Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

eXXon posted:

Wait, what do you mean instead of teaching courses? Does UBC rely on grad students to teach courses regularly?

In math (because of how many 1st year undergrads take a math course or two) it's common to have graduate students teach actual courses rather than just TA or mark. There's not enough teaching supply from the faculty alone, and it's better than having adjuncts.

# ? Nov 10, 2014 19:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 02:51

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

It's pretty much a rite of passage for STEM to get the indian or Chinese professor who can barely communicate in english effectively. I'm sure their research is wonderful though.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 02:22

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Cultural Imperial posted:

metronews.ca/news/vancouver/1205950/metro-votes-young-vancouverites-fleeing-to-more-affordable-pastures/#

Gurstein said the city�s efforts to increase the number of rental units (51 per cent of Vancouverites rent) is good, but suggested a housing authority with more power is needed to address home affordability.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Aug 31, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2014 06:45

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hubbert posted:

woop woop SCARP represent

Alright, since you're representing so hard for the urban planning massive, explain to the thread how increasing rental supply is going to make housing more affordable. Go.

I'm not saying you're wrong. As a casual interloper, I'd love to know what learned urban planning professionals are really thinking.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 06:50

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Cultural Imperial posted:

Alright, since you're representing so hard for the urban planning massive, explain to the thread how increasing rental supply is going to make housing more affordable. Go.

I'm not saying you're wrong. As a casual interloper, I'd love to know what learned urban planning professionals are really thinking.

I personally think Vancouver's hosed on numerous levels. I've lurked this thread for the longest time because I'm getting really tired of all the endless unwarranted optimism around the future of Vancouver's affordability - and because this is a nice place to just chill and read "dissenting" opinions.

edit: more in line with the current discussion in the thread - non-affliated housing at UBC is even worse and is a complete shitshow

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 06:54

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Hubbert posted:

edit: more in line with the current discussion in the thread - non-affliated housing at UBC is even worse and is a complete shitshow

Yeah, why UBC decided to sell vast swathes of their precious land to condo developers for a whistle and a song is still an unbelievable :psyduck:

to me. When that whole hullabaloo about the hospice happened, my only reaction was "Why the hell are these assholes living at UBC if they aren't students in the first place?" and then I discovered the aforementioned real estate bullshit.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 07:14

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Rime posted:

Yeah, why UBC decided to sell vast swathes of their precious land to condo developers for a whistle and a song is still an unbelievable to me. When that whole hullabaloo about the hospice happened, my only reaction was "Why the hell are these assholes living at UBC if they aren't students in the first place?" and then I discovered the aforementioned real estate bullshit.

it seemed like a good idea at the time

# ? Nov 11, 2014 07:25

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hubbert posted:

I personally think Vancouver's hosed on numerous levels. I've lurked this thread for the longest time because I'm getting really tired of all the endless unwarranted optimism around the future of Vancouver's affordability - and because this is a nice place to just chill and read "dissenting" opinions.

edit: more in line with the current discussion in the thread - non-affliated housing at UBC is even worse and is a complete shitshow

So what is the SCARP thinking? Do they really take themselves seriously? Do you know Tsur Sommerville? Can I pay you to punch him in the loving face?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 07:32

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Rime posted:

Yeah, why UBC decided to sell vast swathes of their precious land to condo developers for a whistle and a song is still an unbelievable to me. When that whole hullabaloo about the hospice happened, my only reaction was "Why the hell are these assholes living at UBC if they aren't students in the first place?" and then I discovered the aforementioned real estate bullshit.

UBC simply wanted an upfront cash injection to tuck away into their endowment fund, and real estate development was seen as the way forward. 900 dollars a square foot? Dang. Hard to reject that number. Mind you, basically all of the non-affliated housing is on lease-hold title. So yeah, in sum:

etalian posted:

it seemed like a good idea at the time

Anyways, I'm actually doing some work related to the Hospice right now. I can't really talk about it, though, but after deeply investigating into the matter - holy gently caress is the situation more complicated than what actually made it into the news

edit:

Cultural Imperial posted:

So what is the SCARP thinking? Do they really take themselves seriously? Do you know Tsur Sommerville? Can I pay you to punch him in the loving face?

1. Can't tell you. Too many opposing views in the department.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Take it to PMs, we can negotiate from there.

