigned to drudge in by transit from Langley everyday to be our teachers, policemen, grocery clerks etc. or resign themselves to having the one kid they can fit into their overpriced 2 bedroom condo?
I don't. Actually, this is exactly my point. They SHOULD be able to buy a small home... but they don't exist. People will use every sq. ft. they can because the lots are so expensive they NEED to build a minimum of two additional suits just to be able to think about affording the mortgage.

There AREN'T any reasonably-priced family options in Vancouver.

Look at the old bungalows in Vancouver. They were usually two (max three) bedrooms up and a basement. No one can afford to build a place that small anymore.

We have only one choice to owning a house in Vancouver:
Mega house on large lot, must accept tenants to survive.

My contempt is misplaced, I know. It's not the home owner that is completely at fault. If there were options for those that wanted a SFH that didn't involve strata or condo-living... things would be different.

Last edited by twoNeurons; Apr 7, 2010 at 4:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 6:03 PM
LotusLand LotusLand is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 612
Personally I think you can have a good mix of low, mid and high rises and single detached homes etc, which now cost more than $1 million on average apparently http://vancitybuzz.blogspot.com/2010...r-housing.html

Many forms of housing can coexist. Would I like to see more towers? definitely especially around major transit nodes. Something like Collingwood/Joyce but with highrises and public amenities.

As for me, I don't plan on leaving Vancouver and am more than happy living in a condo the rest of my life a decent one for $700,000 can be bought for a family of 3 or 4 and a few pets.

Enough of my rambling. Good discussion here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 6:42 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusLand View Post
Personally I think you can have a good mix of low, mid and high rises and single detached homes etc, which now cost more than $1 million on average apparently http://vancitybuzz.blogspot.com/2010...r-housing.html

Many forms of housing can coexist. Would I like to see more towers? definitely especially around major transit nodes. Something like Collingwood/Joyce but with highrises and public amenities.

As for me, I don't plan on leaving Vancouver and am more than happy living in a condo the rest of my life a decent one for $700,000 can be bought for a family of 3 or 4 and a few pets.

Enough of my rambling. Good discussion here.
Or you could rent this 3-BD 2.5-bath house for $1800/month.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/va...680856216.html

This house comes WITH a front and back yard--for your pets--but WITHOUT any of the following:

1) Property taxes, (.72% of property value)/12=.72%*700,000/12=5040/12=$420/month

2) Strata fees--$0.35 per sq. ft. Assuming 1200 sq. ft--about average for a 3BD, 2 bath condo--that is $.35*1200=$420/month.

3) Mortgage--5 year fixed (you wouldn't want to go with variable now, given that mortgage rates have begun their inevitable rise), assuming 10% down payment, mortgage rate of 5.5% amortized over 25 years, yields a monthly mortgage payment for that 700,000 condo (630,000 of which you need to borrow) of...$3,845.47 per month.

So, your total cost of renting the 3BD, 2.5 bath in a house with both front and back yard=$1800/month.

Your total cost of owning a 3BD, 2-bath 1200 sq. ft condo=420+420+3845.47=$4685.47/month.

Oh, and if the roof on your rented house needs to be replaced, the cost to you (the tenant)=$0.00

You find out that the pool in your condo building is leaking and needs to be fixed. The cost to you as the owner--tens of thousands of dollars.

Why anybody is buying real estate right now is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 6:56 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjauk View Post
You find out that the pool in your condo building is leaking and needs to be fixed. The cost to you as the owner--tens of thousands of dollars.

Why anybody is buying real estate right now is beyond me.
You said it. I'm moving shortly and will be paying $1700/month in rent. People's mouths drop when they hear that number. I try to tell them owning the same place would be 2x or more per month (with less freedom and other issues that coming with owning) and get a blank stare in return...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 8:58 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
I don't. Actually, this is exactly my point. They SHOULD be able to buy a small home... but they don't exist. People will use every sq. ft. they can because the lots are so expensive they NEED to build a minimum of two additional suits just to be able to think about affording the mortgage.

There AREN'T any reasonably-priced family options in Vancouver.

Look at the old bungalows in Vancouver. They were usually two (max three) bedrooms up and a basement. No one can afford to build a place that small anymore.

We have only one choice to owning a house in Vancouver:
Mega house on large lot, must accept tenants to survive.

My contempt is misplaced, I know. It's not the home owner that is completely at fault. If there were options for those that wanted a SFH that didn't involve strata or condo-living... things would be different.
Perhaps laneway houses will solve some of the owner/tenant conflicts you allude to. From what I've heard, much of that conflict (smelly cooking, noise, etc.) results from living in close proximity in houses that weren't designed for two families. Laneway houses would eliminate a lot of that.

