
Without affordable housing, Vancouver risks becoming an economic ghost town - eigenvector
http://business.financialpost.com/entrepreneur/fp-startups/without-affordable-housing-vancouver-risks-becoming-an-economic-ghost-town
======
gorkemyurt
One of the main reasons of the housing crisis in the Bay Area is Prop 13
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_\(1978\)))
Prop 13 basically keeps the property taxes constant (or 1% increase) as the
value of your house increases (doubles or triples). Your tax gets re-
calculated only if you sell your house and the new owner starts paying
potentially multiples of what the previous owner has been paying in taxes.
This works great for older people who own property they can basically stay at
their home forever, but it creates an unfair situation for new comers in the
area and the newer generations.

How are property taxes calculated in other places in the world? Vancouver?
London? Tokyo?

This is such a hard problem to solve, no one wants to force elderly people to
move because of a bull real estate market, but you also need young hard
working people in your city for economic growth. My solution would be to jack
up the real estate inheritance tax and allocate that money for public
transportation and affordable housing.

~~~
rdlecler1
Those house owning elderly you're feeling sorry benefitted from the biggest
bull market it history. They may have saw 100x gains on their house while many
youth will are spending 30-50% of their income on housing if they're lucky to
get a good job. If they do, they can look forward to paying entitlements to
these elderly people while they themselves may never see the same turn done to
them because the system will be bankrupt by then. I don't see why the elderly
should be any more immune to economic realities than everyone else. If you
can't afford to live in your house or city any more, at least you had an
opportunity to roll the dice and make the best of your life there. Others
won't even get that. What about the people who will never afford to, people
who might have made a positive net improvement to the economy if we weren't so
concerned with protecting people. If it gets too expensive, let them sell
their house and go live out their lives very comfortably in a low cost city
and open the room for people who are going to contribute to the economy that
has to pay for their entitlements.

~~~
rayiner
It's insane. The people who don't work live close to the business districts
collecting social security paid for by the people who do work who have to
commute in from afar for the privilege. Then the people who don't work vote
themselves favorable property tax rules so they don't have to pay their fair
share of keeping up the city.

~~~
Grishnakh
I disagree. If the housing costs shoot way up, why should those people
suddenly pay more money? Did a real estate bubble suddenly make it more
expensive to police the area? I don't think so. The city doesn't need more
money, it needs to stick to its budget.

~~~
rayiner
It's not about raising more money, it's about fairly apportioning the tax
burden. Why should two homeowners with the same value of property pay
different amounts of taxes just because one is old and has owned the house a
long time?

~~~
adiabatty
On the other hand, why should your tax bill go up simply because other people
are willing to spend increasingly large amounts of money to buy a house like
yours?

It's not like income tax where your tax bill only goes up when you get more
money to pay it with.

~~~
greeneggs
One can argue that it should be the opposite of an income tax.

If the value of your house goes up because you remodel the kitchen, then it
seems fair that you should be able to pocket that value. You did the work, so
your taxes should not increase.

If the value of your house goes up because the government opens a new light
rail station nearby, then you did nothing to earn this, so it seems fair that
society should be able to get higher taxes from you.

In a speculative bubble, you did nothing to earn the extra value, but---
arguably!---neither did the government, so it is less clear cut.

~~~
carboncopy
Agreed. The current system is controversial because there is a dichotomy
between what entrenched residents and newcomers pay to that government.

I assert it's a problem with a non-trivial solution.

------
msvan
It seems like many major cities of the world are experiencing this problem,
and no city has been able to come up with a good solution. It always leads to
displacement and newspaper articles about displacement, but no real solutions.

Here are a couple of solutions:

1\. Build really tall. Hasn't worked out all that great in Hong Kong, though.

2\. Rent control. This is often unfair and inflates price of non-rent
controlled apartments.

3\. Tax the living crap out of property speculation. Not sure if this has been
tried anywhere, and I'm sure it would be unpopular among many middle class
home owners as well. I'm still rooting for Georgism.

4\. Accept that it's a lost cause and move on to the next underdog city that
will stay un-gentrified for the next 10 years.

~~~
api
I think it's a symptom of something else: the hyper-centralization of
relevance and cultural center of gravity in only a few places.

When I was younger (1990s), I don't remember it mattering _so much_ where you
were located. I've spoken to older people and they concur: they've all said
that when they were young being in, say, Indianapolis or Toledo was not a big
deal.

Today, at least in the USA, there's a strong sense that you're nobody unless
you are in one of about eight big coastal cities. Nothing happens anywhere
else.

I'm talking about perception here. You can argue that this isn't really true,
and that you can do anything most anywhere, but the cultural _perception_ is
that you're nobody and can't do anything unless you are in NYC, SF, LA, etc.

I'm a startup founder and have been told by several people on several
occasions that we are doomed because we are not in the Bay Area. I'm in SoCal
but apparently if we're not in SF or its Southern suburbs it's impossible to
succeed as a tech company. Obviously I don't believe this, but the meme is
strong. If enough people take this stuff seriously, it's going to contribute
to a hell of a property bubble in SF/SV.

I still don't understand why this is the case, especially since the Internet
was _supposed_ to have the opposite effect. By making information globally
available and communication easy, the Internet was supposed to flatten the
world and make place less relevant. Instead I've noticed a strong and obvious
trend in the opposite direction since circa 2000.

I can only comment on the USA, but what I see elsewhere seems to support this
being a global thing. London has gone totally insane for example. I wonder if
the Internet is actually having a paradoxical centralizing effect here,
allowing larger cities to broadcast their cultural "signal" and then have that
signal amplified enough by network effects to make them appear exponentially
more and more influential. This in turn drives a feedback loop in which talent
and ambition is drawn increasingly to these cities, etc., and the rest of the
country is hollowed out.

It's actually part of an even larger trend. Since 2000 _everything_ seems to
have gone increasingly power law: wealth distribution, geographic relevance,
education, etc.

~~~
otoolep
As far as I can see this is _exactly_ what is happening. More powerful
computers and communications are amplifying the power of individuals, and as a
result making relationships even more important. And cities have always been
the places of innovation and relationships. Just even more so now.

~~~
api
But it's not just cities. Philadelphia and Baltimore and Atlanta are big
cities, but they aren't the right cities. It's a small number of them. It's
not just urbanism, but also brand.

~~~
hackercomplex
I think it may just depend on what it is you're trying to accomplish with your
career. Take Atlanta since you bring it up. Atlanta already is the number one
place to be globally for a career in Information Security which is a
significant chunk of the tech community even though it's not nearly as flashy
as social-web. Atlanta is also becomming a nexus for email-related startups
(it's really not just Mailchimp there are several major ones here when you
look at volume of email sent). Turner is headquartered in Atlanta, as is Coca
Cola, Home Depot, CNN, and more.

Atlanta has become a really excellent city for graphic artists and design
firms because companies such as Cartoon Network pull artists in from the
global market, and then these artists stick around and end up engaging with
the local startup community. In other words Atlanta is becoming a designer hub
(and the city's close-enough proximity to Disney helps boost this effect)

In addition it's also a nexus for medical startups probably due to the fact
that the CDC is here.

