These are the world's biggest property bubbles as ranked by UBS

[dc_denizen]

Omg, the denial of reality here. The Vancouver boom/bubble begins and ends with ‘Jina’.

Read this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vancouv...ing-bubble/amp

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Omg, the denial of reality here. The Vancouver boom/bubble begins and ends with ‘Jina’.

Read this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/vancouv...ing-bubble/amp

Even without the influx of capital from China Vancouver would undoubtedly still be one of the most expensive cities in Canada, for reasons that have already been mentioned in this thread. Chinese buyers have just exacerbated a situation that already existed and driven prices higher than they otherwise might have been. You're deluding yourself if you think nobody else would be buying in Vancouver if wealthy Chinese weren't.

[dc_denizen]

Of course it would be a desirable city, just not one with the absurd degree of speculation and flipping that currently characterize it.

Stockholm and Seattle are beautiful and well located cities too

[mhays]

That's a big factor but it's clearly not the only one.

[Capsicum]

But to what extent do those from China prefer Vancouver above and beyond all other cities, enough to inflate that one above all its other possible competitors?

Clearly other cities have the things that would attract Chinese buyers (other West coast cities, California, Hawaii, Australia etc. have the geographic proximity to Asia, the cultural ties, amenities, and even better climates than Vancouver). How come they aren't affected as much (they are, but not as ridiculously inflated relative to the buying power of the locals)?

You'd think those sunnier, warmer, climates, with no less cleaner air or water, with no less natural beauty, no less close to Asia, or any less friendly, would be as good or better targets.

Is Vancouver that desirable that no other city is laser-targeted by Chinese buyers that way? Even after the foreign buyer tax etc., Vancouver still is more desirable than any other Canadian, American or western city for them?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is Vancouver that desirable that no other city is laser-targeted by Chinese buyers that way? Even after the foreign buyer tax etc., Vancouver still is more desirable than any other Canadian, American or western city for them?

Canada has extremely favorable immigration and investment laws and there are no other major Pacific Rim cities in Canada.

[iheartthed]

Ninety-nine percent of these cities are places where limited inventory and strict development policy is driving up the cost, so I doubt there is a bubble. The housing market crisis of the previous decade was driven by housing markets in lower cost suburbs in the U.S. Sun Belt and Midwest which don't have limited inventory or strict policies. The housing markets that fared the best were expensive inner-cities in the northwest and west coast.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 10023

It’s a silly methodology because property prices in central London, NYC, Hong Kong, etc have nothing to do with incomes in these cities.

Maybe not in the most desirable neighborhood, but these are cities of millions of people so a few thousand billionaires aren't enough to meaningfully change the numbers.

Originally Posted by 10023

Even if one isn’t talking about property as a speculative or secure financial investment, these cities are destinations where the global wealthy will own a home for when they’re in town. I would venture to guess that most of the world’s 2,200 or so billionaires own at least one Manhattan apartment, for instance.

In Manhattan maybe, but in Vancouver and San Francisco too? And presumably they're using the median income and median home price so this small group of outliers are completely irrelevant.

[mhays]

Lower that to $100,000,000 and it's a much larger number.

Then add the people earning a mere $500,000/year, who also have a huge effect on Manhattan prices.

Then factor in they people who bought when things were cheaper, and have simply ridden the wave. A small percentage of housing is in the market at the same time, and those are the only ones that determine current values for everyone else.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But to what extent do those from China prefer Vancouver above and beyond all other cities, enough to inflate that one above all its other possible competitors?

Clearly other cities have the things that would attract Chinese buyers (other West coast cities, California, Hawaii, Australia etc. have the geographic proximity to Asia, the cultural ties, amenities, and even better climates than Vancouver). How come they aren't affected as much (they are, but not as ridiculously inflated relative to the buying power of the locals)?

You'd think those sunnier, warmer, climates, with no less cleaner air or water, with no less natural beauty, no less close to Asia, or any less friendly, would be as good or better targets.

Is Vancouver that desirable that no other city is laser-targeted by Chinese buyers that way? Even after the foreign buyer tax etc., Vancouver still is more desirable than any other Canadian, American or western city for them?

nowhere else on the west coast do Chinese immigrants have the critical mass and economic and political power that they do in Vancouver, I imagine.

the BC government, or at least the previous one, also seems in bed with the chinese capital and real estate (remember, we're talking about "socialist" canada here)

#vanre on twitter is interesting to say the least:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/vanre?lang=en

The only American counterpart would be, obviously, Miami from a latin American point of view (but Vancouver is colder, has better scenery, and no beaches obviously).

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by The North One

How did Hong Kong get like this?

Land development is apparently the government's main income stream, and since they auction off the limited amounts of it to the highest bidders, the land values have risen precipitously. This explains it a bit more:

• Video Link

[isaidso]

Vancouver will always be absurdly expensive. If prices fall far enough people will just pile back in again. People want to live there. Pricey real estate is the only thing holding population growth in check.

What BC needs is 3-4 cities like Vancouver. I suppose Victoria and Nanaimo will both turn into mini Vancouvers over time.

[dc_denizen]

Funny, I’ve heard that ‘native’ Canadians can’t afford to live in Vancouver and are being forced out. Meanwhile Lamborghini and Ferrari dealerships are doing a brisk business amongst the sons and daughters of Chinese tycoons.

In 50 years Vancouver will be de facto and de jure a Chinese city.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Funny, I’ve heard that ‘native’ Canadians can’t afford to live in Vancouver and are being forced out. Meanwhile Lamborghini and Ferrari dealerships are doing a brisk business amongst the sons and daughters of Chinese tycoons.

In 50 years Vancouver will be de facto and de jure a Chinese city.

