Ohrn:
I’ve been a participant in the endless slogging to make using the bicycle as transportation into a legitimate type of behaviour. It took a long time, and it isn’t over, but this sounds like the start of another such attempt.
And really, it makes so much sense. Things are changing, but it seems to take so much time and effort to change the underlying assumptions around the public conversation.
One could argue our obsession with single-family homes as the only option is both entitled and unfounded, especially when you look at how other families in other cities live.
Here’s an opinion that rarely gets heard. In fact, it may be that rare thing – an attempt to change the conversation.
.
I was also pleasantly surprised to see this article; as there are many more housing options than the 4-bedroom detached houses the staff at The Province and Vancouver Sun think are all that exists on this Earth. And the discussion is more grey than black-and-white. The suburban dream house template carried around in the affordable housing conversation is currently the unmarked category; and as such, it needs to be called out and challenged.
This isn’t to imply that these types of houses aren’t more expensive here for whatever xenophobic or normal supply-and-demand reasons you choose to recognize. But there are other housing options and the picture is not all doom and gloom.
If you feel you are entitled to a cheap split-level ranch with a 2-car garage just because you have a pulse and some money burning a hole in your pocket, then either quit watching so much television or move to Alberta. You will surely find the lower sticker price on a large house worth the higher costs of driving everywhere for every single errand and trip outside of the large house. If you prefer to rent or live in something smaller, and enjoy the proximity to sea and mountains, then you might as well stay; because these other housing options cost the same in the Lower Mainland as they do in Edmonton or Calgary.
I’m in favour of apartment living, but in my opinion the condo ownership structure, as it exists in Canada today, is a poor solution.
How many horror stories are there of people’s condo fees going through the roof (pun somewhat intended) to pay for some expensive maintenance item?
Condo buildings have become a commodity, so every step of the way (development, engineering, procurement, construction, sales, and operation), the name of the game is cutting costs. This means that everyone cuts corners along the way until the individual condo owner is left holding the bag when, inevitably, some major repair item comes due.
The incentives need to be shifted so that apartment dwelling is not such a financial risk for the individual owner.
Also required are sufficient number of condo/apartments to allow larger families, even families of 3 where space for a home office is required (making a 3 bedroom unit much more useful), let alone larger families.
In effect, there is a family size Apartheid happening here … those with families (unless they want to cram into a 2br unit, which is certainly not impossible, but is another discussion in itself) forced elsewhere.
Let’s all be clear – this wasn’t an article/opinion, but an advertorial by Westgroup to help them sell their condos.
This is marketing, pure and simple.
This “don’t have a million” campaign is suuuch childish, egotistical, entitled garbage. The celebration of victimhood in our culture is pernicious and ubiquitous.
I don’t understand why people apparently just can’t seem to make it in the wealthiest, most accommodating, most bursting-with-opportunity society in human history. They need more hand-holding!
Alexis De Tocqueville spoke of government with “an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their [citizens] gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was not to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood…”
An interestingly severe reaction. I could not disagree more with your entire interpretation and think that the unending moral panic over housing prices is childish, egotistical – and certainly entitled – garbage. All these ‘don’t have a million’ people are saying is, “Buck up, you pansies, and quit whining about not being able to afford your Malibu Stacy Dreamhouse.” Quite the opposite of everything you claim.
Important discussion to have, but that info sheet needs a rework. The ‘housing stock’ pie chart simply does not square with the numbers.
The ‘% of families living in condos’ numbers look fishy to me, it seems to consider renters and owners rather than just owners as the rest of the sheet is focused on and it seems to hinge on the exact definitions of ‘family’ and ‘condo’, not sure how they manage to make international comparisons on such narrow definitions.
Looking at households, in CoV 49% of households own, 33% of households are part of a condo development (some of which are occupied by renters). As for the comparisons, 40% of San Francisco households live in ‘Apartments (owned or rented, us census definition)’, in CoV that’s 60% (owned or rented, census canada definition), climbing up to 80% if one throws in row houses and duplexes.
Based on the lowest mortgage rates ever seen in Canada. When these same people have to renew in 5 years they’re very likely to be screwed if they’re only putting 5% down.
The 5% mortgage also includes a 30 year amortization. So you wouldn’t even qualify for CMHC insurance. Then they predict you’ll get a 2.7% fixed term without CMHC insurance. So you’d basically need to have a perfect credit score and no chance of default whatsoever.
Then after fees you’d need $1,707/mo to carry this tiny place. That’s likely to be over half of take home for most people. Then what about interior maintenance, or extra assessments?
Never mind that the River District is built awkwardly in the middle of nowhere with mediocre bus service and a pathetic lack of nearby shops and services.
