|
Purgatory Glory posted:I would think demlishions are negligible. Quick Google shows 940 permits in Vancouver in 2016. Vast majority old poo poo boxes not worth renovating. Whether it's a shitbox not worth renovating or not, it's still a dwelling, and it's still gone when the new dwelling gets built. The point is that if you're going to compare net population growth to housing growth, you need to use net housing growth. It's the same as if you only counted newly born or immigrated Canadians towards population growth without subtracting those who died. I'd love it if the articles I've been seeing (including the one linked above) would clarify their terms, and if someone could point out that they are actually using net housing growth, that'd be great. But it really seems to me like they're not comparing apples to apples.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2021 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
quote:A recent Scotiabank report quantified the shortfall. Canada has the fewest housing units per 1,000 residents in the G7. If we had the G7 average, we would require 1.8 million more “dwelling units,” a truly astonishing number given that we build about 190,000 new units per year. Ok so the author thinks he's proved that there is no supply shortage, since we apparently have more than enough homes, but how does he reconcile that with the various other metrics we have that suggest a severe housing shortage? He just ignores all that other stuff. We also know that: * Housing inventory for sale is at all time lows. * Rental vacancy near zero. So where's the surplus homes we apparently have? Maybe we have an enormous supply of secretly empty homes? Well in Vancouver they did a study on this using electricity data and did not find a shockingly large amount of empty homes, and certainly no sign of growth in correlation with home value increases. Nonetheless Vancouver enacted an empty home tax and the BC government brought in a speculation tax (effectively a tax on empty homes), which has given both Vancouver and BC a significant amount of data into how many empty homes there may be. Again, no real sign of a massive surplus of empty homes hanging around. quote:The number of vacant homes within the City of Vancouver continued its downward trend in 2020, and the municipal government is citing its Empty Homes Tax (EHT) as a contributing factor. Everything points to the dull explanation that there's not enough homes in this country. The Scotiabank G7 study is probably worthless, and not at all interesting or relevant to be able to knock it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
Yeah exactly. Even if you take their numbers as given, we're coming from a multi-decade undersupply of housing. And housing is somewhat elastic -- when the supply is low, people either don't move out of their parents' home, or they move into communal homes. A lot of those people actually want their own place, either to rent or own, and when the supply finally becomes available, they snap it up. It's great that housing is finally being built, but we have a long, long way to go before we start making a dent in home prices or rental vacancy rates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 08:23
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Yeah exactly. Even if you take their numbers as given, we're coming from a multi-decade undersupply of housing. And housing is somewhat elastic -- when the supply is low, people either don't move out of their parents' home, or they move into communal homes. A lot of those people actually want their own place, either to rent or own, and when the supply finally becomes available, they snap it up. YEP. When you have adults splitting up a shared house in order to have affordable housing that's a sign of a housing shortage. This is the most drat crucial thing, why any attempt to try to figure out how much housing we need based on past population growth alone is a flawed effort. When housing is available people change their behaviour. Suddenly they might move out of their old housing and to some new place where better housing is available. Oops looking at past growth patterns in a super housing constrained environment didn't predict that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
My econ professor said that's why rent control is a bad thing, it leads to people being able to afford apartments without roommates so it creates a housing shortage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Yeah exactly. Even if you take their numbers as given, we're coming from a multi-decade undersupply of housing. And housing is somewhat elastic -- when the supply is low, people either don't move out of their parents' home, or they move into communal homes. A lot of those people actually want their own place, either to rent or own, and when the supply finally becomes available, they snap it up. I like these multi-decade plans to maybe improve housing affordability. I guess I’ll be buying my first house when I’m 60.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 22:01
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I like these multi-decade plans to maybe improve housing affordability. I guess I’ll be buying my first house when I’m 60. A lil starter home so you and the missus can have some kids. At 60.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