~~~
api
Those are good points and I don't disagree at all, but I was talking about
perception more than reality. There's still this immense perception that if
you're not in the top five you don't exist, and I think that's one of the
factors driving real estate hyperinflation in those places.

The other funny phenomenon I've noted is people _assuming_ we are in SV and
asking whether we are "down in the valley" or "up in the city." I say "we're
waaaaaay down in the valley... like eight hours South." I bet companies in
Atlanta will give an address in one of Atlanta's burbs and get asked "where's
that? is that in the East bay?"

Maybe the whole thing is just real estate fund or bank propaganda.

------
lazzlazzlazz
If having essentially no affordable housing rendered a city an economic ghost
town, then much of the Bay area and Manhattan would be "ghost towns" \- which,
in turn, would lower housing prices radically.

What might happen to Vancouver is probably similar to other major cities with
housing crunches but an otherwise desirable economic climate: lower wage
workers will be displaced further from the city and forced to commute, housing
prices will remain astronomical and suck much of the gains from the area.

~~~
jessewmc
The problem in Vancouver is the house prices are not driven by economic
activity in the city itself. Bay area and Manhattan prices are a product of
the local economies. Vancouver prices are a product of speculation and wealthy
people who live/have property there but don't work there.

~~~
BurningFrog
So why do speculators choose Vancouver of all places to speculate in?

~~~
eigenvector
1\. Now-defunct Canadian Immigrant Investor program allowed you to buy
permanent resident status in Canada, thus avoiding any potential future tax
discrimination against foreigners. Unlike the US Green Card, Canadian PR
status is permanent, affords all the privileges of citizenship except voting,
and can never be revoked, even if you join a foreign army to fight Canada. A
similar incarnation of this program still exists in Quebec (and allows you to
move to Vancouver on day 1).

So not only can you buy property in Vancouver, but you can send your family
over without worrying about any immigration troubles and always know you will
be able to come live here if you desire.

2\. Canada allows unlimited cash to be brought into the country tax-free as a
gift to a relative.

3\. Any gains from property speculation will be tax-free if a spouse or child
claims the property is their residence. See (1) about ease of getting
immigration status for your family.

~~~
rchaud
>Canadian PR status is permanent.... and can never be revoked

That is incorrect. It can be revoked if the PR does not remain in Canada for
at least 2 years of a 5 year period after it was issued. After the 5 year
mark, most PRs have already transitioned to citizenship.
[http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=727&...](http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=727&top=10)

~~~
eigenvector
You are correct. PRs must be in Canada for 2 of every 5 years, unless they
obtain citizenship. I apologize for the error.

------
api_or_ipa
As someone who just moved from Vancouver to the Bay Area, it's obvious the
issue isn't housing. It's income. My apartment in trendy yaletown was
$2350/month for a very nice 2 bed, 2 bath place within 10 mins of anything in
downtown. Try finding something even remotely as nice around Silicon Valley.

The issue we should be tackling is the low wages seen in the area. The same
developer who could make $100k USD in the valley makes $60k CAD in Vancouver.

~~~
rubiquity
Ding ding ding. We have a winner. While I've never ever considered moving to
Vancouver, I get recruiter emails several times a month for companies in
Vancouver looking for Senior programmers to move there and only offering 80k
to 110k CAD at the most. That is not nearly enough money to live in Vancouver.
Enough to exist but not enough to live.

The problem as I understand it is that a ton of Vancouver's housing is
occupied by children of mega rich people from Asia (mostly China) who are rich
enough to not care what rent costs which drives rent up for everyone else.
There's such a huge l mismatch between housing costs and salaries in
Vancouver.

~~~
edwinnathaniel
I know a company that pays fresh-grad $70k-$75k base salary with 10-15% bonus
almost guaranteed base on company performance (there's a calculation behind it
but the bonus amount is part of your package).

Microsoft, Amazon, starting salary was 85-90k to 100k+ 2-3 years ago for 2
years - 5/7 years of experience.

Salesforce Intermediate/borderline Senior SDET (SDET typically make less than
SDE) starts from 100k base with a bunch of plus plus that can boost their
income to 120k-140k.

OpenDNS lurking well above $100k as well for intermediate developer.

Mogo.ca pays their front-end dev $100k base and this is a small-medium size
company.

It's not the norm but thanks to US-based companies, salary is moving up and
up.

~~~
infinite8s
That's in CAD, correct? The Canadian dollar isn't doing too well, and is
expected to drop to around $.50 USD by year end.

~~~
edwinnathaniel
But we're talking about local issue so currency matters less for this topic.

~~~
CountSessine
Unfortunately, Vancouver housing is being driven by international currencies.
A low Canadian dollar makes houses in Vancouver a bargain for outsiders and
even more unaffordable for anyone earning Canadian dollars.

------
cdnsteve
Vancouver real-estate is like buying gold for foreign investors, without
paying tax.

"suggesting the typical wealthy foreign family buying Vancouver real estate
pays little or no income or capital gains tax"

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/economy/ho...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-
business/economy/housing/the-real-estate-beat/foreign-investors-avoid-taxes-
by-buying-real-estate-in-canada/article26683767/)

~~~
jseliger
This is the best response I've seen so far. Real estate is actually a great
_export_ for cities and countries, at least properly considered:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/1...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/11/billionaire_apartments_they_should_be_an_economic_boon_to_cities.html).

Seattle has a bunch of similar articles about "outsiders" supposedly driving
up housing costs. Which is absurd: steel frame construction and elevators are
very old technologies that allow humans to build just about as many housing
units as can be desired.

~~~
rgoldade
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Vancouver but outside of the _small_
downtown core, there isn't much zoning for density. Government policy has
created a supply shortage.

However, condos come with their own issues as well. There has been a building
boom in Toronto that has it owns issues..
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fears-that-shoddy-
toro...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fears-that-shoddy-toronto-
condos-could-become-future-slums-1.2796979).

I think urban planning is more complicated than simply increasing supply.

~~~
ido
And yet 100% of major US cities that built a lot of housing between 1990 and
2013 have low housing costs:

[http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.price...](http://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/asking.prices.png)

------
legutierr
> There are already enough houses and condos in the city with no lights on
> because no one actually lives in them.

To me, there seems to be a pretty obvious public policy response. Institute a
very high property tax, which is abated on some kind of curve according to the
amount of time the owner or tenants spend living in a property, with no tax
being due if the property is legitimately occupied for more than, say, ten
months.

It might not solve the problem entirely, but at least you would reduce the
effect of a diminution of housing supply that is driven by these kinds of
absentee owners, and that must be driving up rents, at least.

~~~
pascalmemories
And how much do your 'Occupancy Police' cost to administer such a system ? If
it relies on a property owner filling in a form, they're just going to lie to
avoid the cost and without someone going round to every single house and
monitoring it for weeks and months of the year, you have no way to detect
people avoiding the tax.