Hubbert fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Nov 11, 2014

# ? Nov 11, 2014 07:54

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Hubbert posted:

UBC simply wanted an upfront cash injection to tuck away into their endowment fund, and real estate development was seen as the way forward. 900 dollars a square foot? Dang. Hard to reject that number. Mind you, basically all of the non-affliated housing is on lease-hold title. So yeah, in sum:

Anyways, I'm actually doing some work related to the Hospice right now. I can't really talk about it, though, but after deeply investigating into the matter - holy gently caress is the situation more complicated than what actually made it into the news

Come on, it's not like your insider information is going to get your rear end bumrushed by the SEC. Throw us a bone

# ? Nov 11, 2014 07:59

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

etalian posted:

It's pretty much a rite of passage for STEM to get the indian or Chinese professor who can barely communicate in english effectively. I'm sure their research is wonderful though.

I had three profs whose English was, shall we say, less than exceptional; however, two of them rightfully acknowledged it, and asked to ask them to repeat themselves if we were unable to understand something they said (coincidentally, they were both excellent professors who knew their poo poo). It was only the dude straight out of grad school who seemed to have no concept that his accent and diction might be difficult to understand.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 08:03

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

The median price of detached houses in Sydney has finally reached 1 million dollars :woop:

# ? Nov 11, 2014 09:24

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Jumpingmanjim posted:

The median price of detached houses in Sydney has finally reached 1 million dollars

How's the economy looking over all? GDP still growing?

# ? Nov 11, 2014 09:31

blah_blah: Apr 15, 2006

Cultural Imperial posted:

Come on, it's not like your insider information is going to get your rear end bumrushed by the SEC. Throw us a bone

I too want to know more about this.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 10:36

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Cultural Imperial posted:

How's the economy looking over all? GDP still growing?

Unemployment on the rise, the price of iron ore and coal collapsing.

She'll be right mate.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 10:42

Saltin: Aug 20, 2003; Don't touch

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Unemployment on the rise, the price of iron ore and coal collapsing.

She'll be right mate.

Course you will be. You can always sell houses, flat whites and sushi to one another while waiting for resources to rebound.

# ? Nov 11, 2014 13:48

Hubbert: Mar 25, 2007; At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Straight from Concord Pacific and built for our Web 2.0 world, here's your chance to explore downtown Surrey (camera phone in hand) so you can win yourself some quality food from Church's Chicken and Fresh Slice. Behold, the Surrey Transformation Selfie Tour!

# ? Nov 11, 2014 21:03

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

God drat I just visited vancouver this weekend and missed the downtown surrey tour!

Also holy poo poo does Vancouver ever have the worst pedestrians of any large city I've visited. Generally in big cities a general pedestrian code emerges out of necessity that sees people keeping right on sidewalks, not just stopping in the middle of the street to check their phone, and keeping right if standing on escalators. Vancouver is worse than even Victoria in this respect, I don't get it. People walked really slow too, like everyone was a confused tourist from a rural town but we were not in the places tourists go.

People didn't even understand the basic metro 101 rule of letting people off the train before trying to get in, causing confusion and jams at the door every loving station. Did Vancouver only get sidewalks, escalators, and train like a few months ago? Or is everyone just so self centered and in their own bubble this pedestrian culture has never developed? Also really bad drivers that honk way too much.

Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Nov 12, 2014

# ? Nov 12, 2014 01:47

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Hubbert posted:

Straight from Concord Pacific and built for our Web 2.0 world, here's your chance to explore downtown Surrey (camera phone in hand) so you can win yourself some quality food from Church's Chicken and Fresh Slice. Behold, the Surrey Transformation Selfie Tour!

# ? Nov 12, 2014 01:50

Throatwarbler: Nov 17, 2008; by vyelkin

Baronjutter posted:

God drat I just visited vancouver this weekend and missed the downtown surrey tour!

Also holy poo poo does Vancouver ever have the worst pedestrians of any large city I've visited. Generally in big cities a general pedestrian code emerges out of necessity that sees people keeping right on sidewalks, not just stopping in the middle of the street to check their phone, and keeping right if standing on escalators. Vancouver is worse than even Victoria in this respect, I don't get it. People walked really slow too, like everyone was a confused tourist from a rural town but we were not in the places tourists go.

People didn't even understand the basic metro 101 rule of letting people off the train before trying to get in, causing confusion and jams at the door every loving station. Did Vancouver only get sidewalks, escalators, and train like a few months ago? Or is everyone just so self centered and in their own bubble this pedestrian culture has never developed? Also really bad drivers that honk way too much.