evilpicard posted:My econ professor said that's why rent control is a bad thing, it leads to people being able to afford apartments without roommates so it creates a housing shortage. What a dipshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
lol Victoria would be a nice place to live if it weren't for the people Hopefully Canada will welcome another wave of asylum seekers escaping the depravity of the see see pee. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1009311/shanghais-real-estate-agents-are-in-trouble.-buyers-dont-mind quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
Lol my uncle was telling me the other day about a Malcolm Gladwell podcast that argued that rent control was bad because it distorted real estate markets. My takeaway was that Malcolm Gladwell can eat my entire rear end. Edit: Real estate agents have always come across as mostly unnecessary. Like why don’t we have vehicular agents to look for cars for us. They’re mostly parasites. MeinPanzer fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Even if you take their numbers as given, we're coming from a multi-decade undersupply of housing. Canada and the United States have essentially the same number of dwellings per resident. You can't blame the difference in price-to-income ratio between Canada and the United States on a relative lack of supply that does not actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Canada and the United States have essentially the same number of dwellings per resident. You can't blame the difference in price-to-income ratio between Canada and the United States on a relative lack of supply that does not actually exist. Please do cite your numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Economists have bunch of contradictory philosophies depending on whether it benefits them, personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
National housing stats are useless too, markets are regional. It doesn't matter if there's 5,000 empty units in Moosejaw when there's 0% vacancy in Victoria. People want to live where their jobs, families, and friends are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Please do cite your numbers. It's in that same Scotiabank report I believe, housing units per 1,000. It's US 427 vs CA 424 which might as well be the same. The UK is also right there at 433. France, Germany, and Japan are all well ahead of that. This doesn't help with knowing how many of those can contain more than a single person, if they are well-distributed, or anything like that. But it's a vaguely useful baseline. As a sidenote, the report shorthands Japan as JN which I have never seen in my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Arivia posted:A lil starter home so you and the missus can have some kids. At 60. I guess the bright side is that I’ll never have to raise teenagers. More seriously, start up those bull dozers!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:National housing stats are useless too, markets are regional. It doesn't matter if there's 5,000 empty units in Moosejaw when there's 0% vacancy in Victoria. People want to live where their jobs, families, and friends are. Not saying vacancy is high in Victoria, but it did double in 2020 to 2.2%. The 2021 report is out soon which will be interesting. My hunch is the vacancy rate rose again. In that case it will be a couple consecutive years of rising vacancies paired with rising rents. We might be seeing a start of the separation between what people will pay and the return investors expect with rising interest rates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Did anything happen in 2020 that affected vacancies
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
I pity someone who left a long term tenancy because of covid, dead or alive. The 2020 CMHC report emphasized that vacancies were on the westshore, so newer purpose-built rentals that weren't filling up as fast you would expect if the rise in rents was dominated by excess demand. It could be that this was a reaction to covid, but it could also be pricing in interest rate risk has moved rents beyond incomes. And Victoria isn't going to add a bunch of well-paying jobs just because landlords are planning for rates to rise. Of course I could be wrong. The 2021 report is coming out soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:Not saying vacancy is high in Victoria, but it did double in 2020 to 2.2%. The 2021 report is out soon which will be interesting. My hunch is the vacancy rate rose again. In that case it will be a couple consecutive years of rising vacancies paired with rising rents. We might be seeing a start of the separation between what people will pay and the return investors expect with rising interest rates. I’m going to be very surprised if vacancies rose in 2021. With the universities coming back to in person and royal roads not opening their dorms, students were very, very desperate for places to live and as far as I was aware, there was basically nothing. I think UVic put out a call for people to house students. They didn’t have enough dorms for first years which is normally a selling point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Students are restricted in what they can rent to an extent by student loans. They're also restricted by parents who won't pay $1750+ a month for their 18 year old daughter to live in a 460 sqft studio across the street from a homeless shelter. https://victoria.craigslist.org/apa/d/victoria-studio-the-best-amenities-in/7422788003.html. Maybe that's just because they had the option to let her stay at home last year, but maybe not. But I agree, the biggest x factor is the student housing situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Also the airbnb owners panicking and renting out their houses
