4 ms·

I'm shocked by how long it's taken for these steps to be made. Very little has changed since I first came to Vancouver 20 years ago - limited geography (mounta

I'm shocked by how long it's taken for these steps to be made. Very little has changed since I first came to Vancouver 20 years ago - limited geography (mountains north, ocean west, US border south); desirable location (most moderate climate in the country, stunning natural beauty, closest to Asia); lots of international press as "most livable city"; low density zoning right next to downtown; etc. The issue was not /as/ bad back then, but the "Crack Shack or Mansion?" online quiz, wherein you had to guess if a house was a drug den or a $1,000,000+ property was 13 years ago. Affordability has been an issue for decades. Governments have gone through the steps of limiting foreign ownership of housing and AirBnB, but changing zoning is new. Probably because of NIMBYs and established homeowners not wanting to lose their newfound real estate wealth. However the cost-of-living increases in food prices and interest rates post-pandemic are making affordability the top concern in the country, and the federal government's polling numbers are in the toilet. The provincial BC NDP are very, very popular and have been in power for several years, so I think this is really a sign that the tides are turning IRT polling and popular opinion. Maybe boomer and gen-X homeowners are starting to realize that an extra $500,000 in home value isn't worth your kids staying in the basement into their 30s, an insurmountable gap between wages and housing, or homelessness (there's also the substance debate, which is beyond this news.) There's a brilliant YouTube channel called "About Here" which I highly recommend for those interested in the socioeconomic challenges facing Vancouver. The cruel irony is that a place so commonly lauded as "most livable" has so many issues that make living here difficult.

snapplebobapple 3y ago
Wouldn't the boomer held single family land be worth way more with higher density zoning allowed? Isn't it more like an extra 500k in my pocket and my kids moving out is worth trading the back yard and garage for a slightly smaller apartment/rowhouse and utilizing public parks for what was once done in the backyard, while mostly taking transit/uber?
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  You'd think so, but... - a lot of people (especially those who have owned their homes since the 70s or 80s) probably don't want to rebuild or have a year of construction in their yards as they approach retirement - if everyone turns their single home into 2-4plexes, the supply will meet demand and prices will plummet massively, especially in the outer suburbs like Maple Ridge, Langley, or Tsawwassen that would otherwise be less desirable. Classic game theory. - transit hasn't matched growth and big parts of the region are underserved. Surrey, the largest suburb and soon to have more population than the City of Vancouver, has 4 stations on the SkyTrain system. Vancouver has 20. Burnaby, the next suburb (yet less than half the population of Surrey), has 11. - Both Uber and transit have some issues, like the requirement for commercial drivers licenses to drive for Uber/Lyft (an attempt to moderate the outrage from taxi drivers) and perceived safety issues on transit (my own brother-in-law has been assaulted on the train) It really is the perfect storm of a city that is growing way faster than was ever envisioned; the opioid crisis (related but tangential from this discussion); external influence from "most livable" lists and expatriate investments; high immigration with no limit on where you settle (section 6 of the Charter) making most people go to Vancouver or Toronto; the geography of the area; and the politics of the region being one of the few places in the country where the 3 largest parties all have a chance in many ridings (meaning more promises and concessions made.)
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    1 isn't relevant to property value directly. You don't need to build in this case, the land value is higher because once you do sell the land can be much more profitably developed. 2. If we're playing game theory (and we should be) then this is wrong, as it will drive up Vancouver land prices (since that's the area people want to live) and push down suburb land. NIMBYism is a whole bunch of localities playing the exact same exclusionary game, so if this was something that was a main point of contention for the nimbys Van proper nimby's would be in favor, which they mostly aren't. Maple Ridge, Langley, etc. don't have a say at the local NIMBY level over Vancouver and so wasn't really considered in my claim because they don't matter. If everyone was operating on game theory contingent on this idea, Vancouver could approve this, collect their higher land prices and Langley could stay low density and it would solve a lot of this housing problem and each city would rightly have no say in what the other did. Van is still against so caring about the housing price in Langley obviously isn't driving their NIMBYism. 3. Transit and uber issues affect pricing dynamics in the suburbs, which I wasn't talking about. Your original post mentions Vancouver, not the suburbs.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

Wouldn't the boomer held single family land be worth way more with higher density zoning allowed? Isn't it more like an extra 500k in my pocket and my kids moving out is worth trading the back yard and garage for a slightly smaller apartment/rowhouse and utilizing public parks for what was once done in the backyard, while mostly taking transit/uber?

SpecialistK 3y ago
You'd think so, but... - a lot of people (especially those who have owned their homes since the 70s or 80s) probably don't want to rebuild or have a year of construction in their yards as they approach retirement - if everyone turns their single home into 2-4plexes, the supply will meet demand and prices will plummet massively, especially in the outer suburbs like Maple Ridge, Langley, or Tsawwassen that would otherwise be less desirable. Classic game theory. - transit hasn't matched growth and big parts of the region are underserved. Surrey, the largest suburb and soon to have more population than the City of Vancouver, has 4 stations on the SkyTrain system. Vancouver has 20. Burnaby, the next suburb (yet less than half the population of Surrey), has 11. - Both Uber and transit have some issues, like the requirement for commercial drivers licenses to drive for Uber/Lyft (an attempt to moderate the outrage from taxi drivers) and perceived safety issues on transit (my own brother-in-law has been assaulted on the train) It really is the perfect storm of a city that is growing way faster than was ever envisioned; the opioid crisis (related but tangential from this discussion); external influence from "most livable" lists and expatriate investments; high immigration with no limit on where you settle (section 6 of the Charter) making most people go to Vancouver or Toronto; the geography of the area; and the politics of the region being one of the few places in the country where the 3 largest parties all have a chance in many ridings (meaning more promises and concessions made.)
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  1 isn't relevant to property value directly. You don't need to build in this case, the land value is higher because once you do sell the land can be much more profitably developed. 2. If we're playing game theory (and we should be) then this is wrong, as it will drive up Vancouver land prices (since that's the area people want to live) and push down suburb land. NIMBYism is a whole bunch of localities playing the exact same exclusionary game, so if this was something that was a main point of contention for the nimbys Van proper nimby's would be in favor, which they mostly aren't. Maple Ridge, Langley, etc. don't have a say at the local NIMBY level over Vancouver and so wasn't really considered in my claim because they don't matter. If everyone was operating on game theory contingent on this idea, Vancouver could approve this, collect their higher land prices and Langley could stay low density and it would solve a lot of this housing problem and each city would rightly have no say in what the other did. Van is still against so caring about the housing price in Langley obviously isn't driving their NIMBYism. 3. Transit and uber issues affect pricing dynamics in the suburbs, which I wasn't talking about. Your original post mentions Vancouver, not the suburbs.