ALR Keeps Vancouver Land Prices Sky High

[Locked In]

^ And what city council are you talking about?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Land use and the ALR, etc. are all gonna need to be revisted at some point in time during the future.

I just pulled the ALR GIS data, exported to a KLM, and individually added up the area covered by the ALR shapes (dividing one in half because it ran from Tsawassen to Chilliwack), and found that it covers 483 square kilometers. This means that Metro Vancouver has about 2,394 square kilometers of non-ALR land.

Adjusting for density given 2006 population figures, this leaves a non-ALR population density of 884 people per square kilometer (versus 735 per square km when including ALR). The Greater Toronto Area has a CMA density of 866 people per square kilometer, while their median housing price was $434,000 in April. Vancouver was $693,000.

Surely a density difference of +2% cannot account for a price difference of +59%.

Something else, other than the ALR is amiss here.

[Yume-sama]

I'd assume developers get more bang for their buck by building one bedroom units. Perhaps the city could "require", somehow, "family" units. Although that regulation sounds more communist, no ?

Of course, downtown you'd be paying $700,000 or so for that as you do now

Two or more bedroom units are in a position now where they are at a premium (due to shortage) and actually sell quite fast, compared to say, a bachelor suite.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins

Maybe I should be more clear. I meant the provincial government and city planners of the GVRD.

And Spork to answer your question, I would suggest that the provincial government remove the mandate that keeps 2/3 of the region off limits to developers.

Anyone else think government making your life style choices for you is kind of scary?

About 1/6, actually. You overestimated by about 50%.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins

Anyone else think government making your life style choices for you is kind of scary?

Yup. Very scary.

[Millennium2002]

For me, not so much. It depends on what they do... if they do something ridiculously insane (e.g. suburbia in the middle of farmland) then that'd be a bad thing....

[Millennium2002]

The requirement you posted there is the only reason why Vancouver has so many tall buildings already... and not only in Downtown, but all along SkyTrain routes (including Brentwood, Metrotown, Joyce, Edmonds, Lougheed, Holdom, Surrey Downtown, Richmond, etc). Remove that, and you won't see any more of these grow for many years... something that many of us will not want to see.

In addition, the land restrictions also allow for the development of "town centres", which is supported in the LRSP. These centres would be relatively easy to serve by transit if they were close together and not spread out. Case in point, the Seattle Link LRT has problems with ridership because much of its route technically runs through not-very-dense suburbia.

I do realize that there are problems with the current method, particularly with a lack of family apartments for a family of 4, for example. Most apartments are (selfishly) designed to maximize profit, and the smaller homes are favoured as a result. I feel the way to solve this, however, is not to loosen the ALR but to rather do some sort of tax incentive / penalty that favour developments containing a certain percentage of family housing.

In some ways I favour the building of public housing developments in Vancouver simply because of the market discrepancies. These developments would ideally be located near transit and other established community services. They should be designed to last the same time as a normal building would, but would contain simplified and more durable furnishings. There would also be a rigorous selection process that will seek the best residents for the developments. This I think would best address the current problems of the housing market.

[EastVanMark]

I think there is a case to be made for putting some of the land currently found within the ALR to better use. There are chunks of land out there that are of poor farming quality, have never even come close to ever have been used for farming, yet fall within the ALR.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins

Your plan also sounds scary. I think the key to lowering housing prices is to abolish the Livable Region Strategic Plan. The ALR can stay, although they should crack down on all the un-productive fields that are on ALR, yet produce nothing. Either farm some food or move over for development.

BTW were you born in Canada or did you immigrate from China? Just wondering because immigrants usually have a lower tolerance for government intervention into their lives since they're used to their government making decisions for them in their home country.

I'm not an immigrant... maybe more of a home-grown socialist. =O

The LRSP could be modified and some farmland taken away for the ALR, but again, I still have those concerns with unchecked development. In fact, the very process of taking land from the ALR may inspire other farmers intent on getting rich quick to "abandon" their farms and we may just repeat the cycle over and over.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins

Your plan also sounds scary. I think the key to lowering housing prices is to abolish the Livable Region Strategic Plan. The ALR can stay, although they should crack down on all the un-productive fields that are on ALR, yet produce nothing. Either farm some food or move over for development.

BTW were you born in Canada or did you immigrate from China? Just wondering because immigrants usually have a lower tolerance for government intervention into their lives since they're used to their government making decisions for them in their home country.

Getting rid of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and or the ALR. Would only give a short term benefit of lower real estate prices. At the end of the day even if we are talking 50 years from now. Real Estate will be more expensive here due to the lack of land in the area.

You want to drop the price of real estate here. Then drop the demand for people who want to move here. With less demand the prices will drop.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by Ace Hobbins

Maybe I should be more clear. I meant the provincial government and city planners of the GVRD.

And Spork to answer your question, I would suggest that the provincial government remove the mandate that keeps 2/3 of the region off limits to developers.