Sounds like China. :geno:

# ? Nov 12, 2014 02:00

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

Even in loving taipei do they understand that you let people off the loving subway first before you barge your dumb rear end on. The same goes for the loving elevator.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 02:03

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I think that's a problem in most of Canada, because it sure as poo poo happens in Calgary all the time. When people crowd the train doors and I want to get off, I don't even bother asking politely any more, it's common sense to get out of the way, and violators now get body-checked.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 02:17

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Is the joke that Surrey is a bad suburb?

# ? Nov 12, 2014 03:13

JawKnee: Mar 24, 2007; You'll take the ride to leave this town along that yellow line

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Is the joke that Surrey is a bad suburb?

I guess you aren't from the lower-mainland

yeah that's the joke, but Surrey is hardly a suburb

# ? Nov 12, 2014 03:22

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

So as not to piss the forums social justice warriors off, I've attempted a google search for murders in surrey that is as gender/ethnically/social credence neutral as possible:

https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=b8hiVNXQEOaV8QfttoDwDA&gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=surrey+bc+murders

Prostitution:
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=b8hiVNXQEOaV8QfttoDwDA&gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=surrey+bc+prostitution

Domestic violence:
http://www.cbc.ca/gsa/?q=surrey+domestic

Surrey is a shithole in the sense that its residents are the more vancouver than most vancouverites. The housing market is just as batshit insane.

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 12, 2014

# ? Nov 12, 2014 03:43

Lain Iwakura: Aug 5, 2004; The body exists only to verify one's own existence.; Taco Defender

Yeah. I have given up on being polite when I leave the train--body checks are the norm from me now.

Also gently caress anyone from south of the river on transit--they're generally the worst.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 06:19

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

This is why we never should have left the empire, at least in the empire they knew how to queue. :corsair:

# ? Nov 12, 2014 06:24

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/11/the-manufacturing-trap.html

quote:

Oil prices are down lately, and over at the Broadbent Institute, Andrew Jackson is worried about the staples trap:

Building on the seminal work of Harold Innis, [Mel] Watkins argued that the dominant theme of Canadian economic history has been development fuelled by external demand for and investment in the development of Canadian �staples� or resources, from fish and lumber, to wheat, minerals, oil and gas.

While exporting resources can generate great wealth, the danger of such a path is that a staples economy becomes overspecialized in raw material extraction to meet foreign needs, and runs up large external and domestic debts over-developing the resource base and associated infrastructure. These become hard to service if and when external demand collapses, setting the stage for widespread financial dislocation along with painful losses of jobs and output.

You don't hear a lot about the staples trap in most economics programs, although I'm given to understand that it's moderately well-known in political science and "political economy" circles. I know about it because I did my BA at the University of Toronto in the early 1980s. I've never been particularly impressed by the concept, because it indulges one of the least useful memes in economics: the glorification of the manufacturing sector. This glorification has been leveraged by manufacturing sector lobbyists to our collective cost.

Here is a graphic representation of the staples trap taken from The Bitumen Cliff (here I must give credit to one of my students, who used the French version in a blog post):

quote:

This is the accompanying text:

Canadian history has also affirmed that resource development creates powerful political interests that advocate for their industry based on the belief that resource extraction is the primary means of economic development. All of these factors (fixed costs, ecological scarcity, monopolies, political interests, resource-dependent policy mentalities, and regional specialization) are listed as rigidities in the chart (top circle).

Resource-based development can bring impressive economic expansion (for a while, anyway), making the rigidities seem like strengths. However, economies do not stand still. As the global economy shifts towards new technologies and core resource inputs, the staples are no longer demanded in the same quantity or at the same price. When this occurs, the inflexibility of resource-dependent regions can create new problems of adjustment (bottom-right circle).

Given economic and institutional rigidities, resource-based economies respond to these problems of adjustment by searching for new staples, or extracting even more of the same staple. These resource-dependent economies desperately seek new export markets to rekindle their status as �marginal� staple suppliers (returning back to the bottom-left circle). This pattern compares unfavourably to other economies, which might adapt to economic change through consolidation and the discovery of new technological opportunities.

What strikes me about this is that there's nothing in here that is specific to staples. You can replace 'staples' with 'manufactures' and you'd have a workable representation of the economy in central Canada - especially Southwest Ontario. Let's look at a reworked version of that first sentence:

Canadian history has also affirmed that manufacturing creates powerful political interests that advocate for their industry based on the belief that manufacturing is the primary means of economic development.

That rings true to me. Protectionist policies for manufacturers and a home-grown - but curiously not exportable - theory that equates a large manufacturing sector with economic development dominated Canadian economic policy for more than a century. Does anyone remember any political party campaigning for a "National Policy" (sic) to defend the natural resource industry? Me neither.