Super high property tax when I'm not there? Simple, employ a cleaner on some
minimal wage and let them stay there when I'm not in town. When I'm in town,
put them up in a hotel. I'll probably still save money on the property tax and
I can claim to be a caring employer, helping with employment in town. The city
council are evil job destroyers by sticking me with huge taxes.

Scotland implements a 'second home' variant of their 'council tax' [a weird
name for property tax]. Depending on area, it's a locally chosen multiple of
the standard tax. But that's based on whether people declare another property
and there's a lot of overhead in policing it. I doubt if it actually raises
any extra net income.

But what if your empty property is actually from a relative who recently died
and the estate is being finalized? Does that get hit too?

It always sounds simple to just slap extra taxes on rich people (who always
happen to be defined as someone other than yourself), but that often leads to
unfairness to decidedly non-rich people.

Rich people always find a way round these things - they pay lawyers and
accountants to make sure they can. No public policy will ever fix that.

~~~
jamespo
Well let's just abandon all taxation by that argument

~~~
flockonus
Why would you? Tax is a very effective mechanism to control economy. And don't
have to think on extremes even! Very wealthy people are buying condos there
just because it's the best (passive) investment for their cash. If you
increase tax for vacant property it will incentivize selling over time,or at
least renting.. more offer with less cost.

In a macro economical sense Canada already profited from getting foreign $
invested in buying those properties anyway, time to make Vancouver livable.

------
skewart
It blows my mind that the internety tech industry, of all industries, is so
heavily concentrated in a handful of physical locations around the world.
There's this vicious cycle where companies think they need to be in one of
these places to attract the best talent, and employees think they need to live
in one of these places to have the best career options.

Sometimes when I'm at Red Door in SOMA, overhearing twenty different
conversations about startups, I want to scream "We have this thing, it's
called the internet, it makes it super easy to communicate from anywhere!
Let's go! Let's disperse across the globe!"

I mean, I get it. Face-to-face in-person communication is powerful for
building trust, and the valley runs on trust, but still.

~~~
ghaff
It's easy to complain about zoning, tax policies, NIMBY-ism, lack of
investment in public transit, etc. etc. But the reality is that you could turn
all sorts of dials to increase the supply of available housing over the course
of years and decades and you'd _still_ have a situation where not everyone
could live in an affordable condo/apartment in whatever $TRENDY_CITY.

I suspect that the current concentration of certain sectors of the tech
industry in the Bay area is just unsustainable. There's an upper limit to how
much companies can afford to pay for employees relative to other areas, how
much employees can afford to pay for housing, and how long commutes they'll
tolerate.

~~~
skewart
For sure. And the reality also is that people can take job offers and/or move
to new cities a lot faster than builders can build housing.

I don't think building more is a panacea that would suddenly mean two-bedrooms
in Cow Hollow rent for $1,000 in 2017. That said, restricting market rate
construction certainly only makes things worse. And building more would help
at least a little.

------
neptunespear
I live in Vancouver. Well, Burnaby.

Like many Vancouverites on HN I am studying for a comp sci degree, and want to
work as a developer.

I accept that I have to make sacrifices to keep living in Vancouver, such as:

-Living in a suburb (like Burnaby) -Getting roommates/a shared room -Living on a bus route instead of being a 5 minute walk from Skytrain

With those sacrifices, I can find rents for $750-1000/month. $750 is the
lowest one will get for a place relatively close to Skytrain, not too far from
downtown (e.g. Burnaby/New West), and in a clean, low property crime area.

More and more companies are paying $70K+ for new grads (something I wouldn't
have admitted in say 2012), which is about $45-50K take home assuming you max
out your RRSPs. Assuming a "35% of take home salary on housing" rule, you can
afford rent of $1350-1450/month (higher if you gross more).

You can get a lot for that kind of money, like a big 1 bedroom (full lease)
that's 15 minutes to downtown by transit. I dare you to find something similar
in the Bay Area or Seattle, especially with commutes as short and crime rates
as low as Vancouver's.

If you absolutely must live in the downtown core, studios start at
$1000-1200/month in the West End. There is lots of shared accommodation in
Yaletown for <$1000.

I was watching CBS This Morning on Wednesday on the Seattle channel (KIRO),
and there was a story about the nuns having the rent on their soup kitchen in
San Francisco increased by 50%. In BC, the provincial government restricts
annual increases to 2.7% (for 2016) and Vancouver does not have a ward-based
system of city councillors, limiting the influence of NIMBYs far more than in
SF.

~~~
CountSessine
As an established middle-aged software developer with a family living in
Burnaby who cannot move now because of custody issues, I'm going to give you
the same advice I give to all of the engineering co-ops I work with. You
should move out of the Vancouver area as soon as you get your degree.

I don't think that you're ever going to have a problem finding 1 bedroom
accommodations in Vancouver because that's what developers predominantly
build. Eventually you'll probably want to get married and have kids, and then
you'll realize that the GVRD has nothing for you.

The detached home market now largely belongs to rich Chinese immigrants who
made their millions outside the country; you'll never be able to compete with
these folks working in the Canadian economy and paying Canadian taxes. That
will largely rule out Vancouver, Burnaby, and by the time you graduate, New
West, Coquitlam, Poco, and Port Moody. This isn't even a matter of stretching
anymore - this market is completely isolated from CHMC policy now because the
prices are beyond what Canadian home buyers could ever leverage.

Developers have little incentive to build 3 bedroom family-friendly condos, so
you'll have a hard time finding those, too. I wanted to buy one recently and
it was going to cost about $700000. My current 2 bedroom would sell for about
$400k, but I don't think that I want to stretch that far on a single income,
even though it would mean I could get my kids their own rooms.

And really, is Vancouver so great? The mountains are nice, and the downtown is
nice if you're young. But it's a trap for the young - through well-intentioned
tolerance and bad public policy we've created a city that is hostile to young
families. Live anywhere else in North America and you'll enjoy a more
favourable cost of living and/or a better lifestyle.

I'd leave in a minute if I could.

~~~
kilroy123
Why does / did the Canadian government let so many Chinese come in and buy
property like that?

~~~
CountSessine
I'm not sure that the problem has ever been how many Chinese have immigrated,
but how many _rich people who happen to be Chinese_ have immigrated. For
starters, we have an entirely misguided and wrong-headed 'immigrant investor
program' that allows rich people to jump the immigration queue.

I think the problem is deeper than this, though. Most people in Vancouver
actually want prices to stay high; there are a whole lot of home owners in
Vancouver who are counting on that $3M cheque for their house to pay for their
retirement. Its the provincial government that wields the legislative cudgel
here, and they're going to listen to those home-owners waiting for their
Chinese-exit. Worse, much of the BC economy is now based on real-estate;
selling it, buying it, rebuilding it, and renovating it. We've built our
economy on selling rich Chinese people our homes. If the provincial government
intervenes and fixes house prices, it would probably harm the construction and
real estate business; it would be political suicide.

------
hellofunk
I'm curious how this problem is unique to Vancouver. Berlin's real-estate
values have risen some 40% in just the last 7 years or so. New York City, in
the 10 years I lived there, had an enormous escalation in what you get for the
same rent payment, even adjusted for inflation. Big cities deal with this all
over, so how do they deal with this "problem," or is Vancouver somehow unique
in other ways?