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
UVic currently has about 600 dorms under construction which will probably get occupancy for next fall so that should help somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Interesting, if homeless shelters depress house prices then maybe we can just build tiny homeless shelters everywhere. How about starting with the Bridle Path and Rosedale?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Please do cite your numbers. https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-1-Housing-stock-and-construction.pdf The chart on page 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 05:39
|
|
|
Wish we had such a thing, gently caress realtors lol https://twitter.com/SixthTone/status/1475647864445587463 e: holy poo poo, this is pretty good "In late October, Shanghai’s real estate authorities launched an online service to help prepare contracts. The Shanghai Real Estate Trading Center’s “Hand-in-Hand Contract Signing Net” gives buyers and sellers tools to make a deal without relying on an agent. At the moment, this platform in Shanghai only provides a standard form contract signing service. But in the neighboring city of Hangzhou, a similar platform launched in August offers free house listings, notarization, and access to mortgage providers." and lol their commissions aren't even as bad as canada's: "Huang Zhonghua, a professor specializing in real estate studies at East China Normal University, told Sixth Tone that the new service is a response to perceptions that the real estate sector provides poor service while taking excessively high commissions. “Leading agencies charge sellers 1% of the price and charge buyers another 2%. The combined 3% fee is usually paid by the buyers in practice — this is not a small sum for average households, given the prices of houses.” Professor Huang said such scams happen because agents in China don’t represent either the apartment seller or the buyer’s interests. “They only represent their own interests. And their purpose is to profit from the commission fees. So, for them, the only thing they keep in mind is how they can fix a deal as quickly as possible,” he told Sixth Tone." mila kunis fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Flocons de Jambon posted:I pity someone who left a long term tenancy because of covid, dead or alive. The 2020 CMHC report emphasized that vacancies were on the westshore, so newer purpose-built rentals that weren't filling up as fast you would expect if the rise in rents was dominated by excess demand. It could be that this was a reaction to covid, but it could also be pricing in interest rate risk has moved rents beyond incomes. And Victoria isn't going to add a bunch of well-paying jobs just because landlords are planning for rates to rise. Kinda interesting that this is an issue of purpose built rentals that are more vacant and not condos (though maybe also the case). If it was the latter we could chalk it up to a pandemic related shift in interest in the sort of housing product people want to buy, with Victoria buyers potentially going further afield to buy a sort of housing product with more square footage. How interested is the BC government in WFH options? WFH flexibility could be depressing interest in people wanting to rent in Victoria proper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Kinda interesting that this is an issue of purpose built rentals that are more vacant and not condos (though maybe also the case). If it was the latter we could chalk it up to a pandemic related shift in interest in the sort of housing product people want to buy, with Victoria buyers potentially going further afield to buy a sort of housing product with more square footage. We were supposed to go back in October and it keeps getting pushed further and further back. lol. Latest update is returning 'no earlier than' Jan 12th now
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
The company I work at was musing about a sort of timed phase in over January through April but now surely that is on hold. Maybe I should start looking at recreational property in BC since WFH is going to go on forever. Oh wait there's barely any inventory of any housing for sale at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Apparently it was all down to taxes and subsidies. 60-80's there were a lot of policies that made apartment development attractive and it was a real easy business to get into. You're a fairly successful dentist, your friend is a lawyer, your other friend is in senior management for the Ministry of Transport. You pool your money together and bam, you build a typical little 4 story woodframe condo. There's practically off the shelf plans and contractors are just cranking them out. You don't need to worry about zoning because most of the land was already zoned for it, you don't need to deal with 3 years of public consultation and studies as there's only basic building permit process, and the generally very long return on investment for rental construction is much more appealing because there's tax breaks for it and even subsidies in some cases. So you get this absolute boom of affordable residential