In fact, the 'manufacturing trap' story probably fits the facts better than that of the staples trap. Let's look at a couple of points often raised in discussions of the staples trap:

Foreign ownership: Here is Andrew Jackson:

Since about 2000, when non resource exports peaked at about 50% of the total, oil and gas have emerged as the new economic motors of Canada. As with the classic staple industries, foreign ownership is high (about one half of assets) meaning that profits are lost to Canadians.

Let's go to the data, in the form of Cansim Table 179-0004:

quote:

Looks like the manufacturing trap to me.

Vulnerability to movements in prices set in international markets. Prices of manufactured goods are set in international markets, just as commodity prices are. But unlike commodities, the prices of manufactured goods show a secular decline:

quote:

It is of course possible to counteract this decline in relative prices with improvements in productivity. But since Canadian manufacturers have found it more profitable to extract favours from pliant governments, that's what they do instead.

Indeed, the enthusiasm with which governments are willing to throw public funds at manufacturing firms is the strongest evidence of a manufacturing trap. Look at this recent story:

Ford hiring 1,000 people for Oakville assembly plant:

[Ford of Canada president and chief executive officer Dianne] Craig credited both the new labour agreement and the contributions of the federal and Ontario governments, which provided $142 million of the total $700 million investment.

New hires will start $20 an hour, instead of $24, and take 10 years, instead of six, to reach the top wage, which was $34.

These are not high-paying jobs: the median wage in Canada and in Ontario is somewhere north of $20/hour. Let's do some math: 1000 workers times $20/hour times (say) 37.5 hours/week times 50 weeks/year = $37.5 million/year. $142m/($37.5m/year) = 3.8 years. Governments are essentially promising to pay Ford to cover the cost of hiring people to work for sub-median wages for a period of almost 4 years. And you only need to be a wee bit cynical to wonder what sort of request Ford will be making three or four years out to preserve those jobs.

The crazy thing is that this considered to be accepted practice: we're told it's the price we have to pay to retain manufacturing jobs. And so we get pundits on the Globe and Mail op-ed page earnestly peddling the notion that we have to persuade workers to accept lower wages in order to preserve high-wage jobs. (Do read Joe Heath's elegant takedown.)

But the best way of viewing this sort of behaviour is the Manufacturing Trap. Policy-makers have bet so much on the manufacturing sector for so long that they simply cannot think of anything else to do but to double down.

gently caress ontario.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 06:52

Rime: Nov 2, 2011; by Games Forum

Y'know, when I read that last quote I suddenly realize where the money for a GMI would come from. You'd have to be an idiot not to see it.

That's a GMI right there, we just need to cut out the middle man.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 06:57

namaste friends: Sep 18, 2004; by Smythe

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/07/Vancouver-Homeownership-Silver-Lining/

quote:

The Silver Lining to Vancouver's Homeownership Crisis
Priced out, working families and nonprofits take matters into their own hands. Start of a new solutions series.
By David P. Ball, 7 Nov 2014, Tyee Solutions Society

"This is what I'm talking about," says Raymond (who for privacy reasons asked that The Tyee not use his surname) as we step onto a tiny balcony overlooking his backyard in the South Main area. No larger than two people, the balcony is a perfect retreat from other members of the four couples who moved into what he calls a "MAD House," short for multi-adult dwelling.

"Sometimes you just want to be alone -- there are places here you can get away, where you can just be alone and not feel grumpy about it," he explains. It's one of three such balconies, interior nooks and other features that help the 2,880-square-foot, three-storey home allow everyone to share both space and privacy.

While some realtors may insist that Vancouver still offers affordable homes if people will simply adapt their expectations, many residents would disagree. And some aren't waiting for a new mayor or the province to change things.

Raymond's MAD house is one example of the many freethinking new ideas being considered, tried and tested in the Vancouver region, as people seek different financial and physical blueprints for what they want in a stable, secure home.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be exploring this optimistic new wave of answers to one of the city's most deadlocked social crises in a series of reports.

Raymond built the dwelling on a small property he's long owned with his wife, but when it was completed, six other adults moved in: his three children and their partners. But the space could as easily be shared by a group of friends, he says. Building a new house on the lot cost him roughly $1 million. But Raymond believes it could be done for less, with the costs split among the residents.

Raymond is typical of a growing movement in Vancouver that's seeking, inventing or adapting housing solutions that others might consider, well, a little mad: buying and living communally; smaller private units with more shared amenities; flexible suite layouts that can enlarge or contract as residents need more or less space through life; or small bands of young creatives pooling savings to move into a shared mansion (stay tuned for that story later in this series).