~~~
HorizonXP
That was going to be my question.

I mean, look at the Bay Area. They command some of the highest rents in the
country, and many tech-sector workers are able to "get by" because of higher
salaries from their employers. Of course, if you're not in the tech sector,
you're forced to live in more affordable outskirts, like East Bay.

In NYC, they have fantastic transit, so if you don't live in Manhattan, you
can still get to work relatively easily. That infrastructure investment has
helped NYC maintain its desirability.

Meanwhile, Toronto has a similar problem to Vancouver, except we're building
tons of condos. As long as you adjust your outlook to realize that you may
only be able to afford a condominium (to buy or rent), you can make it work.
Otherwise, you can move to the suburbs, but our transit is garbage, so good
luck with that.

Of course, I've simplified my points and glossed over the nuances. But I think
the solution is really: 1) Higher density housing (i.e. high-rise residential)
2) Much better transit 3) Options for affordable rent-subsidized housing in
these developments

If you do those things, I think you'll make it easier for millenials to choose
to stay, and still encourage a diverse community that's not made up of just
high-income tech or finance workers. Places like Hong Kong, Tokyo, NYC,
Singapore, and many more seem to be thriving cities, and I think those are the
factors they have in common.

~~~
Ologn
On a weekday, Caltrain stops going south between midnight and 5 AM. Bart going
east shuts down around the same time.

In Manhattan, subways run all night to the different boros, Metro-north, the
LIRR, PATH, NJ transit etc. run through the night.

People say NYC is expensive, and living on the upper east side or west village
can be expensive. But plenty of safe, cheaper places are a 20 minute train
ride from Manhattan, and even more are a 30 minute train ride (and so on). You
don't get options like that in the Bay Area.

~~~
ghaff
Manhattan is very atypical of mass transit systems just about anywhere and,
even in New York, not all service is 24 hour.

------
ficklepickle
I live in Vancouver. I rent half an old house built in 1941 on a big lot.

It sold twice recently, within a couple months, by the same realtor. They
always collect the rent in cash, never issue a receipt. I know a racket when I
see one, so I had to figure it out.

First, somebody buys a house in cash but puts it in somebody else's name, like
a child or spouse. They get lots of mail sent there. This is to establish
primary residence exemption on capital gains when the house is sold. They make
it look like that person is living there, when it's actually being rented. Two
untaxed sources of income: undeclared cash rental income and the inevitable
capital gains on the sale.

As far as investments go, its a sure win. And I have reason to believe I'm
renting one of these properties. It happens to work out well for me though
cause rents pretty reasonable.

~~~
jeremyt
Sounds to me the rent could be a lot more reasonable with a 5 min
conversation.

------
serge2k
> are warning that it’s going to be nearly impossible to develop this business
> into anything meaningful unless the affordability question is addressed.

one way to address it, and I know this is crazy guys just bear with me, is
that these tech leaders could start paying more money. No hope to afford a
condo at 75k a year? how about at 150?

Vancouver is simply not that much better than Seattle that I would go back.
The salary difference is just too high, especially with the favorable tax
situation in washington and the lousy dollar.

------
alexandar
I lived in Vancouver briefly and worked as a developer. The salaries are
horrible when you factor in living costs. You can get a much higher salary in
Toronto, Ottawa, or Waterloo.

------
branchless
Come to Montreal! It's great here. No way would I want to pledge the rest of
my life to a bank in exchange for the right to exist. Rent controls here.

It's odd: it's like the state understands that banks are bastards.

Montreal has some issues with organised crime but nothing compared to the
organised crime of banking / money laundering through land. I don't have to
pay some gangster $1MM for a shack.

Leave the boomers to their trinkets kids. Walk away. They need your labour,
the rest is just paper.

~~~
johnatwork
\- __It has some ridiculous language issues. __We have the OQLF which goes
from business to business to fine anyone not adhering to the French language
laws. We once got fined for having the accent the wrong way in our signage,
and again for having the wrong verb conjugation in our tagline.

\- __Dumbfounding Bureaucratic issues. __Once when I went to University, I was
able to prove to the Provincial Gov, that I lived in Quebec, but the same
documents were not accepted by the Federal Gov to prove that I lived in
Canada. Meaning I could prove that I lived in Quebec, but not that I lived in
Canada.

\- And it was named the most corrupt Province in Canada.
[http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-most-corrupt-
province...](http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-most-corrupt-province/)

~~~
jpambrun
I'm pretty sure that the OQLF works on a complaint basis.

~~~
johnatwork
Pretty sure no one complained about this.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burgundy-lion-
oqlf-1....](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/burgundy-lion-
oqlf-1.3423616)

Also, as soon as my friend's company who does most of her business to the
States got to a certain amount of employees, they had their agents come in to
switch out all of the keyboards and software into French, and advised to make
internal emails communications in French as well.

~~~
jpambrun
From that article:

>A spokesman for the OQLF said the letter is only for information purposes,
and there are no penalties involved. The agency's goal, Jean-Pierre Le Blanc
said, is to let business owners know that French-language versions of such
promotional stickers exist.

>"This is one of about 300 to 400 letters we sent this month to businesses,"
said Le Blanc. "It's not an investigation. It's not a complaint. It's an
incentive."

I suspect that the keyboard anecdote is inflated.

However, the official work language is French, but that is only because we
don't want the majority to become second-class citizens..

~~~
johnatwork
EDIT - Removed Original Comment

You know what, I'm getting emotional on the Internet.

I'm going to stop arguing here. It's not productive, and there's nothing to
prove.

------
jmspring
Back in the mid/late 90s as Hong Kong was returning to China, the spike in
prices started. I recall Condos in Kits for $200k or so, new build later in
the 90s was still sub $300k. The victorians around there were still reasonable
as well.

In a few short years it went nutty and prices spiked and they've only been
going up since.

Those retiring age sold their places in Van, moved to the Okanagan and prices
there spiked as well.

Weather is maybe part of it, setting and scenery certainly are too. Easy
access to the Pacific Rim is also part of it.

------
Tistel
This is me. I left Vancouver for Toronto 5 years ago. What is not mentioned
(that I saw) is that salaries in Vancouver are also _much_ lower than Toronto
for the same job. Montreal is even cheaper than Toronto and is probably more
fun (if you are bilingual)

~~~
jpambrun
Salaries are also much lower in Montréal. If you are willing to learn French,
you will be very welcome.

~~~
Tistel
I am from NB (Anglo). So I have very rusty French. I am sure it would come
back if I used it. Montreal is a great city. My salary doubled for the same
industry (programmer with CS) going from Van to TO. Vancouver is beautiful if
you like playing in the mountains. I miss the snowboarding and hiking very
much. But I was almost homeless I was so poor out there.

