Back from the Rail-Volution conference in Dallas – and, oh gawd, the email.
But James Bligh insisted I post this video – and since it has gone from about 700 views to 52,000 in like a day, I had better do it now:
What is rich about this video is that through its thick sarcasm it manages to express strong cases both for and against the notion of Vancouver being a “No Fun City”. Enjoy!
.
Terrific video. Best line: “Do you only have fun when it comes to you?”.
I’ll take Portland’s preservation and value of Heritage, funky art scene, grittiness, lack of Stroads everywhere, actually building bicycle infrastructure, building new condos void of green glass and concrete, over Vancouver any day. Vancouver is and always will be a city that relies on its natural surroundings. Could you even make that video if you took out the nature scenes? The answer is no.
Imagine. A 28 year-old complaining to the internet about being bored.
Talk about Portland versus Vancouver is always cringeworthy.
http://www.sightline.org/2009/08/24/portland-vs-vancouver-smackdown/
Those articles are 6 years old. The Chinese have drive the prices up parabolic in just the last 2 years alone.
Wait, what? It’s all the fault of the Chinese? As if all those “old stock Canadian” seniors who have owned west side property for decades have ever tried to bring property values down? As if my very British mother wasn’t also willing to pay a million for a house? As if banks and developers and governments have really done anything to stop a property boom? Come on.
I don’t see how the Chinese are responsible for jailing the homeless and mentally ill in “funky” and “gritty” Portland. (what did i say about cringeworthy? ;-)) Portland culture and affinity to it can be a whole other topic.
http://www.pricedoutmovie.com/
And “keeping portland weird” is subject to the same pressures as Vancouver, with time.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/pricing-out-portlands-artists/Content?oid=15716837
Go a block away from the beach in downtown Vancouver: boring. Or take away the ocean and mountains and indeed Vancouver would be another average city. Highrises, boring plazas, no pedestrian zone, endless car choked residential areas, almost no wow buildings.
Vancouver is defined by its geographic location, not by its buildings or layout.
Take UBC (where I live) for example: stunning views, at the end of a peninsula, great campus, massive trees, awesome Main Mall. Monetizing this strategic location allowed UBC to monetize its land value and build a world-class university and residential neighborhoods. Where else in Canada do we have this ? Or why not ? Because of the geographic location and its surroundings.
Keep denying it Tessa and Mezzanain:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-house-buying-frenzy-leaves-half-empty-neighbourhoods/article27056534/
If we moved to a Texas taxation model this would at least be monetized for BC residents: no state income taxes, 8% state consumption tax and triple the property tax we are used to here.
With no capital gains taxes, fairly lower land transfer taxes (only 2% not 15% or at least PST) and low property taxes, but high income taxes in BC these “residents” make the rational economic choice to buy as big a house as possible, declare their income abroad, or pretend to make little if any here, yet consume healthcare and education/ESL services. This is rational behavior of a high net worth individual with a choice of passports and/or “residences”: one in London, one in New York, one in Hongkong and one in Vancouver.
But ya gotta admit, Thomas, state executions, high multiple payer private health insurance premiums with exceedingly conditional and parsimonious payouts, year round air conditioning, Stepford Wives culture, the near total dominance of the Sub over Urban and 10-gallon cowboy has are just not accoutrements of Vancouver.
MB, did you read Larry Beasley’s article in the Sun today?
Larry Beasley was and is highly respected. As Larry says, the suburbs, or proburbs, are liked and wanted by 60% of the population and they are here to stay.
The cackling by a clique of academics will not cleanse the suburbs of humanity and shuffle them into tall concrete boxes and take away their cars.
Some of our closest acquaintances live in the West End and Kitsilano suburbs.
Larry and the Burbs.
http://ht.ly/U9viF
Every week there are articles in the international press regarding the purchases of residential properties by international buyers in various locations around the world, that have caused steep rises in values. Cape Town and Leningrad are ten times the cost they were 20 years ago. One of the most important reason is that interest rates are just about zero but real estate is generally still providing a yield.
Anyone who is hoping for Vancouver City Hall to lower the cost of real estate can look over the plans for the future. The latest, out last week, is over 100 pages long and talks about a petroleum free city in a few decades. It’s incredibly detailed. It has to have cost a bundle to produce. It reminds one of that other massive study that must have also cost a ton, the one on Transport 2040, or something. One can see that the only mitigation of residential dwelling costs offered by these grandiose plans is communal heating systems, like the Olympic Village and more extensive transit. Methinks prices will not be coming down soon.
See today’s article in Vancouver Sun: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bank+mortgages+bags+cash+behind+chinese+home+buys+vancouver/11485324/story.html
if we taxced them more, they’d come down a hair, but not much. Even if land were free to build a condo today is about $250-300/sq ft, or $300,000 to $375,000 for a modest 1200 sq ft 2BR. Land is about $50 to $300 per buildablesq ft depending on location.
What is happening in vancouver, as you stated, is happening in almost any safe, livable, worthwhile city: Munich. Toronto, Paris, London, Boston, New York, Berlin, Copenhagen .. more in land locked cities or those with stringent anti-development plans.
Money is also not getting any more expensive for a while, so I do not see any reason why this would stop, shy of a worldwide war or a virus killing billions, the Middle East becoming peaceful, or Chinese (Syrians, E-Indians, S-Americans, Africans, SE Asians ..) staying home and not moving abroad anymore.
Plenty of cheap land outside of MetroVan with associated far lower housing costs – if you can handle the boredom, and also far more car dependent unless you are satisfied tpo live on a golf course and drive around with your e-cart.
Unclear to me why even the NDP hasn’t proposed taxing capital gains on housing yet. Any rational person, making at least some decent income has realized that investing in real estate, tax-free, or at least tax-deferred and tax=prefrred, makes far more sense than working harder and getting your marginal $ taxed at close to 50%. I figured that out 25 years ago, but it took me about a decade to slowly get going [more in my book ’80 Lessons Learned” if you care to read it .. it is on amazon ]
As if the city has the power to reduce prices above a fraction of a fraction of one percent, But even if they did have more power to affect affordabiity, the province will invariably slap the city down just as it does TransLink.
The city is free to increase property taxes to any amount. If the city or province increased land transfer taxes, say from 2 to 4%, ie by $120,000 on a $3M home then that home would sell for a bit less, but the buyer would pay the same $3M, more or less, and the $s go to the city (or province) and not the home owner / seller.
Why not charge PST on home sales, as it is consumption, beyond a certain point, not just mere “shelter”, as much as a latte is not just to quench your thirst ?
Why not increase property taxes, say triple them, and eliminate income taxes, like in Texas ? That would be far fairer taxation for MetroVan.
Funny you mentioned the Middle East. Lebanon and specifically Beirut has jumped in value since many escaping Syria have been able to take out money.