Marianne Amodio became an early MAD house advisor and ally. An architect who's worked on conventional large condominium projects, Amodio's happier these days to work with individuals like Raymond who want to think outside the box on home ownership.

"A lot of people have been priced out of the market; that's a negative and difficult thing, right?" Amodio agrees. But, she says, there's a "silver lining" emerging. "People are getting creative. They're looking for creative ways to achieve homeownership, which they just can't achieve in the traditional manner."

The trend has already taken root in other major cities. In many cases that means re-thinking the idea of one nuclear family per home, one home per lot, and a single-family mortgage.

One example is Options for Homes, a non-profit with a 20-year history of offering second mortgages to 5,000 families in Montreal, Toronto and other cities. The ensuing returns have built up a $200-million fund that now finances the construction of hundreds of new housing units every year.

The success story arose from bad news. "The government cut off funding for subsidized rental housing in 1992," says Options for Homes CEO, Michel Labb�. Too many people, he says, are still "hoping upper levels of government will start to provide subsidies again. It's been 20 years. Waiting your entire career, in my opinion, isn't very fun."

Most families, Labb� argues, would prefer ownership. "They want a home." And even with Vancouver's sky-high real estate, he insists that the cost of building condominiums under his model is lower than building rental units. "So if it's less expensive to build and operate ownership, why are we so focused on rental? We could put support into ownership and start to build up capital."

Calgary, meanwhile, has seen its City Hall-founded but independently run Attainable Homes put hundreds of former renters into their own units for the first time. And here in Vancouver, the Catalyst Community Development Society is helping B.C. religious communities and nonprofits that already own property become their own developers. In the process, many have learned surprising lessons about faith, gifts and community.

Necessity drives invention

"There's a common recognition that we're at this crisis point in our city," explained Heather Tremain, an architect and founder of Urban Fabric, a consultancy that focuses on social, environmental and economic sustainability at the neighbourhood and city level. "It is really a crisis of providing ownership opportunities to the middle class.

"A lot are young professionals... it's almost a generational issue. This is a group of people who, through no fault of their own except being born at the wrong time, are being squeezed out of the market."

Polls support that reading. As municipal elections approach on Nov. 15, an online survey of 2,138 residents of the Metro Vancouver Regional District, using data up to Oct. 5, found that housing led respondents' choice as the region's most important issue (22 per cent of respondents, followed by transportation at 19 per cent).

Concern was highest in the City of Vancouver (46 per cent of respondents called housing the most important issue), but significant too in Burnaby (21 per cent), Richmond (28 per cent), and Abbotsford (21 per cent). Even on the North Shore, housing came in a close second to transportation with 29 per cent of respondents.

Among Canadians, Vancouverites spend the largest chunk of earnings on their housing: 33.5 per cent of us pay more than what's considered an affordable amount, according to the 2011 National Household Survey.

Tremain believes that for too long, rental housing and homelessness have been the only topics on the political radar in Vancouver when it comes to affordable accommodation. But with the city's east side recently having seen its first $2-million-plus house hit the market, and west side homes routinely skyrocketing beyond that in price, it's a mistake to ignore the large number of working and middle income families increasingly shut out of opportunities to own.

"People lump it all together," she argues. "It has to be separated."

Rule 1: 'No bitching'

Another activist young architect who wants to change Vancouver's doom-laden housing conversation in a new direction is Alicia Medina Laddaga, 29. When she founded the Laboratory of Housing Alternatives (LOHA) in 2012, hoping it would offer a unique platform where Vancouverites explored novel solutions to the housing crunch, she posted a sign at many of its first events laying down one rule: "NO BITCHING."

"It's good to be critical and sometimes that helps, especially when people are doing some really awful things," she said, sipping a mug of tea in the living room of the house she shares. "But in terms of housing, just complaining is not going to change things. We need to be working towards solutions."

To foster such conversations, LOHA has hosted brainstorming sessions about new ways to share housing spaces; studied U.S. experiments with crowd-funded development; and held tours of co-housing, laneway homes, and shipping containers-turned-social-housing -- an idea sparked by an earlier Tyee Solutions series.

Although she can't yet afford to buy in her city, Medina Laddaga and her husband abandoned a West End apartment to shared a rental house further south with four other young professionals ("I'm a working adult happily living like a college student," she jokes).