------
ISL
If apartments are 25% vacant on speculation grounds, that's quite a bubble.

I don't intend to do it, but for curiosity's sake: How does one go short on
houses?

"I'll pay you to let me borrow your house and sell it to someone else. Later,
I'll get you an equivalent house." Never heard of anyone doing such a thing,
but at the right up-front payment, I bet someone would take the deal.

~~~
danieltillett
In practice you can't, but you can short the banks lending into this bubble.
Also building companies can be shorted.

The problem with going short on something like housing is the market can stay
irrational longer than you can stay solvent. This bubble is being pushed by
buyers who are not looking to make money, but to get money out of certain
countries and providing a safe haven to flee to. Unless this changes then
things won't get more rational.

If you had enough money you could short the banks and then whip up a media
campaign of anti-foreign investment and xenophobia. Scare the market enough
and you might get it to crash.

------
hardcandy
Vancouver and cities like it became popular because of the critical mass of
fun, interesting, creative, hard working young people who moved there and
created communities. Once priced out, they will just go elsewhere. Other young
people will follow and recreate the same communities with a lower price tag.
Depending on local land use restrictions, some amount of gentrification then
follows. In other words, this is a problem that takes care of itself, to some
extent. Visit Austin or Nashville today and you will see this in action.

San Francisco is an outlier given the extremely dense concentration of high
paying jobs which drove housing into orbit. This makes it much ''stickier''.
However, this entire model is dependent upon the public markets giving tech
companies sky high valuations, which could change. Already I see many of the
more proactive venture firms scouring outside of SF for deal flow,
particularly in these gentrifying second tier cities like Austin, Nashville,
Minneapolis, Kansas City, etc.

~~~
jseliger
_San Francisco is an outlier given the extremely dense concentration of high
paying jobs which drove housing into orbit_

San Francisco's housing policies drove housing into orbit:
[http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-
housing/](http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/). There are numerous
other discussions of this: [http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-
Matters-ebook/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/TheRent-Too-Damn-High-Matters-
ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957).

We have the technology to build lots of units (steel-frame construction,
elevators):
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/03/silicon_valle...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/05/03/silicon_valley_housing_boom_there_s_no_such_thing.html).
"We" just choose not to use them.

~~~
maxsilver
Would that actually solve the problem? Is there anywhere in America where
steel frame construction + concrete walls + elevators is affordable to regular
people? Is there even one example of this happening in the real world?

I haven't found any examples, except in already hyper-wealthy neighborhoods,
or in 40+ yr old buildings in cities that became significantly less desirable,
due to very high crime/poverty/etc. (Detroit, parts of Chicago, etc)

\---

> (From the Slate.com article you linked to) What should be happening in
> Silicon Valley is an enormous construction boom. There should be oodles of
> blue-collar jobs knocking down suburban-style single-family detached homes
> and replacing them with attached townhouses. Right by Caltrain stations,
> there should be huge apartment towers going up. Some people might get
> dispaced out of the individual house they live in, but generally should be
> able to afford to stay in the area

Is that a thing that has ever actually happened -- even just once? It sounds
like a false narrative.

In the real world, the creation of the Highrise adds more units (increases
supply) but does _not_ reduce demand -- because the presence of the new
building makes the neighborhood more attractive, so demand rises even more
than the supply was increased, driving prices even higher. If a hypothetical
high rise has 20 units, the act of constructing it increases demand by 40
units (20 of which the building absorbs, 20 of which are dumped back into the
already-high-demand neighborhood.

I'm in the "low cost of living" Midwest, and even here this occurs. A
developer pays $150k for a single family 4bed home. Tears it down, and builds
3 condos on the site, each condo lists for $250k - $300k and is only 2bed
each. The previous occupants are guaranteed to be displaced -- even if they
could downsize their space needs, they can't afford to double their housing
costs.

Where is this hypothetical place where these brand new condos cost equal-or-
less than the old single family house that was just torn down?

~~~
krakensden
Seattle is currently enjoying falling rents, and is the kind of hip coastal
city that people care about:
[http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/11/bad-
timingas...](http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/blog/2015/11/bad-timingas-
thousands-of-new-apartments-open.html?ana=twt)

For more dramatic numbers, including low prices and a booming population for
many years, you should look at Houston, Texas, Hero Of Housing Capitalism.

~~~
maxsilver
> Seattle is currently enjoying falling rents.

But that's not true, according to your own article.

From your link: "in the core of Seattle, rents went up 3.9 percent year-over-
year in September."

~~~
krakensden
The next sentence, about how growth was 8 percent the year before, is also
meaningful. This is a better/more clear article on the same thing:
[http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2015/12/repo...](http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morning_call/2015/12/report-
finds-alarming-deterioration-of-seattle.html)

> rents dropped this quarter in all but South Lake Union, with the average
> decline hitting $59 a month. Further, when all of these submarkets are
> considered, the average vacancy rate increase was nearly a full percentage
> point.

2015 new construction was huge, the biggest since the late eighties/early
nineties, and construction for the next couple years, based on filings, looks
like it's going to continue that way. So it's likely that apartment prices
will continue fall or hold still.

------
Yhippa
Where does the youth diaspora in Vancouver lead to? The suburbs? Other cities
in Canada or the US?

~~~
cperciva
_The suburbs?_

There's a lot of this, yes. And the suburbs aren't necessarily very suburban:
I live in a 30 floor condo tower in Burnaby, and within 2 block radius there's
a dozen similar towers and twenty more 30-60 floor towers in various stages of
zoning hearings (8) / building approval (7) / digging big holes (2) / towers
going up (3).

There are two major phenomena at play in Vancouver:

1\. Across Metro Vancouver, the supply of land for single family detached
houses is very constrained; this is pushing prices of _detached_ houses up
dramatically.

2\. The City of Vancouver proper is very hostile to development, due to a
toxic combination of NIMBYism, height restrictions to maintain "view
corridors" of the nearby mountains, and social activists who think that
building more housing will somehow make housing _less_ affordable.

But if you're willing to live in a condo and you don't mind living a 20 minute
train ride away from downtown, the cost of housing is far more reasonable than
hysterical media reports would have you believe; and unlike detached houses,
prices of condos have barely kept up with inflation over the past decade.

