|
 \ femtosecond
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Boomers need separate rooms for every activity. You can't just have one big living room that has your TV and is where you hang out with guests. Our dining room and living room are and were one loving room, and we actually dine and eat there. You loving people spend rooms like NASA spends first stage boosters I knew people that had all this loving poo poo growing up. Their parents were assholes and their kids were assholes, I hope you all end up in crushing poverty you do nothing fucks
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Our dining room and living room are and were one loving room, and we actually dine and eat there. You loving people spend rooms like NASA spends first stage boosters 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
THC posted:Vacancy solution for Vancouver? Tear down old rental buildings and replace them with high-end condos This is just shameless. They could assemble single family houses go through the rezoning process, but you know that'd be hard and expensive. Better to try to get the city to change the rules so they don't have to deal with NIMBYs. The poor people they evict from apartments won't make as much of a fuss.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Our dining room and living room are and were one loving room, and we actually dine and eat there. You loving people spend rooms like NASA spends first stage boosters Cool condo life. I have a separate dining room with a custom hardwood table, but I just use the room for baby stroller storage in the house.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I've seen it only mentioned a few places, but the best way to help density would be to get rid of the idea of "buildings can be built this big or any smaller size" and flip that around. As long as billionaires and millionaires can put detached houses where 3flats, or even skyscrapers exist, you'll always have density problems.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
~*density problems*~
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I've seen it only mentioned a few places, but the best way to help density would be to get rid of the idea of "buildings can be built this big or any smaller size" and flip that around. As long as billionaires and millionaires can put detached houses where 3flats, or even skyscrapers exist, you'll always have density problems. In Seattle the building height limits are pretty short because the FAA said that any taller and flight paths to SeaTac would be impacted. Does Vancouver have a similar issue?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
We don't have a density problem. We have a massive speculative bubble problem.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
if it was a density problem rent would be out of control here too. it's expensive but rental rates aren't growing anywhere near as fast as home prices. seattle has home prices almost half vancouver's and rent twice as high
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Even if you're skeptical of the density thing, you should be strongly in favour of it as a mechanism to relentlessly undermine the scarcity of housing. So tired of reading "density  " attitudes in here from posters who would clearly benefit.Also: Vancouver is loving suburbia south of 12th. Density would, you know, improve that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Even if you're skeptical of the density thing, you should be strongly in favour of it as a mechanism to relentlessly undermine the scarcity of housing. So tired of reading "density Why do you want to increase density? Personally I could give a poo poo if more people can live in Vancouver proper. gently caress em
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Density is the reason my condo has gone up only $100k in the last year instead of $200k. Bridges are a mess.
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Today I got lost driving to Metrotown. GVA is too big. I ended up in New West because I didn't actually look at Google maps and just went "ok get off at the Canada Way exit got it" and then when the streets turned into numbers I was like "oh poo poo I've gone too far" Anyway, my mom has a house with like two separate living rooms. I guess one could technically be a dining room or something. She's considered selling it and either getting something smaller or renting, but then always settles on waiting until she retires, because she's not retiring in Mission because gently caress that place and she just doesn't want to move and deal with the hassle of buying and selling a place and paying all the fees only to move again in five years. She's almost paid the whole thing off since she bought it off my dad for $350k less than ten years ago though (and they had like no equity in it at the time since my dad would pay the HELOC and then take the money back out and put it in a savings account in his name only without telling her and guess why they got divorced!!), on a single teachers' salary while helping pay my brother's rent, so I don't think she qualifies as "bad with money" like a lot of other people here's parents.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
^^^^ I get lost every time I drive through whistler, because the street names are retarded and the street layout even more so. It's like trying to drive in fuckin' disneyland.Lacrosse posted:In Seattle the building height limits are pretty short because the FAA said that any taller and flight paths to SeaTac would be impacted. Does Vancouver have a similar issue? No, because our airport is on an island bounded on three sides by vast amounts of water.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Rime posted:^^^^ I get lost every time I drive through whistler, because the street names are retarded and the street layout even more so. It's like trying to drive in fuckin' disneyland. Whistler village has like two streets though? If you get out into the random neighborhoods though yeah it gets really weird and crazy. Rime posted:No, because our airport is on an island bounded on three sides by vast amounts of water.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
how does google maps even work??????????????