And in the last year, she believes she's seen the conversation shift. "Before, it was all about homelessness, which is important, but we don't want to talk about the middle class," she said. "Now, people are starting to talk about middle-income families and young folks. What's their future in the city?"

To give that shift momentum, Medina Laddaga will present a series of events focused on "Housing for a Connected City," as part of the Museum of Vancouver's 'Design Sundays' series, starting Sunday Nov. 9. (See bottom of this story for details.)

"It sounds corny or obvious," says the museum's curatorial director, Gregory Dreicer, "but your home in every way shapes your life. It's not just the type or quality of housing, which is important on a happiness level, but also about your identity, who your friends are, your education and jobs -- those link back to where you live."

Dreicer grew up in New York City, and has seen large swathes of that metropolis transform in the years since, with many neighbourhoods becoming gentrified as lower-income residents are displaced. "Many, many neighbourhoods are just unrecognizable from when I was younger.

"Here it's just much smaller... but there are the same issues: New York is a big focus of investment by foreign owners, and certainly that has a big impact on the real estate market. There's big social and economic factors shaping housing from the ground up."

Room for a middle class?

Homeownership has long been a viewed as an anchor to middle-class security. UBC professor Patrick Condon argues that it's still a key to building a desirable society and resisting the concentration of wealth in the hands of the one per cent.

Now, MAD house architect Amodio (who will speak at the Nov. 9 Museum event) shares the view that "we're at a crux." After years of frustration with government inaction, "all of a sudden you blow the lid off what our pre-conceived notions of living are.

"Instead of waiting for developers to come along, a lot of people are taking on that challenge themselves, and being their own developers," she observes. "When you find individuals taking on that role, there's something empowering about it. It's like the new Gold Rush."

It's also a change. "I grew up in big single-family dwelling with a backyard," she remembers. "When I had a son, that was something I had to rid myself of: it was okay not to live in house with a big backyard. We're in a transition; my son won't think twice about it."

At the MAD house Amodio designed, Raymond emerges from a dark green tunnel into a towering communal space lit by a massive window into the garden, that accommodates kitchen, dining and sitting areas. Two of his adult children and their partners chat cheerfully as they begin cooking breakfast.

"We're trying to demonstrate a certain way of looking at things," he says. "People want privacy but that doesn't mean you have to be shut off from the world."

Over the weeks to come, we'll be taking a closer look at some of the most promising new ways of looking at housing, financing and home ownership, both in other cities in the Lower Mainland.

The Laboratory of Housing Alternatives' first open workshop of its Design Sundays series happens Sunday, Nov. 9 at 2:30 p.m. at the Museum of Vancouver. Other "Housing for a Connected City" events at the museum are planned for Nov. 16, 23 and 30. [Tyee]

Really. It's a loving crisis you can't own a home. gently caress you. A crisis is not having access to affordable healthcare. A crisis is getting bombed the gently caress out by foreigners. A crisis is not having access to potable water. It's not a crisis when you can't live out your loving Dwell magazine fantasies you loving twats

namaste friends fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Nov 12, 2014

# ? Nov 12, 2014 08:17

Buskas: Aug 31, 2004; ?

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/07/Vancouver-Homeownership-Silver-Lining/

Really. It's a loving crisis you can't own a home. gently caress you. A crisis is not having access to affordable healthcare. A crisis is getting bombed the gently caress out by foreigners. A crisis is not having access to potable water. It's not a crisis when you can't live out your loving Dwell magazine fantasies you loving twats

I agree that each individual young professional whining about affordability is a oval office and certainly not in crisis, but the bubble as a whole will certainly be looked back upon as a crisis when it comes crashing down and those with money jump on the opportunity to consolidate wealth at the expense of mostly the middle class. Make no mistake, it will not be the rich who get hosed by this market - it will be working class people who are financially ruined for years or decades to come.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 09:03

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Cultural Imperial posted:

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/11/the-manufacturing-trap.html

gently caress ontario.

This is a typical example of an economist missing the forest for the trees. The difference between manufacturing and resource extraction is that manufacturing is conducive to R&D and is generally more technologically innovative. Do you really think it makes no difference whether we specialize in ripping bitumen out of the ground vs. specializing in developing high technology products?

It is definitely an issue that so much of our manufacturing is foreign owned but of course any policy that addressed that problem would make an economist like him go apoplectic.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 17:37

triplexpac: Mar 24, 2007; Suck it
Two tears in a bucket
And then another thing
I'm not the one they'll try their luck with
Hit hard like brass knuckles
See your face through the turnbuckle dude
I got no love for you

quote:

Home prices rise
The latest measure of Canadian home prices underscores the surge in Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, but with an added noteworthy element: Toronto is unmatched in one respect.