construction that resulted in rock bottom rents for decades. Then in the late 70's the tax system was changed that suddenly made apartment construction incredibly unattractive, plus cities really started to clamp down on zoning by down-zoning previously multi-family land into R1. That's where rental construction dropped off a cliff, and instead everyone switched over to these new "condo" things. They were not pumping out nearly as many units as the market for condos was smaller and they were seen as more risky short-term investments rather than long-term rental income. I meant to respond to this forever ago but forgot so dredging it back up because I was thinking about this stuff while driving around Metro Vancouver to my parents' house for Xmas. It would be enormously interesting to chat with one of these 70s era apartment developers to get a feel for what the investment environment was like and why they did it. It would be interesting to compare and contrast with similar wealth and class of people today and see what they're doing. One of the biggest changes between the 1970s and now is that in the 70s investing was kinda annoyingly difficult and the returns weren't that great. In contrast now investing is so trivial that anyone with a mobile phone can do it, and we've been experiencing a crazy bull market. Is the modern doctor/lawyer/dentist set even interested in housing development any more or is it dramatically more appealing to simply plow their wealth into ETFs? It's funny to think that the vast amount of affordable apartment buildings we have are less to do with federal incentives and more to do with dentists being vaguely bad with money, but not really having any other options rather than apartment development. At this point housing development seems incredibly professionalized. Random dentists can't compete with Westbank and Aquilini. Part of this is due to the increasing complexity of zoning, city bylaws, etc. I wonder how much this does impact development and affordability. Does the overhead for a giant development company mean that they're only interested in big returns while in the '70s bad with money dentists were pleased with a small return that buoyed their income and paid for their boat moorage? If the big companies need big profits, they may ignore marginal development opportunities, and that means less housing being built all around. I wonder if the city did upzone for small apartments, and it was trivial enough to do, you'd have all sorts of home owners doing projects of the sort that would substantially grow their personal wealth, but which would be completely uninteresting and irrelevant to the sort of large builders which have come to dominate the industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
So uh... Bc assessments are out. My property value went up 43%. Jesus gently caress my taxes are gonna be astronomical
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Why? Was your place the only one in the neighborhood that went up?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Why? Property taxes in Canada are miniscule. Oh I get it it's just pretending to not know how mill rate works to disguise a humblebrag about your tax free capital gain
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
It looks like poo poo went up across the province. Does this have no bearing on how much I pay the municipality?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Can't you just raise the rent on your basement rental suite to compensate?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 06:28
|
|
|
Only 20% here 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
LOL my place went up 32%.Bi-la kaifa posted:It looks like poo poo went up across the province. Does this have no bearing on how much I pay the municipality? No. If everyone else's house around you went up the same amount as yours (and it did) then you're all still paying the same amount as last year because the muni is still collecting the same amount of money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
HookShot posted:LOL my place went up 32%. Wait, what
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 07:50
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Wait, what Municipalities collect a certain amount of money every year. For the sake of this math being easy, we'll say $10 million. If there are 1000 houses in the city and they're each identical, and each worth $100,000, then each house has to pay $10,000 in property taxes. (10k x 1000 houses = 10 mill) The next year, because this 1000-town house is in rural BC, let's say prices go up 50% and each house is now worth $150,000. Well, the municipality decides to keep property taxes flat and once again has to raise $10 million. Each house might be worth 50% more, but each house's share of the property taxes stays exactly the same at $10,000. The only way your property taxes change (beyond increases at the muni level which affect everyone equally) is if your property changes in value compared to other properties in your town. So if you had a plot of empty land and you built a house on it, yeah, your property taxes are going to go up. But if you live on an average plot in an average part of town, the change is generally going to be minimal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
https://youtu.be/_EYvg6X0bDQ This is the best quick explanation video I've seen
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2022 09:07
|
|