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

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#31

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:27 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…

I live in a downtown area atm specifically for my toddler. We go to the grocery store everyday, we go to the nearby park, he doesn’t mind the transit times. Ever since we changed his seat to face forward, he does love it when we actually use the car, and sometimes demands it (kai che, kai che!), but it isn’t really necessary unless we are going to the doctor or pool. We did choose downtown Bellevue rather than downtown Seattle, however, which has a huge park and not so many of the negatives of Seattle (homeless, drug needles, etc...).

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#32

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

Real estate remains one of last few asset classes where ownership can be obfuscated reliably. This makes it ideal to park money of dubious provenance. If you bring transparency to the system - much like know-your-customer did to banking - this phenomenon will largely disappear. The local residents have reached a point I think for this to happen in Vancouver - and it could spread to other similar cities.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#33

Post by sgt101 » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 4:49 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 aggregate you might be right, but the issue is that people want to live in specific places and are willing to spend their disposable income to get what they want. As more and more people cross the threshold of absolute poverty more and more money is chasing the same physical assets. Housing is not a commodity asset.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#34

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

xvf22 wrote: post #3

The mess has spread from Vancouver to Toronto and is now hitting Montreal hard as well. Article is from February 2018.

How’s Edmonton?

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#35

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:32 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…

Part of what makes cities nice is people actually living in housing. If a neighborhood is significantly underoccupied by residents it kills local businesses that need foot traffic, increases social isolation, and decreases perceived safety.

In practice new planned cities work out badly, because location is everything and cities need an underlying reason to exist. Residents don’t want to move to a place with no jobs, and jobs don’t want to be in a place where it’s hard to attract workers. An interesting article on how Songdo, South Korea is failing even though its location next to the country’s biggest airport should’ve helped it: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/sleepy-in-songdo-koreas...

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#36

Post by mymythisisthis » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #28

pascalxus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 secur…

One of Toronto's nicest neighborhoods (High Park / Roncesvalles) was designed and built by a scam artists.

Though Joseph Phillips wound up in jail for running a Ponzi scheme, he knew what people wanted; a walkable community (small blocks), mixed use residential/commercial, a large central park.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#37

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #12

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…

Foreign investors buy US property because (a) they get a lot of dollars in exchange for all the TVs, cellphones and underpants we somehow cannot manufacture ourselves and (b) US doesn't have much else to offer. US cars? They're "okay" at best. US electronics? Come on, when have you seen a piece of electronic made in the USA last time? We should fight the cause, not the effect.

Chinese people invest in property because they don’t have good experiences with their home financial markets, know-your-customer is a burden, and because it is hard to invest internationally. Everyone else is fine with stocks and bonds and funds and such.

The rest of the world has been asking China to free capital markets for a long time, but there’s not much we can do if the Party doesn’t want to.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#38

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 7:32 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

People don’t want a house, they want a specific property within a specific location. It would be as if you responded to a shortage of iPhones by flooding the market with Motorola Razrs.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#39

Post by Bekwnn » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #28

pascalxus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 secur…

A somewhat popular place in Vancouver for restaurants/night life is yaletown. It's somewhat scuzzy and expensive, but it has brick buildings I guess?

Plenty of fantastic places in Vancouver with character, but I don't understand that one. (And I work there.)

But I know the kind of blandness you're talking about. Richmond somehow is a metropolis that feels like a desert.

Re: Analyst who exposed Vancouver's real estate disaster

#40

Post by Bekwnn » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 7:49 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.

I know a few people who have bought condos here recently; they just want to live here.

While I'm sure most of the market is investment based, there is also a decent chunk of people who just want to live here, even if a lot of them are priced out of the market at the moment.

I'm curious what the %s are.