First, the national measures:

Home prices in Canada rose 0.2 per cent in October from September, according to the Teranet-National Bank house price index released today.

Prices were up in just five of 11 markets measured. And if you strip out Vancouver, the index would have been flat.

The year-over-year reading, though, puts prices up 5.4 per cent in October from a year earlier, again highlighting the hottest markets.

�Over the last seven months, mortgage rates have declined to almost historically low levels,� said senior economist Marc Pinsonneault of National Bank.

�This has stimulated existing home sales and prices,� he added.

�Nationwide, the seasonally adjusted monthly level of sales has exceeded 40,000 units for the last five months, something that has not been seen since April 2010.�

Prices topped the national average in Calgary, with a 9.1-per-cent gain, Toronto at 7.4 per cent, Hamilton at 7.3 per cent, and Vancouver at 6.5 per cent.

�Unsurprisingly, the resale market in these four urban areas is balanced or even tight,� the group said in its report.

Price gains were �more moderate� in Edmonton at 4.9 per cent, Winnipeg at 2.5 per cent, Montreal at 1.1 per cent, Quebec City at 1 per cent, Halifax at 0.4 per cent and the Ottawa area at 0.2 per cent.

Victoria prices slipped 0.1 per cent.

And here�s that added element:

�The composite index has been up from a year earlier for 61 months now, since October 2009. The only one of the 11 markets to match that run is Toronto, though Hamilton comes close with 59 months.�

On a national basis, prices are now �on track� to rise by more than 5 per cent this year, Mr. Pinsonneault said, which would be the best showing in three years after last year�s 3.8 per cent and 2012�s 3.1 per cent.

�House price inflation is now similar to the one observed in the U.S.,� Mr. Pinsonneault said.

�Having said this, regional prices changes differ from one region to the other with market conditions,� he added.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 17:42

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Helsing posted:

This is a typical example of an economist missing the forest for the trees. The difference between manufacturing and resource extraction is that manufacturing is conducive to R&D and is generally more technologically innovative. Do you really think it makes no difference whether we specialize in ripping bitumen out of the ground vs. specializing in developing high technology products?

It is definitely an issue that so much of our manufacturing is foreign owned but of course any policy that addressed that problem would make an economist like him go apoplectic.

Genuine question: why do people care whether $industry is foreign-owned or not? I can understand being concerned about wealth inequality and corporate power and what have you, but why does it matter what piece of land the ownership title resides on?

# ? Nov 12, 2014 18:17

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Lexicon posted:

Genuine question: why do people care whether $industry is foreign-owned or not? I can understand being concerned about wealth inequality and corporate power and what have you, but why does it matter what piece of land the ownership title resides on?

Basically, because people are tribal and remain tribal even when they're running large multinational organisations. It's easy to be dispassionate about cutting jobs or playing hardball with a foreign subsidiary, less so when it means taking an axe to your home town.

e: I'll quote Ha-Joon Chang

Despite the increasing 'transnationalization' of capital, most transnational companies in fact remain national companies with international operations rather than genuinely nation-less companies. They conduct the bulk of their core activities, such as high end research and strategizing, at home. Most of their top decision-makers are home-country nationals. When they have to shut down factories or cut jobs, they usually do it last at home for various political and, more importantly, economic reasons. This means that the home country appropriates the bulk of the benefits from a transnational corporation. Of course, their nationality is not the only thing that determines how corporations behave, but we ignore the nationality of capital at our peril.

LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 12, 2014

# ? Nov 12, 2014 18:39

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

It all depends on the flow of profit. If a company that just happens to be French has a huge operation in Canada with head offices, R&D, management, production, the works all located in Canada you could do the math and see that of the profits made by their Canadian operations only tiny percent ends up flowing to Paris, the rest is re-invested in its Canadian operations and staff. In such a situation the company suddenly being Canadian owned wouldn't really change anything other than make some nationalist happy.

But if for instance you had a foreign owned company doing something low skill, maybe a retail chain, or a resource operation. Something where other than the basic costs of their equipment and their tiny worker wages theres no re-investment, all the money just flows back to their HQ, operations like that can drain a region. Look at big chains like walmart that come into an area with locally owned business, undercut them slightly and drive them all out of business. Before that, all the town's retail profits were flowing to local owners, who would then spend that money on the local economy on top of the costs of running their business. When a non-local chain comes in, the profit fly away from the town. Those 100 middle class shop owners who employed 300 minimum wage slaves are replaced with 10 low paid managers and 200 minimum wage slaves and a drop in the local economy is felt, usually far worse than any savings the people find at what ever chain replaced their local shops. Of course in that situation if I'm in Victoria it doesn't matter if the business is from Toronto or Buffalo, all I know is that the profits of the local labour is being taken far away.