~~~
darryl42
How confident are you of not getting a multi hundred thousand dollar
assessment when the condo starts leaking or otherwise falling apart? Owning a
condo worries me, no control over the maintenance, no ability to do any
changes to it, no space to start a family.

~~~
cperciva
The roof on your house can suddenly start leaking, too.

Vancouver was plagued by "leaky condos" in the 1980s and early 1990s, but
that's over now: This happened due to a rapid expansion of condo construction
using building designs suited for a drier climate. There have been no signs of
problems in newer buildings.

Stata corporations are normally supposed to have depreciation reports prepared
in order to identify upcoming costs; unfortunately these can be waived with a
vote of unit holders, and most do. The best remedy here is to not buy a unit
which doesn't have a recent depreciation report.

 _no space to start a family_

In terms of $ per unit floor area, condos are cheaper than detached houses.
Sure, you don't get a lawn... but you get access to lots of other amenities.
I'm not convinced that raising kids in a condo is as hard as people think.

------
cdransf
This is becoming increasingly true of LA too. Unless you're rent controlled
and have been there for a while the price for an apartment is further and
further out of reach.

There's construction everywhere but the price of living in those new buildings
is even more than the increasingly expensive older areas and a lot of new
construction has begun with what seems like little to no consideration for its
impact on traffic.

Perhaps developers and the city expect people to use the limited metro system
and other public transit but few people, in practice do.

I can't be that upset though, my wife and I are leaving for the suburbs soon
with no plans to come back.

There's a lot happening in LA in terms of the tech scene, but it's not enough
to outweigh the overwhelming cost of attempting to put down roots there (home
ownership is a largely unobtainable goal, insurance of all kinds is expensive,
every neighborhood suffers from traffic congestion and on and on).

~~~
jgh
I know only one or two people who actually own their own place in LA. Everyone
else rents.

Everyone.

~~~
cdransf
We've been rent controlled for 3 years or we wouldn't be able to be here now.
I know one person that owns a place and everyone I know who's wanted to start
a family has left.

------
ajmurmann
I wonder how much of this and similar cases are based on low interests. You
can't keep your money in the bank because you won't get any interests and at
the same time leveraging your money and buying housing is cheaper. So maybe
the solution to housing prices is significantly higher interest rates?

~~~
GFischer
I think that's one of the causes, the other is the excessive money supply:

[https://positivemoney.org/issues/house-
prices/](https://positivemoney.org/issues/house-prices/)

The issue described is not unique to Vancouver, it's a worldwide phenomenon,
lots of desirable locations across the globe are facing the same (from
Auckland to London to Sydney to Zurich), even in my hometown in Montevideo,
Uruguay, houses are going for ridiculous prices.

A good measure on whether housing is overvalued (IMO) is how many salaries it
takes to buy a house. A good salaries to house ratio was something like 4
yearly salaries, it's currently over 10 for England, with some places going to
20 yearly salaries for a house:

[http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/06/average-
house-p...](http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/06/average-house-price-
rises-times-local-salary-england-wales)

As someone who doesn't own any property, I really hope the housing bubble
explodes. OTOH there are people who have gotten very wealthy just by
inheriting and holding property, who must dread the same scenario, but where
can they safely store their value? As mentioned, interest rates are very low
or negative.

~~~
ap3
>As someone who doesn't own any property, I really hope the housing bubble
explodes.

Where were you 5-7 years ago?

~~~
throwaway_xx9
I was sitting on large bank and calling real estate agents in the Bay Area ...
who either committed suicide or left the industry. So no house for me.

------
sandworm101
Vancouver's problem isn't the house prices. The problem is to a large extent
caused by the author of this piece, the Hootsuite CEO. The few tech companies
in vancouver don't pay. They expect the city to provide them a steady flow of
over-educated 20-somethings willing to work long hours for only slightly more
than rent. For the last 15 years the city has provided just that. The
complaints now are that those 20-somethings want to own stuff. They want a
house. They want to own a dog that isn't left alone 10+ hours every day. They
want families. So it is time to let them go and demand the city provide a new
flock.

What every company in Vancouver seems to want is an employee who is desperate
for work but also independently wealthy. That might seem a conflict but in
Vancouver it is normal. There are thousands of young people here who are
supported by parents who have enjoyed the rise in house prices. They are
desperate for work, but don't much care about the pay because they have
support. Hootsuite's problem is that many of those kids are now in their
thirties, mom and dad have moved, and they want to have an actual life of
their own. That cannot happen at 30k in a city like Vancouver.

(Lets see how long it takes for this comment to hit a nerve. Hoot is a social
media company with eyes everywhere.)

~~~
vvanders
Man, lots of parallels to game-dev here. You see an almost similar problem,
albiet that it means the average career is ~3 years instead of being a
geographical migration.

~~~
sandworm101
I used to work in the Vancouver film industry. I remember an interview with
some of the Stargate people where they laughed at the fact that most of the CG
guys working on the shows final years (SG Atlantis) were in diapers when SG1
started. As soon as the novelty wore off and they wanted pay, everyone left.
Anyone who thinks actresses age quickly in Hollywood, look at the teenagers
who work in CG.

------
HorizonXP
Just realized that a lot of people in this thread may be Canadians looking to
shift around.

If you're interested in working on cool engineering problems in Toronto,
e-mail me.

------
jbarham
I lived in Vancouver from 2000 - 2005. Left when I got married and worked as a
software engineer in southern California until the end of 2010. Got fed up
waiting for the green card so moved to Australia (my wife is an Aussie) and
currently live in Melbourne. Reading articles like this I'm very, very glad I
chose not to move back to Vancouver. Sure it's expensive to buy a house in
Australia, but rent is relatively cheap. We're paying $1700/month for a
3-bedroom house in a nice neighbourhood 15 minutes by train from downtown
Melbourne. Now that we have 3 boys I would never consider moving back to
Vancouver. Low salaries, very high housing costs and non-stop rain in winter.
Makes no sense at all if you have kids.

------
theworstshill
Meh... article is pushed by special interest groups. Their concerns could be
addressed very quickly by raising their employees salaries. Especially since
vast majority of companies sell services to the US, and get more CADs than
before with the current exchange rate.

~~~
rchaud
The Vancouver economy is not 100% tech, there are many, many businesses
(logistics, banking, retail, etc.) that have no exports to the US. Can I ask
where you are getting your data?

~~~
theworstshill
Thats true, but did you read the article though? It addresses tech industry in
several paragraphs at the very beginning. The older tech industries might be
CAD-orientied, but any new startup aspires to be global and charges in USD.

------
tetraodonpuffer
sure, you can't buy a house in Vancouver anymore on a normal salary, but
nothing prevents you from living in Surrey, there are plenty of towers going
up around the skytrain at Surrey central and King George where you can get an
apartment for less than 200k

Yes, it's not Vancouver city, and yes, it's not a house, however via skytrain
you can be downtown in a little over 40 minutes and get work done on your
laptop in the meantime.

You don't need a house to survive, it is nice, yes, but many many many
millions of people live and bring up families in apartments in Europe, so it
is definitely doable.

Of course it's annoying to think that 12 years ago you could get a nice house
in kits for 400k, or a 1000+ sqf condo downtown for 200k, but what can you do,
same deal as buying a lottery ticket or joining a startup that makes it vs one
that doesn't. The mountains and nature and weather are available whether you
live in vancouver or in one of the suburbs

Metro Vancouver is over 2m people, Surrey is the largest city in the metro
area actually, even if Vancouver proper becomes a "haven for the rich" there's
plenty of other areas where one can live, the problem is that a lot of tech
companies can't seem to see beyond "gastown is trendy" or "let's go to
yaletown" or "downtown is where it's at", when they could easily set up in
other skytrain-served area and attract more folks that don't like the commute
downtown.

