7 ms·

Sure I mean if we're playing with lines on a graph in a theoretical space then building enough supply can exceed the demand and result in more affordable housin

Sure I mean if we're playing with lines on a graph in a theoretical space then building enough supply can exceed the demand and result in more affordable housing. That's not real life however. In reality supply creation is constrained by real world factors such as time and labour supply and "just add more supply" is not so easy. It takes time. On top of this Airbnb has acted as a sort of friction against supply creation, as when you create a new building, some percentage of the new units were being bought purely to be rented out 100% of the time as a hotel business and were thus never contributing to increasing the vacancy rate. This is why this new policy from the City of Vancouver is explicitly aimed at this sort of Airbnb use. When the City of Vancouver approves a new condo building, which takes years to build, they ideally want 100% of the units in that apartment building available for local renters.

pkaler 9y ago
This is not theoretical. This is the exact same process that took place in Victoria, Australia. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-reform/reformed-zones-for-victoria https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning...
notatoad 9y ago
>In reality supply creation is constrained by real world factors such as time and labour supply and "just add more supply" is not so easy. It takes time. Ultimately, supply is constrained by cost. And in Vancouver, that's not an issue - if the regulation allows it, converting a single family home to a multi-unit dwelling is so ridiculously profitable that the solution to the housing crisis is to simply change zoning to allow it, and then wait. "just add more supply" really is that easy if you let the market forces work. yes, it's going to take time, but this problem has been ongoing in Vancouver for much longer now than the amount of time needed to fix it.
- munk-a 9y ago
  Vancouver has some special geographic considerations that you need to consider and within the downtown core the conversion away from single family units is AFAIK completely done[1]. Density increases in the downtown core are now being down by removing lower density apartment/condo buildings and replacing them with higher density buildings. I am aware that the nearest city (New Westminster) is developing pretty actively, but there is a deadzone in between the two (Burnaby) that seems to have draconian NIMBY zoning laws. Generally speaking, Vancouver's housing crisis is pretty amazingly interesting and probably is more a result of the incredibly poor transit here[2] than anything else. [1] There may be some single family units remaining in the Denman neighborhood and there are some remaining in Strathcona (near east van.) as well as lots in Kitsilano and the south shore in general, but both of these areas are generally considered outside of the downtown core. [2] Oh yea, we have driverless trains, woo... but there are only three transit lines none of which connect to either of our major universities and poor management of the system has left the lines overcapacity.
  - brailsafe 9y ago
    What makes you think transit is poor?
    - PakG1 9y ago
      Compare to a city with great transit, then you know. I used to think that Vancouver transit was great. Then I started working in Shenzhen. Shenzhen and Hong Kong are awesome at public transit, Vancouver sucks. Part of the problem is that it's difficult for public transit in Vancouver to be profitable because the population density is so low.
      - munk-a 9y ago
        I agree, and part of your message is one of my strong objections. Public transit shouldn't be measured in terms of income-cost for profitability, most commercial ventures come with externalities of some sort and public transit provides a strongly net positive externality effect, it helps to subsidize business costs (cheaper transit can be seen as a subsidy to wages), retail prices (again, paying less gas/time/whatever to purchase a good makes it cheaper and reduces amazon's advantage) and psychology (IMO wanderlust is a real human need, being stuck in pattern for too long lowers productivity) It's a public service and one that society should be happy to invest in. Governments that balance the books on public transit with accountants alone are acting against the societal good.
        PakG1 9y ago
        Fair enough. When I said profitable, I used the wrong word for what I meant. What I meant to say was sustainable. Profitable public transit is easily sustainable. Unprofitable public transit, harder to make sustainable, requires a really serious government commitment, and there are so many other things that also seriously require government equipment. For example, if I had to choose between Vancouver having good public transit and good public health care, I'd choose good public health care. Of course in an ideal world, they'd find funding for two (and more) unprofitable public programs.
      - 9y ago
- Tiktaalik 9y ago
  You're absolutely correct. Vancouver is unlike SF in that it has no issues building new residential buildings. At the moment housing starts in Vancouver are at all time highs, unprecedented for decades, and yet vacancy remains sub zero and housing is very unaffordable. This suggests that even these unprecedented levels of supply creation are unable to meet demand, and there are more issues at play than a lack of supply.
  - bdamm 9y ago
    This is even more clear when you contrast housing supply to population growth. Population growth in Vancouver, Canada has been stable; almost linear, and relatively low. Meanwhile, housing supply has exploded across the region. Yet, housing remains unobtainable to the vast majority of residents. What is going on? It clearly is not a supply problem, and perhaps even worse, there could be a massive supply glut that for reasons I can only speculate has not become available for occupancy.
    - bobthepanda 9y ago
      This is not necessarily indicative of anything; I don't if this applies to Vancouver, but a big portion of why DC and Manhattan have bustling residential demand despite having less population than their historical peaks is that there has been a general reduction in household size due to various factors. So you could have the same amount of people but a much higher amount of households.
    - mrgordon 9y ago
      Normally the news articles say its Chinese investors parking their money in Vancouver housing since it is likely to be stable compared to the yuan, etc.
      - msie 9y ago
        Ah yes, the Chinese investor bogeyman. Apparently there are enough millionaires to cause problems in so many cities around the globe. Yet latest figures put foreign ownership at around 10% max. Let's ignore low interest rates and Canadians bidding against themselves in a hot market.
icebraining 9y ago
> takes years to build It only takes about a year in the US: http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-an-apartment-building/ http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-bui...