I've always wondered about the row houses in London, that are now largely divided up into flats. Were they just more solidly built, or are the English more tolerant of noise etc?

Interestingly, there are some new mortgage rules coming itno effect that will have a big impact on buyers using rental income to qualify for a mortgage:
http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/0...omebuyers.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 9:06 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
I don't. Actually, this is exactly my point. They SHOULD be able to buy a small home... but they don't exist. People will use every sq. ft. they can because the lots are so expensive they NEED to build a minimum of two additional suits just to be able to think about affording the mortgage.

There AREN'T any reasonably-priced family options in Vancouver to buy.
Fixed that for you. Real rents in Vancouver have been dropping for a couple of decades. It's cheaper to rent today than it was 30 years ago, yet real estate prices have trebled or quadrupled during that time. Does that seem right to you?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 9:08 PM
mrjauk mrjauk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
...

I've always wondered about the row houses in London, that are now largely divided up into flats. Were they just more solidly built, or are the English more tolerant of noise etc?...
They're generally built with brick, not wood and gypsum board, as are the homes here in Vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 9:45 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmk View Post
???

there are a lot of variables that can determine birth rate. one of them is where you live in relation to the urban centers. urban centers generally have smaller birthrates mainly because women have more access to employment, the living spaces are smaller and more expensive, and there is generally more things to do than have sex and raise kids.

also the birthrate is very very important to canada and vancouver. right now, the first baby boomers are hitting 65 and you can expect a good proportion of these men to be dead in 10 years. in 15-20 years, expect the first of the baby booming women to follow plus more men.

now we all know that birth rates are low and we are not replacing these elderly. also, we can not rely on immigration to replace these people because this is a global phenomenon. maybe there will be further rural/urban migration...

therefore, expect the population to decrease. all this talk about density is not going to matter much.
Oops

I was being sarcastic in my comment. It was the statement that Vancouver is to blame for the low birth rate in Canada. That I felt was unjust. There are many reasons for the low birth rate. But Vancouver itself is not to blame of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2010, 10:06 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
I don't. Actually, this is exactly my point. They SHOULD be able to buy a small home... but they don't exist. People will use every sq. ft. they can because the lots are so expensive they NEED to build a minimum of two additional suits just to be able to think about affording the mortgage.

There AREN'T any reasonably-priced family options in Vancouver.

Look at the old bungalows in Vancouver. They were usually two (max three) bedrooms up and a basement. No one can afford to build a place that small anymore.

We have only one choice to owning a house in Vancouver:
Mega house on large lot, must accept tenants to survive.

My contempt is misplaced, I know. It's not the home owner that is completely at fault. If there were options for those that wanted a SFH that didn't involve strata or condo-living... things would be different.
Besides the idea of having tenants to survive.

Another way and how I ended up being lucky enough. Is the split mortgage. I along with my parents, brother and his girl friend. Bought the house I currently live in back in 98. When of course the price was at least 50% lower. Eventually my brother and his girl friend moved out. And I bought out there portion and now live in the house myself. But don't own the entire thing. The rest is owned by my parents.

So I could easily see other families getting together to purchase a house. Especially if the the parents have lived in the area since the 60's or 70's. And can use the equity in their current home to purchase a new home.

Also there are probably people who bought a small condo years ago and saved as hard as they could for the down payment on a something bigger.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2010, 2:04 AM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Oops

I was being sarcastic in my comment. It was the statement that Vancouver is to blame for the low birth rate in Canada. That I felt was unjust. There are many reasons for the low birth rate. But Vancouver itself is not to blame of it.
And lets not forget the baby boomers.

I remember the 'pig through the snake' metaphor, about how the boomer population will cause disruption all through their lives. I was reading a few years ago that with the boomers retiring (starting this year), this starts the cycle of downsizing from home to condo to retirement home to nursing home to funeral home, with no boomers left in 35 years. With the size of their population, there won't be enough younger people (or immigrants) to purchase all their property as they go through this cycle, so there will be a gradual softening of the markets in the next few decades.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2010, 3:07 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
So when the value of my house drops. I can blame my parents
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2010, 6:09 AM
dleung's Avatar
dleung dleung is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,952
Ok, those narrow houses in cloverdale that someone posted... that's not the piecemeal "densification" you see in Richmond or East Van, that's brand new sprawl, 905-Toronto style. You can tell by the way the entire neighbourhood has spanking white sidewalks with setbacks from the street.

Unless it's infill built on former industrial land, in which case I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2010, 10:18 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 2,813
You are correct that it is brand new sprawl and not the piecemeal densification that is prominent in east van.

Even still at least they starting to build narrower homes on smaller lots. Also they have brought the front of the house closer to the property line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.