It is true, what you could do 10-15 years ago, buy a house within 30 minutes
of downtown on a normal salary is not possible anymore (just like it wasn't
possible back then to do that for a house in Point Grey) but it is still quite
possible to live here, given the amount of immigration that the area is still
getting.

Townhouses and condos in Surrey or Langley are still very affordable, the
commute is annoying, but from what I hear from friends in the valley it's not
like traffic there is that great either, at least up here you can sit on the
skytrain and get things done or read a book rather than be stuck in traffic
and have no alternatives because there's no decent public transit.

~~~
ghaff
This sort of thing is true broadly. It's a bit more complicated in California
because the South Bay is also very popular and very expensive, but the trendy
areas of many downtowns have, over a relatively short period, become very
popular with, among others, a certain young & educated demographic that really
has turned them into luxury goods.

This has arguably long been the case in some places like Manhattan. Going back
decades, living in a crappy tiny apartment in Manhattan rather than, heaven
forbid, Queens was a thing for recent graduates. But, at the same time, tech
was generally moving _out_ of metropolitan Boston and the computer companies
were mostly out on the 128 and 495 corridors.

~~~
rconti
The Bay Area has been really bad about building, but some of the huge
explosions in housing, for example the big towers going up in Redwood City,
might finally help alleviate a bit of pressure.

~~~
ghaff
Of course, that won't help the folks who don't want to own a car and do want
to live in SF and be part of the urban scene but there are probably a lot more
opportunities for adding housing south of SF--where most of the tech
employment is anyway.

~~~
rconti
Well, it won't help folks who want to live in SF, of course, but it's right on
the Caltrain line. I would definitely say you could get by in downtown RWC and
commute to SF if you desire without a car.

------
sshrinivasan
The price-to-income ratio, a good indicator of affordability is quite
ridiculous here. It should be around 4, i.e your home value should be 4 times
your gross household yearly income, its closer to 12 here. I believe in this,
and though my family makes a good income, in order to meet this ratio I had to
move further out to Richmond. Don't regret it at all, since it eases the
stress of requiring two well paid jobs just to live a decent life. But the
lack of available rental properties, rampant foreign speculation, low interest
rates is a pretty perfect storm.

~~~
sliverstorm
Does the fixed price-to-income ratio actually hold meaning across a wide range
of mortgage interest rates?

------
empressplay
Melbourne's just as horrible. So's Sydney. So are a lot of places.

~~~
tajen
So what's happening with this general trend? Does it mean some smaller cities
have stagnating prices and people are leaving? Or does that mean the money
we've given to China for 30 years is finally buying out the world? Or does
that mean that everyone is afraid of a bubble and invests since 7 years in
land?

------
gniv
Previous discussion (also today) here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086981](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11086981)

~~~
dang
Ok, we merged the threads. Thanks!

The current article seems to be the original source, so we'll keep it.

------
yarrel
Vancouver is becoming a store of value rather than a city.

------
epx
I see that as a worldwide problem, as interest rates tend to zero.

In Brazil, real estate prices are completely out of touch with median income
(at least, the rents are still affordable, because the typical landlord owns
only one or two places and simply needs to rent to cover taxes and
maintenance, he cannot sit on them).

Economists and governments paid too much attention to the inflation of the Big
Mac and forgot real estate and other hard assets. Also, govts have a huge
incentive to allow real estate bubbles: tax revenue, abundance of blue-collar
jobs while the construction frenzy lasts, illusion of prosperity for whoever
already owns the home, etc.

Yet another possibility is that too many people need to put dirty or excess
money in a 'safe' investment. I hear that Chinese buy a lot of real estate in
London, Vancouver, etc. At least here in Brazil, the money you have in a bank
can be frozen in a milissecond if you are suspect of a crime, but controls
over real state are very lax, so a lot of corruption money goes into real
estate, which fuels the bubble.

------
fm95
Slightly off topic, but is the supply significantly higher than the demand out
in Vancouver? I've always wondered how companies could get away with the
abysmally low salaries for dev roles vs anywhere on the east coast relative to
living costs.

~~~
swizerguos
Yes many people love Vancouver because of the weather (esp relative to the
rest of canada) and the proximity to nature there are also a lot of recent
ubc/sfu grads and kids from other Canadian schools who find van desirable.
This combined with few roles to begin with gives you the current situation

------
ksec
There are lots and lots of empty Housing from Tokyo, HK and Sydney and
Vancouver, most belongs to Chinese investors. We have empty housing sitting
here, acting as a way to park money and yet we have so many suffer from
housing price inflation.

If we Tax of empty housing for prolong period of time, like 6 months, which
should force the owner to rent out its place, balancing some of the supply and
demand issue.

IT DOES NOT solve the housing issues. Far from it, but it is one fair way to
get more money to government and stop the price hiking so much.

------
grayfox
Currently residing within Vancouver.

We love it here, but we have accepted that it is not where we will be able to
put roots down.

My partner and I work remotely, we'll enjoy our time here then buy a home
elsewhere...

Like maybe Hawaii. :)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Funny, the last two people I know who moved to Hawaii, moved back a year
later. I'll have to find out why. But they must have a good reason - this is
Iowa, and its currently 16 degrees.

~~~
ghaff
I know people who love it. But it's expensive and it's a long way from
anywhere. You either live in a pretty soulless city (Honolulu) or in
effectively a beach community of some sort that's often dominated by tourism.

I appreciate why some people are attracted to it but I could easily see it
getting old quickly even if living in a condo near a beautiful beach and ocean
initially seemed like the perfect life. (OTOH, it's sure better than Florida
IMO.)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
One lived in a rural (?) farm commune. Why, I don't know. I guess it got to be
Groundhog Day.

The other, a chef in a touristy restaurant. Made something new and different
every week. He's another story - no idea why he'd give that up!

------
jnowlan
For all these 'bubble' cities (Vancouver, S.F., Seattle, London, ...), I
wonder if the bubble ever pops? Are there examples of the prices/avg. income
getting so far out of whack that things collapse?

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-
hou...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-house-prices)

Detroit probably experienced a R.E. bubble in the day...

~~~
lmm
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_\(Japan\))

Everything is still disputed, but Tokyo real estate prices certainly played a
part. There was no crash as such, but rather a stagnation.

------
pedalpete
Are Yaletown, Coal Harbour and Olympic Village area (I forget what it is
called, I left the Sea-to-Sky a few years ago), no longer the ghost towns of
towering apartments they used to be? Even with the growth of 30,000 people per
year, I can't image supply being a problem at all.

Is there any really viable plan to get the foreign owned real estate on to the
rental market?

