|
What's the median income of someone living in C'town or Halifax?
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
It really depends how you measure it, but: More here: CANSIM 111-0009
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
You know how bulls argue that Vancouver is "world class" in order to justify the market? Turns out Seattle has that problem too. http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2014/01/09/seattle-still-world-class-city/ quote:Back in the days when the housing bubble was inflating at full speed, a frequent argument trotted out by home salesmen lamely attempting to justify the ridiculously high home prices in the Seattle area was that Seattle is a “world class city,” and as such, it is reasonable to expect home prices here to be high. edit: jesus, 39k?? Wtf is low income in the east?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
That's a more complicated question. Low income isn`t precisely defined, so here is the income distribution for the two cities: While the median income is broadly similar, Halifax has more people at the lower end of the income distribution, and Calgary has more people with high incomes. The distributions diverge around the 80k-90k mark. Note: Use caution when interpreting the chart, especially at the higher income ranges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
So $55k median household income for Halifax then? I'm seeing an average home price of $260k. Does anyone have a number for median home price? That ratio is honestly not as terrible as I assumed it would be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:So $55k median household income for Halifax then? I'm seeing an average home price of $260k. Does anyone have a number for median home price? That ratio is honestly not as terrible as I assumed it would be. No, according to Statscan, it was 79k median household income in 2011. that chart's individual incomes, which looks like it's about 40k a year or so. That's not exactly an economic hotshot. Bleu fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:You know how bulls argue that Vancouver is "world class" in order to justify the market? Haha I just made a few basic calculations and it turns out despite living in Eastern Europe our family income is higher than that. Two decades ago we were a shithole with literally nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Bleu posted:No, according to Statscan, it was 79k median household income in 2011. that chart's individual incomes, which looks like it's about 40k a year or so. That's not exactly an economic hotshot. That looks like median family income. That level of income would suggest a Price/Income ratio of 3.7, which isn't great but isn't awful either. Vancouver's ratio was 10,.6 in 2011. edit: For context, a ratio of 3.0 or under is considered affordable, 3.1-4.0 is Moderately Unaffordable, 4.1-5.0 is Seriously Unaffordable, 5.1 and over is Severely Unaffordable. Of Canada's 6 housing markets of 1million people or more, 3 fall in the Severely Unaffordable category. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:You know how bulls argue that Vancouver is "world class" in order to justify the market? Say what you will about Seattle, but it's an economic powerhouse. I'm sure it's expensive relative to mean/median American prices, but the survey of prices I've seen have never seemed out of line for a city with Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, Costco, etc and associated 'ecosystems' in the surrounding area. There are a ton of people in the Puget Sound area who are extraordinarily well paid. This is in direct contrast to Vancouver of course, which has virtually no corporate headquarters / business of any real significance. And is eye-wateringly more expensive, especially in the SFH segment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Yeah, Seattle and Vancouver aren't comparable in terms of bubbles. Salaries are way higher, industry is booming and they have a steady influx of external talent, cost of housing (especially buying) is lower, cost of living is lower, no state income tax, and the Seattle housing market already deflated much more during 2007-2009 than Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
mik posted:they have a Price/GDP analysis which doesn't look too out of line Anyways as near as I can tell home prices have been going up most everywhere at ridiculous rates far exceeding the rate of inflation which is a sure sign of a bubble or boom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Yeah, Seattle and Vancouver aren't comparable in terms of bubbles. Salaries are way higher, industry is booming and they have a steady influx of external talent, cost of housing (especially buying) is lower, cost of living is lower, no state income tax, and the Seattle housing market already deflated much more during 2007-2009 than Vancouver. So true on all points. I sold one of my condos in Vancouver, and bought over an acre of land and a nice house on Seattle's east side. There's no comparison on land, cost of living, or better salaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Say what you will about Seattle, but it's an economic powerhouse. There are a ton of people in the Puget Sound area who are extraordinarily well paid. Remember, even the nice areas can bubble and burst. I saw mansions in the most posh of areas while I lived in CA gain and then lose millions of dollars in value over a span of several years. blah_blah posted:and the Seattle housing market already deflated much more during 2007-2009 than Vancouver. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I'm going to be moving to Seattle next month. I'm appalled at how high rents are and I'm actually considering buying a place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I'm going to be moving to Seattle next month. I'm appalled at how high rents are and I'm actually considering buying a place. It's almost as if rent prices derive from monthly cash flows in the local area!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It's almost as if rent prices derive from monthly cash flows in the local area! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
I have a pretty good theory that the toronto housing bubble is funded entirely by drug money laundering. I also have no proof but history will be the judge. When your mayor is involved in crack trafficking its a pretty good bet the reach of trafficking syndicates has reached its peak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
RBC posted:I have a pretty good theory that the toronto housing bubble is funded entirely by drug money laundering. I also have no proof but history will be the judge. When your mayor is involved in crack trafficking its a pretty good bet the reach of trafficking syndicates has reached its peak. It should be regulated but the developers have the local government by the balls and the federal government relies on the housing boom to keep poo poo from getting retarded before 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
