Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster • Hacker News Board

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#21

Post by alephu5 » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #14

viburnum wrote: post #11

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

It's not sad at all. It's what people want. If society just thought paying interest on your house was another form of feudalism and refused to play along, I expect you'd see more of your type of city and less of what we currently have.

Not just paying interest, actually paying whole mortgages for other people. Since the financial crisis of 2007 it's unrealistic for most young people to save to pay a deposit on their own mortgage. Where I live they want about 5 years of gross minimum wage just to take out a mortgage.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#22

Post by api » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

viburnum wrote: post #11

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

I have to be contrarian in spite of aesthetically preferring the classical city.

Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me until I had kids. Now everything makes sense.

Young kids require a lot of gear. Hauling all that without a car is hard. Walking and transit take time and kids have schedules or else you get meltdowns. Kids also get bored.

Density helps transit time but kids need safe space to play and that is at a premium in dense cities.

Unpacking and packing young kids into cars is painful. You have to get them in, belted, etc., which for I could go all day.

Not saying you can't do kids in a city, just that the burbs make total sense now.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#23

Post by vpribish » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

ArchD wrote: post #18

gerbilly wrote: post #7

> Yan says there may be some solution—a mix of remedies, new laws, purpose-built rental housing, tax adjustments and so on—that does not mean a collapse in Metro Vancouver’s real estate prices. There never will be a solution because no one will vote for a government that will bring down the value of their home.

I never understood the point of having a 'high-value' home that you can't sell anyway because you need a place to live. Sure, you can say you can move somewhere cheaper and pocket the difference. The problem is that until you actually do that, the cost of living will likely follow the property price increase and hurt your wallet. Unless most of the homeowners own more than one property.

home prices have appreciated far faster than the cost of living during most of people's lives.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#24

Post by closeparen » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

cheez wrote: post #14

viburnum wrote: post #11

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

It's not sad at all. It's what people want. If society just thought paying interest on your house was another form of feudalism and refused to play along, I expect you'd see more of your type of city and less of what we currently have.

The difference in price tells you what people want. Dense urban environments are vastly more desired than freeway sprawl. The group participating in local politics and writing the policies that entrench freeway sprawl are not representative of housing seekers as a whole.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#25

Post by pascalxus » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

vpribish wrote: post #23

ArchD wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood the point of having a 'high-value' home that you can't sell anyway because you need a place to live. Sure, you can say you can move somewhere cheaper and pocket the difference. The problem is that until you actually do that, the cost of living will likely follow the property price increase and hurt your wallet. Unless most of the homeowners own more than one property.

home prices have appreciated far faster than the cost of living during most of people's lives.

don't expect this to continue. In the very very long term, price appreciation of housing will always match inflation.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#26

Post by jdavis703 » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #7

> Yan says there may be some solution—a mix of remedies, new laws, purpose-built rental housing, tax adjustments and so on—that does not mean a collapse in Metro Vancouver’s real estate prices. There never will be a solution because no one will vote for a government that will bring down the value of their home.

I’m guessing most folks in Vancouver aren’t millionaires though, so as long as the policy only impacts millionaires it may not be as politically unpalatable as deliberately crashing home values for everyone.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#27

Post by mertd » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #17

14 wrote: post #9

I wish they just did not sell to foreign investors. And yes I would be fine if other countries did the same, why do I need to own a place in 'x' country? This is, again, capitalism at the expense of the people who actually live in the region. I am not against immigration and owning property but a person or organization who are simply buying up property just to make a profit and have no intention of ever living there…

I don't understand, why can't we simply build more cities? If people are so willing to pay for it, I'm sure there's people who want the jobs. It just seems like such a waste of opportunity

We have other stores of value that don't take up as much space and permanently destroy a finite resource.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#28

Post by jdavis703 » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:12 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #19

viburnum wrote: post #11

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

Not just Sad but also self-imposed. If outside investors and outside countries were buying up all our jeans, cars, tvs and junk foods, we'd be celebrating it all day long. in fact, we even blame other countries for not buying enough of our stuff (balance of trade debate). And yet, when it comes to real estate we act like we can't make more of it. The vast majority of land out there is still unbuilt. Simply start anot…

A city is so much more than the built environment. A city is also made up of its people, and expensive, purpose-built cities seem to lack that human vibrancy.

I’ve been to some of the top-tier “master planned” towns, transit villages and town centers.

At face value they all seem nice, walkable and urban. But they’re also generally extremely bland. They have the same chain retail and restaurant concepts, private security who will chase away anyone who seems undesirable (that is everyone from unsheltered folks, to rowdy teens, to street vendors) and they usually are not well integrated with the surrounding areas.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#29

Post by jdavis703 » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

api wrote: post #22

viburnum wrote: post #11

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

I have to be contrarian in spite of aesthetically preferring the classical city. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me until I had kids. Now everything makes sense. Young kids require a lot of gear. Hauling all that without a car is hard. Walking and transit take time and kids have schedules or else you get meltdowns. Kids also get bored. Density helps transit time but kids need safe space to play and that is at…

Counter-example from the 90s: my mom operated a home daycare business. She’d take all us kids (usually 6 or 7) on the bus and we’d take a trip to the pool, or park or whatever. It’s possible to do fun things with your children without a car.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#30

Post by mistermann » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

pascalxus wrote: post #25

vpribish wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

home prices have appreciated far faster than the cost of living during most of people's lives.

don't expect this to continue. In the very very long term, price appreciation of housing will always match inflation.

In the long run, and in the aggregate (planet earth), but in a globalized world with capital from external economies (China) flowing into specific, highly desirable local economies, this old rule of thumb doesn't rule hold up anymore.