5 ms·

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 co

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.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  1 is a very good point; I have this feeling that homeowning voters in the CoV (I'll get to names below) do not want massive density booms in neighbourhoods that are currently mostly single-family. More traffic, local construction, and the risk of supply meeting demand causing a big dip in value. With the status quo, a single-family homeowner has the same neighbourhood character, same big house, and land value that is still in the millions. That's a status quo I expect most people with homes in the CoV to want to maintain, even if it is a big part of the housing crisis. For 2 and 3, my top-level comment used "Vancouver" to refer to the entire GVRD or metro area (West Van through White Rock and east to Maple Ridge and Langley) because I don't expect outsiders on HN to know the extent of amalgamation. Very few would know Coquitlam compared to Vancouver, and I hoped the description of the geography made that more clear. In other comments I have referred to the CoV specifically, as I did above. The reasons for someone in Kits not wanting zoning changes may be a little different compared to someone in Poco, but the same "screw you, got mine" sentiment remains. And these are some of the most dynamic constituencies both federally and provincially, and turnout always favours older people (more likely to own property) so trepidation about anything to make housing "more affordable" is read as reducing their own worth or beneficial status quo.

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.

SpecialistK 3y ago
1 is a very good point; I have this feeling that homeowning voters in the CoV (I'll get to names below) do not want massive density booms in neighbourhoods that are currently mostly single-family. More traffic, local construction, and the risk of supply meeting demand causing a big dip in value. With the status quo, a single-family homeowner has the same neighbourhood character, same big house, and land value that is still in the millions. That's a status quo I expect most people with homes in the CoV to want to maintain, even if it is a big part of the housing crisis. For 2 and 3, my top-level comment used "Vancouver" to refer to the entire GVRD or metro area (West Van through White Rock and east to Maple Ridge and Langley) because I don't expect outsiders on HN to know the extent of amalgamation. Very few would know Coquitlam compared to Vancouver, and I hoped the description of the geography made that more clear. In other comments I have referred to the CoV specifically, as I did above. The reasons for someone in Kits not wanting zoning changes may be a little different compared to someone in Poco, but the same "screw you, got mine" sentiment remains. And these are some of the most dynamic constituencies both federally and provincially, and turnout always favours older people (more likely to own property) so trepidation about anything to make housing "more affordable" is read as reducing their own worth or beneficial status quo.