RBC posted:I have a pretty good theory that the toronto housing bubble is funded entirely by drug money laundering. I also have no proof but history will be the judge. When your mayor is involved in crack trafficking its a pretty good bet the reach of trafficking syndicates has reached its peak. Well, if Montreal is any indication, the developer mafia in Toronto is just better at hiding their tracks. And you're not so far off: the One Bloor project was initially led by a Kazakh company, backed by a shady and possibly criminal bank - by Kazakh standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
This is a good thread to follow on evaluating the purchase of a condo in Surrey: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=209104
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is a good thread to follow on evaluating the purchase of a condo in Surrey: canada bubble .txt quote:Just signed for the units yesterday, but think I am not getting a good deal out of it just want some thoughts. Not an experienced buyer, so your help is greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
At least it has a happy ending.quote:A big thank you to everyone for your help. Although, wouldn't REITs stand to lose a ton of money if/when the bubble bursts? At least she's diversified, though, and not tied down to one single property.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:At least it has a happy ending. Yes things like a REIT/ETF can tank just as bad if Canada gets into a US style real estate bubble meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Anyway, I've been mulling something else over to bring up with this thread. Does anyone feel like prognosticating on the Oakridge Mall development plans? They look pretty nice to me -- basically another Metrotown, but done according to much more modern design principles (most notably multi-mode accessible rather than car-centric). There are plans for promenades, sidewalk cafes, a massive rooftop park, and tons of residential.  http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/visualizing-the-oakridge-proposal.pdf http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2013/10/oakridge-mall-redevelopment-renders-and-details/ Of course, there's a campaign against the proposal, calling itself "NOakridge", which despite having a huge banner hung on the side of the existing mall has only garnered 47 likes on its Facebook page. It also seems like pretty blatant astroturf by the opposition party in the Vancouver mayoral elections, which is pretty dumb given that this initiative was started while they were actually in power. Anyway, the only concern I have is if the housing bubble bursts midway through construction, and everything is left half-built. On the other hand, given that it's being financed by a $150 billion public pension plan from Quebec, maybe it's pretty secure?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yes things like a REIT/ETF can tank just as bad if Canada gets into a US style real estate bubble meltdown. At least the REIT will be more liquid and you'll be less leveraged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:At least the REIT will be more liquid and you'll be less leveraged. Also: REIT holdings are not all that correlated with residential real estate. Malls, office towers, etc. Obviously a large macroeconomic overlap though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
It always seems so weird to me to build huge skyscrapers next to single family houses. Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just upgrade all the single family homes to 4-6 story dense wood frame? The cost per square foot goes up so quick once you get into concrete, let alone skyscrapers. I think a lot could be done for affordability if vast swaths of single family areas were up-zoned to allow apartments and row-houses, along with upgraded transit in the area. You really don't need insanely expensive to build skyscrapers for density.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It always seems so weird to me to build huge skyscrapers next to single family houses. Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just upgrade all the single family homes to 4-6 story dense wood frame? The cost per square foot goes up so quick once you get into concrete, let alone skyscrapers. It would indeed be pretty weird in that neighborhood, Oakridge mall is already the tallest thing in a 20+ block radius and plopping down towers that are like 8x the height would look pretty strange.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It always seems so weird to me to build huge skyscrapers next to single family houses. Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just upgrade all the single family homes to 4-6 story dense wood frame? The cost per square foot goes up so quick once you get into concrete, let alone skyscrapers. This has long been a problem with Vancouver city planners- they just don't give a poo poo, because nobody making 5 storey mixed-use buildings is raining cash on mayoral candidates. See: Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:This has long been a problem with Vancouver city planners- they just don't give a poo poo, because nobody making 5 storey mixed-use buildings is raining cash on mayoral candidates. See: Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck. Could you expand on what the Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck is? Is it those new condos being built the block or two down from the station?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Could you expand on what the Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck is? Is it those new condos being built the block or two down from the station? Phone posting so I can't dig up all the relevant links, but here's the basic gist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It always seems so weird to me to build huge skyscrapers next to single family houses. Wouldn't it be way cheaper to just upgrade all the single family homes to 4-6 story dense wood frame? The cost per square foot goes up so quick once you get into concrete, let alone skyscrapers. They've rezoned all the lots immediately on the major road grid for up to 6 story development, so this has in fact happened. You can even see it in the picture I linked -- they foresee 4-6 story mixed use buildings all the way along Cambie and 41st. Obviously not all of this will happen all at once (in part because they first have to buy people out of their houses), but several are already going up. Franks Happy Place posted:This has long been a problem with Vancouver city planners- they just don't give a poo poo, because nobody making 5 storey mixed-use buildings is raining cash on mayoral candidates. See: Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck. So, given what I've said above, I'm not sure why you would say something like this. While I haven't taken the time to disentangle that web of developer contributions in the last Vancouver municipal election, I would be really surprised if developers of 5-story mixed use weren't represented, given how much 5-story mixed use is going up. Franks Happy Place posted:Phone posting so I can't dig up all the relevant links, but here's the basic gist. I'm confused as to what the clusterfuck was? The city proposed a big tower in one round of the consultation. The community opposed it strongly. It got removed from the plan. That ... sounds like the consultation process is working?