Anyone else think government making your life style choices for you is kind of scary?

Seriously?

Are you personally building your own city to live in? No? You're living in a place that other people built? Then, sorry to say, a large part of your lifestyle is not up to you, never has been, never will be. Especially when you choose to live in a city, the broad framework of your lifestyle is dictated for you by the form of the built environment in which you live. That's just the way it is. People are influenced and moulded by their environment, the built environment no less than, say, the family environment. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I grew up in Edmonton, and a big part of the reason why I prefer it here in Vancouver proper is the built form of the city. Living in a low-density neighborhood, bus service ain't that great. Walking takes a long time. Basically, if I go to work, I have to drive, or spend a long time in the commute. Go to school? Same thing. Pick up groceries? Have to drive. Go to a friend's house? Drive. Go out at night? Drive. What is the result? I spend far more time at home than I otherwise would like. I have the stress of having to drive everywhere. Weekly grocery loads, instead of fresh veggies daily. Less sports - because it's so much more effort to go out and do something. My lifestyle is necessarily built around long daily car trips or even longer transit/walking trips - made the worse for the winter weather. This fundamentally shapes how my everyday schedule plays out - and I didn't choose it. It's dictated by the built form of the community I'm living in.

Living in suburbia dictates that I lead a suburban lifestyle. Just like living in a denser part of Vancouver, I get the luxury of living a more urban lifestyle - which for me means more free time and a more open schedule, less stress, less personal comsumption, more exercise, more time spent outdoors, more social activities to attend, and so on. These things are not really up to me. If I live in a place that's designed to accomodate that kind of lifestyle, then it's easier to live that way. But if I live in a cul-de-sac in Coquitlam? It's damn hard to live a lifestyle that conflicts with the design of the place you live in. Eventually, you either conform, or you move away. Or stay there, and keep struggling, and wonder why you're stressed out all the time.

But this is true no matter what kind of community you live in - your lifestyle is largely dictated by how it's built. That's not bad. That's not scary, or a sign of totalitarian government tendencies. That's just how things work.

I grew up in suburbia, built over what used to be prime farmland, and is now low-density single-family homes. I moved away because I hated it. Suburbia was dictating that I lead a suburban lifestyle, and I hated everything about that kind of lifestyle - but living there, I really had no choice to live any differently.

And it is no different with any future neighborhood that may exist on ALR land. If the region keeps it, then housing prices are higher and developers built denser in existing neighborhoods - and your and my lifestyles is dictated by that development. If the region signs the ALR away for development, then developers will build there instead, likely in a less dense, more suburban form. And still, your and my lifestyles are dictated. The truth is, decisions on the ALR will largely dictate people's lifestyles, no matter which way those decisions go.

But your comment demonstrates an irrational, ideological belief that, while indeed development decisions dictate future lifestyles, somehow, magically, it only works one way. If we keep the ALR and LRSP then we dictate people's lifestyles - but if we scrap them and develop suburbs instead, we... don't? Because only some kinds of developments influence your life... but others don't? Community development model A is 'scary' because it makes people lead lifestyle A, whether they want to or not, but somehow it's fine and dandy when development model B makes people live lifestyle B, with an equal lack of freedom? Residential development of the ALR actually represents freedom, while densification of existing communities and retaining local agriculture represents, what, socialism? Totalitarianism? Slavery? You would really have to explain what exactly you find 'scary', because I am completely baffled as to where these kinds of sentiments come from. They're totally inaccurate, and totally misplaced.

The point is that, yes, keeping the ALR is a decision that affects lifestyles, and will affect them far in the future. By the same turn, the decision to scrap the ALR would also be a decision that profoundly affects lifestyles - yours, and your children's and you grandchildren's, and so on. Which is why it is so important to decide what kind of lifestyles we want our region to encourage, and plan for them. At least with these decisions in the power of our government, you and I can be involved in these decisions, however imperfectly. And it works both ways, however the decisions are made. Just as yours and my lifestyles rely largely on decisions that came before us, future people's lifestyles will be profoundly affected by whichever decisions our government makes, and if you're afraid of one way, then you ought to be equally afraid of the other as well - and thus be scared at the prospect of having any development decisions be made at all.

And if you're only afraid of one way, then your fear is actually just your own personal ideological bias towards city-building, and nothing more.
Sorry for the rant

[vanman]

^Don't be sorry, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Spork

Something else, other than the ALR is amiss here.

The only thing that's "amiss" is that people want to live here. The climate, geography, and yes, the society itself are attractors. Even those most-livable-city rankings, that many of us roll our eyes at, serve to raise prices here. Nothing we do in the next 200 years will stem that tide, unless we turn the Lower Mainland into a cesspool.

There is a price to be paid for living where the rest of the world wants to live.

Cheaper places to live are easily found for those who balk at the price.