Who writes this BS?
Hmmm…
Came across this interesting commentary in a TFSA article that touches on that big .. “WHY?” bigger houses question:
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/tfsa/if-you-like-the-tfsa-now-the-ndps-uncertain-plans-may-give-you-pause
Indeed that is good tax advise. If it is good public policy should be debated. Unclear why not even the NDP has suggested to cap the tax free portion of your house, to say $2M or the top 80% of an average house price in cities.
Property taxes, land transfer taxes AND capital gains taxes on houses, given the vast tax leak by both Canadians and non-Canadians, need to be reviewed and likely increasd as people shift their behavior rationally. Why buy an RRSP or make a higher income (i.e. work even more or harder) if one can make even more money – tax free – in a bigger house ?
If we treated any gain, say over $2M, as a capital gain on sale of every house cities would likely have enough money to fund subways, homelessness issues and other urban issues currently underfunded.
I don’t see anything there that explains the big house phenomenon. On nearly every piece of property in Vancouver, the size, age and condition of the house varies in importance from trivial to non-existent. In some locations having a house of any kind on the property actually reduces the value because it forces the new owner to pay for demolition.
It’s true that Canadians should have some retirement savings other than their house, but I certainly never will. During my first decade post graduation I was able to save nothing thanks to underemployment. Later I got better jobs, but took on a mortgage and then child care expenses, again leaving nothing for retirement. The kids no longer need daycare, but they eat more than us and in a few more years will want money for post secondary education.
For me retirement is going to mean downsizing, staying healthy and then dying suddenly so there’ll be enough left to care for my widow.
The first data point on the infographic is remarkable (if it is correct). 25% reduction in the number of single family homes in Vancouver in just one decade is a huge change, and that alone must be a huge component of the increasing price for SFHs. My guess is that the rate of SFH loss is accelerating, but then I live near the Cambie corridor. The next generation will have different expectations of “home ownership” than mine, just as my generation had different expectations than my parents’.
Unfortunately in the second data point (“Housing Stock”), the graphic does not correctly represent the data presented. This kind of error makes me suspect the entire piece is poorly researched and not trustworthy. It is, after all, a marketing piece by a condo developer.
I hope the Huff Post (or someone) will do a real journalistic follow up, because this perspective on our housing story gets very little coverage compared to the impact of foreign investment.
Frances Bula has some information on the number of SFHs (it’s complicated): http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/has-the-number-of-single-family-houses-in-vancouver-shrunk-by-20000-or-not-at-all/
Statscan figured out “single detached” homes were actually multiunit when they kept getting multiple data points from the same address. Statscan is more concerned with the housing form (“single detached” is one dwelling without shared walls with another dwelling, ie not an RS lot with basement suites, though interestingly a laneway house is classified as “single detached”), so there will be a significant shift to multifamily in Vancouver over the coming decades, and not because of condos and townhouses exclusively. One day the coffee will be smelled.
Last time I ran the numbers in ’12 or so I though Statscan had it pretty much accurate. Logs of ” single family” residences according to BCCA and the City, but Statscan (correctly) reassigns them as multifamily.
Yap, just looked at that the other day. Most of the “single family zoned” areas are only around 70% single family homes. http://censusmapper.ca/maps/89
Ken, falling for developer-backed propaganda does not make for a strong premise.
What percentage of Vancouver’s landmass has been sold to offshore interests? Until we get hard data on where the money is coming from for these purchases, working Vancouverites shouldn’t have to settle for anything less than they did 10 years ago when a SFH was in reach for many of them.
I am yet to fully understand how the housing debate in Vancouver has become so polarized.
The entire debate is framed incorrectly – SFH or Condo. This is a patently false choice, produced by PR machines on all sides of the housing debate.
The issue, as it stands in Vancouver and inner suburbs, is the remarkably poor choice of zoning.
Condos and SFH are not the only option of housing, and arguably both are the least desirable in the region.
SFH encourages under utilization of land in a land limited region, high rise condos offer the least economically viable or sustainable option of housing. With construction costs and CAC on a condo adding up to nearly 200 sq/ft, its little wonder shoe boxes in the sky cost $300,000+.
The focus should be on fee simple housing. Row homes, duplexes, certain types of town homes, small homes.
Admittedly building infill housing and row homes is not the entire solution to the housing shortage, condos do need to remain a part of the housing stock, however these buildings also need to be accommodated with affordability in mind.
Building Trumps, Shangri-La’s, and “Vancouver Houses” (pun intended) does little to help affordability in the region for the vast majority of us.
Fee simple or duplex or similar (strata) are for all intents and purposes the same. Strata with clear lot splitting and no shared space have close to no overhead, but share some hookups (cheaper)