Chinese aren't the only immigrants in Van. Indians have an equal if not greater presence there.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

nowhere else on the west coast do Chinese immigrants have the critical mass and economic and political power that they do in Vancouver, I imagine.

the BC government, or at least the previous one, also seems in bed with the chinese capital and real estate (remember, we're talking about "socialist" canada here)

#vanre on twitter is interesting to say the least:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/vanre?lang=en

The only American counterpart would be, obviously, Miami from a latin American point of view (but Vancouver is colder, has better scenery, and no beaches obviously).

Yes, Vancouver has no beaches, obviously. Just like Chicago and NYC.

Thanks again for the info, dc denizen. lol

[emathias]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ This.

It’s a silly methodology because property prices in central London, NYC, Hong Kong, etc have nothing to do with incomes in these cities.

Even if one isn’t talking about property as a speculative or secure financial investment, these cities are destinations where the global wealthy will own a home for when they’re in town. I would venture to guess that most of the world’s 2,200 or so billionaires own at least one Manhattan apartment, for instance.

Yeah, comparing income to home values is good for measuring affordability for residents, but not for measuring bubbles.

To see whether there's a bubble you'd have to figure out what the median resources (some combination of income and wealth) for interested buyers. In places without external interest that likely matches up well with local median incomes, but in places like New York, London, Hong Kong, etc, it can be really hard to figure out the scope of who is interested.

Even for places without external interest, if you have 100,000 households in a city, and half are renters and so there are only 50,000 available homes, then it's really not the median income for the entire population that becomes relevant it's the median income of people interested in and capable of buying which, in many smaller metros will be highly overlapped (at least 80% overlap would be my guess) with the median income of half of the households with the highest income. In in a place with a high Gini coefficient, you could conceivably have an overall median annual income of, say, $50,000 per household but the lower 50% median is actually $15k/yr and the upper 50% is $85k/year so using a 4x income multiplier for home "affordability" calculations, the overall median would say housing should be priced around $200,000, but in reality the median house cost might be closer $340,000 and not be a bubble nor unsustainable since the upper 50,000 housholds can afford the half of housing units that are owned and not rented.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Yes, Vancouver has no beaches, obviously. Just like Chicago and NYC.

Thanks again for the info, dc denizen. lol

I'm confused, is the beach thing sarcasm or some other droll sort of humor? New York doesn't have a lot of beaches, but it does have some. And Chicago has a number of beaches - a significant portion of its entire lakefront is beaches: Rogers Park beach, Leone Beach, Loyola Beach, Tobey Prinz Beach, Hartigan Beach, Lane Beach, Hollywood Beach, Foster Beach, Montrose Beach, North Avenue Beach, Oak Street Beach, Ohio Street Beach, 12th Street Beach, 31st Street Beach, Oakwood - 41st Street Beach, 57th Street Beach, 63rd Street Beach, South Shore Culture Center Beach, Rainbow Beach, and Calumet Beach. And the vast majority of the parts that aren't beach are still parkland. Granted, not being Miami, there's a significant part of the year that the beaches aren't usable, but there are definitely beaches in Chicago.
Link to streetview showing Oak Street beach.


And New York has Brighton Beach and the Rockaways in Brooklyn, Midland Beach, Ward's Point and South Beach in Staten Island, and a little bit of beach by Whitehead Point in Queens. Of course New York suffers the same weather issues Chicago does. Vancouver does have a few beaches, like New York. But, honestly, Chicago is more like Miami when it comes to beaches than like New York or Vancouver. We just only have the summer to use them. In fact, since most of the beach famous in Miami is Miami Beach, which is only about 3 miles long, it's entirely possible that Chicago has as many miles of beach as Miami does, especially if you don't include Hollywood and Ft. Lauderdale.

Also, New Yorkers have more of a tradition of leaving the city and going to the Hamptons or Jersey Shore for beach activities than Chicagoans do, even though Chicago residents do go to Michigan or the Indiana Dunes sometimes for beach activities. But Chicago's beaches are so good that there's no real reason to travel for beaches in the summer months.

[Doady]

Maybe it is not such a bad thing the Chinese are taking over Vancouver and forcing Canadians out of the city. A place with such an obvious lack of beaches is not worth living in anyways. Even Toronto has plenty of beaches, so the higher cost of living is somewhat justified. Living without beaches as the poor people of Vancouver do is not really living at all. These people don't know what they are missing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by emathias

Also, New Yorkers have more of a tradition of leaving the city and going to the Hamptons or Jersey Shore for beach activities than Chicagoans do, even though Chicago residents do go to Michigan or the Indiana Dunes sometimes for beach activities. But Chicago's beaches are so good that there's no real reason to travel for beaches in the summer months.

New Yorkers leave the city limits for beaches because some of the best beaches on the East Coast are right outside the city.

With Chicago you don't have any world-class beaches within proximity, so less reason to travel. But lots of Chicagoans head to SW MI beaches.

But let's be real. NYC beaches (city proper) suck and Chicago beaches (city proper) are worse. These are terrible beaches by global standards. Really only the Rockaways are semi-decent, because the surf is good for Atlantic standards. But even then, the surf is better further east, on Long Beach, Fire Island, and in the Hamptons.

[10023]

Crawford is correct.

Chicago doesn’t have nice beaches. It has convenient beaches. They are terrible, and overcrowded, with dirty water and the sand isn’t very nice. But you can walk over after work.

New York City has ocean beaches within city limits, but they’re also not very nice, and they’re much harder to get to. If you’re going to the Rockaways you might as well go out to Long Island.

And obviously eastern Long Island beaches are nicer than anything on the Great Lakes. The Hamptons are the best beach towns in the country.