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Also: REIT holdings are not all that correlated with residential real estate. Malls, office towers, etc. They tanked in a big fashion during the US recession:  They are more liquid and also diverse compared for example to a home construction company but still follow the higher level macro trends when the economy goes off the bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Have you ever lived in a wooden building? With crazy loving neighbours? gently caress that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:This has long been a problem with Vancouver city planners- they just don't give a poo poo, because nobody making 5 storey mixed-use buildings is raining cash on mayoral candidates. See: Broadway/Commercial redevelopment clusterfuck. The entire potemkin village is filled with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I'm confused as to what the clusterfuck was? The city proposed a big tower in one round of the consultation. The community opposed it strongly. It got removed from the plan. That ... sounds like the consultation process is working? The city had all kinds of consultations with locals who showed them they definitely preferred (or were willing to accept) a big increase in density, but along the lines of 5-10 storey mixed use buildings all along Commercial/Main. The city planners listened, nodded their heads, said "We'll be right back with the final proposal!", and came back with a 37-storey megatower. If you somehow missed that critical part of the article, 37 storeys is, uuh, kind of big and would be just a little out of character for Commercial Drive. At any rate, the key part here is that nobody in the general public was ever shown plans for a tower, a tower was never brought up in consultations, and a tower is a terrible stupid loving idea that is so clearly the result of the development industry buying Vancouver city council that I don't even know what to say. For the record, the same poo poo happened/is happening in North Vancouver along Marine Drive, where locals were ambushed with a massive tower that doesn't fit the neighborhood and isn't remotely necessary from a densification standpoint. Edit: I can't say how I heard it, sadly, but I was told adding the tower(s) to the Grandview plan was a political decision made by a political appointee who shall remain nameless, but is answerable to Vision and not a normal municipal employee. Lead out in cuffs posted:While I haven't taken the time to disentangle that web of developer contributions in the last Vancouver municipal election, I would be really surprised if developers of 5-story mixed use weren't represented, given how much 5-story mixed use is going up. The big developers are so connected to Vision that they didn't simply attend the big Vision fundraising dinner two months ago, they got to have a private, developer-only pre-soiree cocktail reception with Robertson and the other bigshots. Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Jan 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
etalian posted:They tanked in a big fashion during the US recession: I suspect that that dip the in REITs more closely maps to tradeable equities during that time frame instead of house prices. REITs will suffer if the economy runs aground, but I'm not sure that commercial real estate has been as bubbly as residential. Unless of course, you manage to find the REIT that has invested in single family home properties to rent over the last 6-7 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
^ My feeling also. There's also the whole phenomenon of "correlations go to one in a crisis".
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:I suspect that that dip the in REITs more closely maps to tradeable equities during that time frame instead of house prices. REITs will suffer if the economy runs aground, but I'm not sure that commercial real estate has been as bubbly as residential. Many REITs were also based on holding mortgage notes, so the market price of those immediately dropped like a stone to reflect the value of the underlying securities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:The city had all kinds of consultations with locals who showed them they definitely preferred (or were willing to accept) a big increase in density, but along the lines of 5-10 storey mixed use buildings all along Commercial/Main. The city planners listened, nodded their heads, said "We'll be right back with the final proposal!", and came back with a 37-storey megatower. If you somehow missed that critical part of the article, 37 storeys is, uuh, kind of big and would be just a little out of character for Commercial Drive. At any rate, the key part here is that nobody in the general public was ever shown plans for a tower, a tower was never brought up in consultations, and a tower is a terrible stupid loving idea that is so clearly the result of the development industry buying Vancouver city council that I don't even know what to say. I personally disagree on towers and density. Density in general is Hell, in the planning document I found, they were talking about a whole city block of 27-36 story towers, with other blocks in the 22 story range, and a staggering out through a whole splay of heights down to 4-6 story. All in all it could allow a hell of a lot of people to live, work and shop within 10 minutes walk of a Skytrain stop, which is a good thing. I really don't personally get the opposition to towers, especially from otherwise progressive and environmentally-minded people. That all said, I don't dispute this: Franks Happy Place posted:Edit: I can't say how I heard it, sadly, but I was told adding the tower(s) to the Grandview plan was a political decision made by a political appointee who shall remain nameless, but is answerable to Vision and not a normal municipal employee. and it kinda concerns me. However, I feel like Vision and the non-partisan City staff are doing a pretty good job of tempering the influence of developers, especially through the consultation process. Sure, a tower appeared in the plan that was really unpopular with the residents. But there were multiple iterations of the plan, and additional consultations after the iteration with the tower in. Hell, City Council even went so far as to extend the entire planning process by 12 months, so they will end up with a nearly two year long planning process, which feels maybe a little long (if anything, that's the clusterfuck). Anyway, as I said above, I kinda agree with towers going up, but I respect that residents in Grandview may not, and I feel like their views have been respected by City Council.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 09:47
|
|