It's all about local work reaping local benefits. Ownership doesn't really matter as much with proper taxes and regulations. For something like the tar sands that's as simple as actually loving taxing the operation and not getting robbed blind, or in fact paying them to take the oil once you factor in cleanup costs. It's also a lot harder to hold foreign corporations to account. Once they've made their money who's to force them to clean up their mess? At least with a Canadian owned industry there are canadians to be fined or put in jail all the way to the top. You know, potentially, if we ever extended the rule of law to the rich.

We also have this ridiculous naive idea that corporations and businessmen have any sort of patriotism or sense of community. Like a Canadian corporation would treat its Canadian workers better than a Chinese company would, or a Canadian owned factory in Canada would be run safer and cleaner than a Saudi owned factory. Or a Canadian company has a long term interest in Canada's well-being while a foreign owned company is just here to exploit for short term and leave.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 19:02

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

LemonDrizzle posted:

Basically, because people are tribal and remain tribal even when they're running large multinational organisations. It's easy to be dispassionate about cutting jobs or playing hardball with a foreign subsidiary, less so when it means taking an axe to your home town.

e: I'll quote Ha-Joon Chang

Despite the increasing 'transnationalization' of capital, most transnational companies in fact remain national companies with international operations rather than genuinely nation-less companies. They conduct the bulk of their core activities, such as high end research and strategizing, at home. Most of their top decision-makers are home-country nationals. When they have to shut down factories or cut jobs, they usually do it last at home for various political and, more importantly, economic reasons. This means that the home country appropriates the bulk of the benefits from a transnational corporation. Of course, their nationality is not the only thing that determines how corporations behave, but we ignore the nationality of capital at our peril.

This does make a certain amount of sense, I'll grant.

Baronjutter posted:

Look at big chains like walmart that come into an area with locally owned business, undercut them slightly and drive them all out of business. Before that, all the town's retail profits were flowing to local owners, who would then spend that money on the local economy on top of the costs of running their business. When a non-local chain comes in, the profit fly away from the town.

Nationality is irrelevant here. Why does it matter if the big chain that comes in is Walmart versus Canadian Tire (other than the fact that the former is more likely to be competent)

Baronjutter posted:

Ownership doesn't really matter as much with proper taxes and regulations.

That was always my position, but LemonDrizzle has given food for thought.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 19:10

Gorau: Apr 28, 2008

Foreign ownership is also partly why Ontario is hosed. Ontario is predominately branch plants. Very little r and d is actually done by Ontario manufacturers. I'd bet that if you actually broke r and d funding down by company in Canada you'd find that most of it is done by Bombardier, smaller tech companies in Waterloo and Ottawa and then maybe domestic energy companies.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 19:26

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

Hey now blackberry is based in Onta hahahahahaha nope I can't sorry.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 19:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 02:51

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Gorau posted:

Foreign ownership is also partly why Ontario is hosed. Ontario is predominately branch plants. Very little r and d is actually done by Ontario manufacturers. I'd bet that if you actually broke r and d funding down by company in Canada you'd find that most of it is done by Bombardier, smaller tech companies in Waterloo and Ottawa and then maybe domestic energy companies.

It's the same problem with Vancouver's booming robust amazing tech scene. Almost none of it are local companies, it's all basically "branch plants" for companies from Seattle or SF who get enticed with some tax breaks or what ever, get some really lovely low skill work done, and then shut it all down the moment the benefits dry up or they need to downsize. The workers are all viewed as temps. It doesn't create a healthy economy. Plus the workers know they're all getting fired at the end of the project so they desperately slave and politic to hope they'll be one of the lucky few to be invited back to Seattle, you know, for a real job.

But it takes two to tango. While decrying foreign ownership of everything there's also the question why Canadians aren't "innovating" themselves or starting companies? How much protectionism and support do canadians really need? I'm all for protectionism to grow and incubate important sectors until they can stand on their own, but in Canada these businesses never seem to get off life-support. But without actual local companies with long term stakes in the country doing all their R&D and management here, we're going to be a country of branch plants, temps, and resource extraction.

# ? Nov 12, 2014 19:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canada Housing/Debt: Trust me, I'm a landlord.

«‹›1518 »