[SFUVancouver]

The '2/3rds of the region' being off limits to development statement is actually pretty close to being true. The vast north shore watersheds, regional and civic parks, and Burns Bog all add up many municpalities' worth of land in Metro Vancouver and I think we can all agree that it would not be wise to open these up for residential development.

The ALR is certainly not perfect but it serves an admirable purpose, which is to ensure that the couple percent of the province's land which is arable is protected for farming should the landowners choose to do so. Anyone in the last 40 years who purchased ALR land throughout the province has done so knowing full well that they cannot remove it for development purposes and that it will accrue value slower than non-ALR land. They also knew full well that they would receive astonishingly generous property tax breaks and face no oversight or zoning controls if they chose to build mansions.

The real estate market is what is dictating the cost of housing. There is demand and a limited supply. That demand is fueled by in-migration to the region, young people reaching home ownership stages of life, investors buying the surest bet there is, and people upsizing or downsizing homes as their lives dictate. The supply is limited exclusively by real estate developers who recognize that there is a finite absorption capacity for new home product. If the heads of the real estate development sector collectively lost their minds and they decided to produce 10x their normal amount of product and the banks were insane enough to finance their endeavours, then there would be a glut of supply and prices would briefly fall. I say briefly because everyone invovled would realize that the glut of product would be temporary and the lowered prices would not reflect the true value of the houses in Metro Vancouver. Moreover, when all of the real estate developers collectively went broke because they were unable to move product at their required price there would be no new product built until the surplus was absorbed.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The only thing that's "amiss" is that people want to live here. The climate, geography, and yes, the society itself are attractors. Even those most-livable-city rankings, that many of us roll our eyes at, serve to raise prices here. Nothing we do in the next 200 years will stem that tide, unless we turn the Lower Mainland into a cesspool.

There is a price to be paid for living where the rest of the world wants to live.

Cheaper places to live are easily found for those who balk at the price.

I've been a way for a while and am just dipping back in. It is simple not true that "the rest of the world wants to live" in Vancouver. If that were the case, rents would be sky-high. They're not. In fact, real rents in Vancouver have been declining for about thirty years. That sure doesn't sound like a place for which there is an overabundance of demand for shelter.

Here's a lovely, renovated 4-BR bungalow in the 3800-block of West 21st, which the owners are offering for $3300/month. Given the current vacancy rate, you could easily talk them down to $3000/month for rent. This property would likely sell for about $1.5 million today, given you a price/rent ratio of 500. That is indicative of a massive bubble.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/va...735664022.html

[Yume-sama]

Or, indicative of people paying cash, not having a mortgage, and deeming it a better investment than putting it in the bank and earning 2% interest.

Making money on rent and possibly an increase in property value.

Ultimately, there are quite a few holdings companies that do just that. The investors money is then, in a way, hidden.

[s211]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

I've been a way for a while and am just dipping back in. It is simple not true that "the rest of the world wants to live" in Vancouver. If that were the case, rents would be sky-high. They're not. In fact, real rents in Vancouver have been declining for about thirty years. That sure doesn't sound like a place for which there is an overabundance of demand for shelter.

Here's a lovely, renovated 4-BR bungalow in the 3800-block of West 21st, which the owners are offering for $3300/month. Given the current vacancy rate, you could easily talk them down to $3000/month for rent. This property would likely sell for about $1.5 million today, given you a price/rent ratio of 500. That is indicative of a massive bubble.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/va...735664022.html

Um, er, you might want to annualize that rental amount to give you a proper PE ratio.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

It is simple not true that "the rest of the world wants to live" in Vancouver. If that were the case, rents would be sky-high. They're not.

Um, ok, how about "the rest of the world wants to be a homeowner here"?

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Here's a lovely, renovated 4-BR bungalow in the 3800-block of West 21st, which the owners are offering for $3300/month. Given the current vacancy rate, you could easily talk them down to $3000/month for rent. This property would likely sell for about $1.5 million today, given you a price/rent ratio of 500. That is indicative of a massive bubble.

You could buy that bungalow for about $900/week over 35 years, assuming you could come up with a down payment (I believe the new rule is at least 15% down). So to me it's a no brainer: if you have the down payment then renting that bungalow is less attractive than buying it.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by huenthar

Metro Seattle sprawls over about 9 times the land area of Metro Vancouver... so maybe there's just a lot more real estate on the market?

Are you sure about that? Metro Van plus the Fraser Valley sure feels like a bigger area.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

I've been a way for a while and am just dipping back in. It is simple not true that "the rest of the world wants to live" in Vancouver. If that were the case, rents would be sky-high. They're not. In fact, real rents in Vancouver have been declining for about thirty years. That sure doesn't sound like a place for which there is an overabundance of demand for shelter.

Some people may want to live here. But are unable to for whatever reason. So they wouldn't have an impact on the housing prices or rental prices. Even though they would want to live here.