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Uh I'm too cheap for a data plan, I had to stop at a gas station at like 6th and 10th or whatever and look at my handy book of maps of the lower mainland 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Boomers can't downsize because then they'd have nowhere to store their truckloads of sentimental knickknacks they've accumulated over the last 30 years and hardly use or look at. Hell will freeze over before their children get out of spending 6 months arguing over who gets the serving platters and/or feeling guilty for donating all that poo poo to goodwill when they pass. Single Family Home = Storage For Hogwash
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Uh I'm too cheap for a data plan, I had to stop at a gas station at like 6th and 10th or whatever and look at my handy book of maps of the lower mainland  Here maps, formerly Nokia Maps and now jointly owned by BMW, Audi and Mercedes, can be used completely offline, with all maps and voice navigation downloaded to your phone, sync your phone to your car via bluetooth and have both music and nav at the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
That's super cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
jesus christ loving google maps has an offline mode
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
For 8 years now I've been working full time on the internet and sometimes I still feel like an 80 year old who just learned Facebook is a thing that exists.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
THC posted:We don't have a density problem. We have a massive speculative bubble problem. There's a massive speculative bubble problem, but there is definitely a shortage of housing as well. If there wasn't a housing shortage Vancouver wouldn't have a 0.6% vacancy rate. Something around 3% is considered healthy. There have been signs of overbuilding and excess supply in Australia but there's no evidence of that in Vancouver. I think the amount of multi-unit housing starts in Vancouver is nearing its all time peak, but it'll take a few years for that stuff to appear on the market. There could be a glut resulting out of this but that would be in 2017-18 maybe.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
The 0.6% vacancy rate is for purpose built rentals
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The 0.6% vacancy rate is for purpose built rentals Every condo building in the city could be vacant and Vancouver would have a 0.6% vacancy rate.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The 0.6% vacancy rate is for purpose built rentals Holy poo poo you're right. I never realized that the CMHC actually discerns between "apartment" as in purpose built rental and "secondary rental units," which are condominiums. Every casual article I've ever read about this just lists a single value and is usually talking about just purpose built rental. The survey comes out twice a year and as it appears that condo data is only included in the Fall report. Here's the most recent report that includes condo data which is Fall 2015. In this report the apartment vacancy is 0.8 and condo vacancy is 0.9. It's still sub 1.0% and very low. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The 0.6% vacancy rate is for purpose built rentals Probably like 3 buildings in the entire city are purpose built rentals.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
how the gently caress is vacancy rate so volatile that's nuts
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:how the gently caress is vacancy rate so volatile The upward trend in '08 is from the global economy crashing and massive amounts of churn in the market. The downturn, well: 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Why are height and floorspace restrictions and setback and parking requirements gospel to urban planners? Job security?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
yippee cahier posted:Why are height and floorspace restrictions and setback and parking requirements gospel to urban planners? Job security? I remember someone saying something about planners wanting to "sculpt" skylines, which would explain height restrictions (whether this actually does anything is questionable). Floorspace is a zoning density thing, but in Vancouver it doesn't mean anything since Concord et al. can easily pressure city hall into changing the zoning to suit their desires. Parking space makes the most sense, since if it isn't mandated a developer will try to build as little as possible which shunts parking to the street, which ultimately puts pressure to create more street parking spots which increase congestion. Hastings street is a good example of what happens when this isn't well planned; There is no way new parking areas can appear at this point and they cannot eliminate street parking because then there is nowhere for people to park and business owners there won't have any of that, so we get a tremendously congested street that slows even public transit a great deal. Of course, were those spaces removed, traffic density would eventually increase to take up the slack, so gently caress it, I dunno. Urban Planning masquerades as proactive but is predominantly reactive, and those restrictions are mostly them trying to seem as though they're thinking ahead. If zoning is at the whim of property developers than it means gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Even if you're skeptical of the density thing, you should be strongly in favour of it as a mechanism to relentlessly undermine the scarcity of housing. So tired of reading "density The problem is that the only form density ever seems to take is Thorncliffe Park, St. James Town, or Liberty Village (the high-rise slum of the future). Perhaps that's why some of us are skeptical.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The problem is that the only form density ever seems to take is Thorncliffe Park, St. James Town, or Liberty Village (the high-rise slum of the future). Perhaps that's why some of us are skeptical. loving this. Also, show that increasing density in Vancouver is going to have an impact on anything. Once again I remind everyone that units under construction are at an all time high at like 30k. This is conclusive proof that it's doesn't loving matter what is going on with the supply demand curve when speculative mania has taken over.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:loving this. Also, show that increasing density in Vancouver is going to have an impact on anything. Once again I remind everyone that units under construction are at an all time high at like 30k. This is conclusive proof that it's doesn't loving matter what is going on with the supply demand curve when speculative mania has taken over. Well it's the best place in the world (if you've not been to the rest of the world at any point).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
I could never not live in Vancouver, everywhere else in Canada is cold and miserable! *lives under a tarp covered box* *would prefer to not need the tarp but it rains 3/4 of the year*
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I could never not live in Vancouver, everywhere else in Canada is cold and miserable! Well sure, it sounds crazy when you say it like that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
joke's on you eviljoven thanks to global warming it doesn't really rain here anymore
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
pffft, Vancouver has ~165 rainy days with ~1190mm rain total in a year. My home land has ~225 rainy days and ~3399mm of rain in a year. You sweet summer children know nothing but thin sheets of falling mist.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
A guy plots 30 years of San Francisco Rental Ads. It's funny, I was up at 1am last night trying to think of ways to find the exact same data for Vancouver, because I wanted to demonstrate visually how far out of touch rents have become with wages here since the 1970's, especially with the minimum wage. Good article, do read.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:29
|
|