pkaler 9y ago

This is not theoretical. This is the exact same process that took place in Victoria, Australia. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-reform/reformed-zones-for-victoria https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning...

notatoad 9y ago

>In reality supply creation is constrained by real world factors such as time and labour supply and "just add more supply" is not so easy. It takes time. Ultimately, supply is constrained by cost. And in Vancouver, that's not an issue - if the regulation allows it, converting a single family home to a multi-unit dwelling is so ridiculously profitable that the solution to the housing crisis is to simply change zoning to allow it, and then wait. "just add more supply" really is that easy if you let the market forces work. yes, it's going to take time, but this problem has been ongoing in Vancouver for much longer now than the amount of time needed to fix it.

munk-a 9y ago
Vancouver has some special geographic considerations that you need to consider and within the downtown core the conversion away from single family units is AFAIK completely done[1]. Density increases in the downtown core are now being down by removing lower density apartment/condo buildings and replacing them with higher density buildings. I am aware that the nearest city (New Westminster) is developing pretty actively, but there is a deadzone in between the two (Burnaby) that seems to have draconian NIMBY zoning laws. Generally speaking, Vancouver's housing crisis is pretty amazingly interesting and probably is more a result of the incredibly poor transit here[2] than anything else. [1] There may be some single family units remaining in the Denman neighborhood and there are some remaining in Strathcona (near east van.) as well as lots in Kitsilano and the south shore in general, but both of these areas are generally considered outside of the downtown core. [2] Oh yea, we have driverless trains, woo... but there are only three transit lines none of which connect to either of our major universities and poor management of the system has left the lines overcapacity.
- brailsafe 9y ago
  What makes you think transit is poor?
  - PakG1 9y ago
    Compare to a city with great transit, then you know. I used to think that Vancouver transit was great. Then I started working in Shenzhen. Shenzhen and Hong Kong are awesome at public transit, Vancouver sucks. Part of the problem is that it's difficult for public transit in Vancouver to be profitable because the population density is so low.
    - munk-a 9y ago
      I agree, and part of your message is one of my strong objections. Public transit shouldn't be measured in terms of income-cost for profitability, most commercial ventures come with externalities of some sort and public transit provides a strongly net positive externality effect, it helps to subsidize business costs (cheaper transit can be seen as a subsidy to wages), retail prices (again, paying less gas/time/whatever to purchase a good makes it cheaper and reduces amazon's advantage) and psychology (IMO wanderlust is a real human need, being stuck in pattern for too long lowers productivity) It's a public service and one that society should be happy to invest in. Governments that balance the books on public transit with accountants alone are acting against the societal good.
      - PakG1 9y ago
        Fair enough. When I said profitable, I used the wrong word for what I meant. What I meant to say was sustainable. Profitable public transit is easily sustainable. Unprofitable public transit, harder to make sustainable, requires a really serious government commitment, and there are so many other things that also seriously require government equipment. For example, if I had to choose between Vancouver having good public transit and good public health care, I'd choose good public health care. Of course in an ideal world, they'd find funding for two (and more) unprofitable public programs.
    - 9y ago
Tiktaalik 9y ago
You're absolutely correct. Vancouver is unlike SF in that it has no issues building new residential buildings. At the moment housing starts in Vancouver are at all time highs, unprecedented for decades, and yet vacancy remains sub zero and housing is very unaffordable. This suggests that even these unprecedented levels of supply creation are unable to meet demand, and there are more issues at play than a lack of supply.
- bdamm 9y ago
  This is even more clear when you contrast housing supply to population growth. Population growth in Vancouver, Canada has been stable; almost linear, and relatively low. Meanwhile, housing supply has exploded across the region. Yet, housing remains unobtainable to the vast majority of residents. What is going on? It clearly is not a supply problem, and perhaps even worse, there could be a massive supply glut that for reasons I can only speculate has not become available for occupancy.
  - bobthepanda 9y ago
    This is not necessarily indicative of anything; I don't if this applies to Vancouver, but a big portion of why DC and Manhattan have bustling residential demand despite having less population than their historical peaks is that there has been a general reduction in household size due to various factors. So you could have the same amount of people but a much higher amount of households.
  - mrgordon 9y ago
    Normally the news articles say its Chinese investors parking their money in Vancouver housing since it is likely to be stable compared to the yuan, etc.
    - msie 9y ago
      Ah yes, the Chinese investor bogeyman. Apparently there are enough millionaires to cause problems in so many cities around the globe. Yet latest figures put foreign ownership at around 10% max. Let's ignore low interest rates and Canadians bidding against themselves in a hot market.

icebraining 9y ago

> takes years to build It only takes about a year in the US: http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-an-apartment-building/ http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-bui...