------
hvmonk
Yeah, investors are all around in Bay area too. They are making the real
estate market crazy. I have witnessed more than 15 offers on ordinary
properties in South Bay, and well, they are selling far more than the listed
price. All these investors pay all-cash, money gifted from other side of the
globe. It doesn't matter where you work, how much is your salary - you can't
beat these investors.

~~~
rconti
For very real reasons, it's different in Vancouver than in the Bay Area, which
some of the comments touch on.

Not that you're wrong -- we bought in the bay area. Our offer was the best of
13, and narrowly beat out an all-cash offer. Of course, you have to have the
right seller to be willing to "risk" selling it to normal people who have to
borrow to buy, vs the sure thing of an all cash offer.

Guy across the street bid on tons of properties before buying. I think they
had the best of 34 (!) offers. RWC.

------
p4wnc6
I can't help but to quote the full song _Modern Man_ from Arcade Fire's album
_The Suburbs_ \-- which basically was an entire album chronicling this sort of
issue in San Francisco.

 _So I wait my turn, I 'm a modern man And the people behind me, they can't
understand Makes me feel like Makes me feel like

So I wait in line, I'm a modern man And the people behind me, they can't
understand Makes me feel like Something don't feel right

Like a record that's skipping I'm a modern man And the clock keeps ticking I'm
a modern man Makes me feel like Makes me feel like

In my dream I was almost there Then they pulled me aside and said you're going
nowhere They say we are the chosen few But we waste it And that's why we're
still waiting On a number from the modern man Maybe when you're older you will
understand Why you don't feel right Why you can't sleep at night now

In line for a number but you don't understand Like a modern man In line for a
number but you don't understand Like a modern man

Oh I had a dream I was dreaming And I feel I'm losing the feeling Makes me
feel like Like something don't feel right I erase the number of the modern man
Want to break the mirror of the modern man Makes me feel like Makes me feel
like

In my dream I was almost there Then they pulled me aside and said you're going
nowhere I know we are the chosen few But we waste it And that's why we're
still waiting In line for a number but you don't understand Like a modern man
In line for a number but you don't understand Like a modern man

If it's alright Then how come you can't sleep at night? In line for a number
but you don't understand Like a modern man

I'm a modern man I'm a modern man I'm a modern man I'm a modern man_

In a Law of Rents sort of way, I can't help but to think that these phenomena
are self indictments. If land prices are driven by those who can extract the
most value from them, and the result is that wealthy people land-grab property
that even remains vacant in some cases, or otherwise is a living space for a
twenty-something working in finance, law, or medicine, who will eventually
move away and be replaced by some other twenty-something in finance, law, or
medicine, this seems to say a lot more about failures on the part of the
wealthy members of older generations to innovate. If the best a use of that
land is dormancy, sitting like gold in a vault, instead of being a place where
a working class father inspires a child or where a mother teaches her son or
where an artist, like what David Byrne did in the Talking Heads days in New
York, transforms a space into a freeing creative studio ... isn't this
embarrassing to them (the wealthy older generations)? It's basically an
admission that, with the huge wealth endowment and peaceful world they were
handed by _their_ parents' generation, they managed to squander it to the
point where the best use of land, the most inventive thing they can do with
their money, is ... _nothing_. You've got two options: pour your money into
consumer variation bullshit startups, or park it into assets like real estate
that deprive younger generations of opportunity. It seems that wealth and a
half century of the position of passively dominating in Western-led proxy wars
has stripped away any sense of civic duty, or even basic _shame_ at their
failure to use capital to _do_ anything.

~~~
lmm
Those "consumer variation bullshit startups" are providing a lot of value to
people. It's easy to forget how much less fun day-to-day life was even ten
years ago.

I think the main reasons people want to park their money in property in
expensive cities are some combination of 1. uncertainty/flight to safety 2.
thinking prices will go up, perhaps due to undersupply, perhaps due to genuine
value to be produced in the cities 3. for some wealthy foreign investors, an
asset that's not at risk of being seized by a corrupt government.

The wealthy are certainly revealing their uncertainty. I'm not at all
convinced this is worse than the time when the wealthy had absolute confidence
in their grand plans for improving the lot of the unwashed masses.

~~~
p4wnc6
> Those "consumer variation bullshit startups" are providing a lot of value to
> people. It's easy to forget how much less fun day-to-day life was even ten
> years ago.

I think this is _highly_ questionable.

------
pfarnsworth
Nothing has changed in the last 20 years. House prices are still high, and
salaries are still low. There is no real industry in Vancouver except tourism.

At least the rents are somewhat affordable, tho. The gap between house prices
vs rent prices is immense, compared to a place like San Francisco. You can
rent a 2 bedroom in the West End for ~$1500.

~~~
messick
"Direct spending on Film & TV production in British Columbia (BC) totalled
more than $2 billion in 2014 making Vancouver the 3rd largest production
centre in North America"

[http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/film-
television/](http://www.vancouvereconomic.com/film-television/)

------
sergers
i live in a subburb 30km outside vancouver.

have a 3000sqft house with a $600k mortgage.

my yearly income is 90k before taxes/deductions.

my mortgage is $2500.00 a month (a bit more than half months wage).

my property tax is ~5000.00 year

my house insurance is $1200.00 a year

my car insurance is ~$1300.00 a year

my city utilities is about $120.00/month

my car gas is about $400.00/month

my house natural gas is $150/month

my house hydro electric is ~$200/month

that just covers the necessities minus food.

i have friends who live in downtown core vancouver, paying the same as me for
600sqft condo.

that is more than half my gross income, very not affordable. thinking about
relocating. can keep same position and just move remote... also had career
change opps in dallas, ny, californa, etc at $120k+, better than here... but
my whole family is here... my whole life is here.

tough decisions... always thought more money would lead me away, now lack of
affordability will instead.

------
falsyvalue
This article and thread hits pretty hard for me. I was born in Vancouver and
I'm getting pretty worried that Canadian salaries aren't enough to live in
Canadian city. To any of you living in Vancouver and working remotely, do you
have any advice for getting into that?

~~~
cdelb
Not a remote job per se - but my side project which pays me in USD is working
out quite well since the Canadian dollar started sliding. The economics of a
building small side project have improved dramatically if you can get paid in
USD and live in Canada.

------
thomasfl
The situation is very similar in Norway's capital city Oslo. Single family
homes all a round a small downtown. Crammed between the fjord on side and the
great woods protected by politicians, it's runninh out of free space.

------
neves
Article summary: Vancouver is expensive, their young, creative and fun
population will leave because they can't afford a house. Let's burn down its
antique building restrictions, and build big skyscrapers where no neighbor
knows each other, now the young, creative and fun population can live in a
gray place and become old, dull and boring.

Hope they can read a little of Jane Jacobs:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities)

------
yaroslavvb
Vancouver is on the way to becoming the bar from the joke "nobody goes there
anymore, it's too crowded"

------
mwnz
Take note, Auckland. The same dynamics exist there.

------
simple212
why don't the young people left Vancouver create a city of their own?

~~~
stolk
...with blackjack and hookers! As a matter of fact, forget about the city.

------
volune
Monoco s a ghosttown...

