|
Cultural Imperial posted:Good news This editorial is critical of the opposite of what you're saying. This editorial is about moving high income residents into low income areas. The theory of social mix that they're talking about was the justification for the design of the Woodwards project in the DTES of Vancouver.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:A lot of "cabin country" and "get away" locations actually forbid renting or any sort of short-stay arrangements. For example on Pender island there is a massive glut of houses for sale and people underwater on their mortgage after their "cabin" value went down by half but you absolutely can not rent your cabin out. That would bring riff raff to the island! You can't trust someone who doesn't own, who doesn't have a ham in the local community! *kills local economy with strict holiday rental laws* I'm pretty curious what is going to happen to the Gulf Islands in the mid to long term. I rarely go there, and so I might be pretty off base without more detailed, local knowledge of the situation, but it seems like there are a number of factors that could contribute to a dramatic collapse in housing value in the future. * Expensive housing * "Island Lifestyle" is a locals thing. Foreign money is going to Vancouver real estate, not the islands. * BC Liberals underfunding and meddling with BC Ferries is destroying island communities.[1] * Weak island communities make buying island property less appealing. * Low ability for local millenials to buy boomers' expensive houses anyway. [1] I was on Gabriola over xmas. Plenty of empty storefronts and "selling business" signs. It didn't look like a healthy community at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
My only question is that increased development is often a solution to these sort of issues, but isn't there sort of a ceiling on development on the islands in that there is a limited amount of water available?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The islands don't really need more development, there's a glut of houses and business spaces. It's the local bylaws that are strangling things. Mostly the inability to rent houses out for short-stays. Like if you want to go visit one of the islands you have to either pay to stay at an actual hotel or B&B, renting someone's cabin is generally illegal if the land isn't zoned for hotel. They want those houses empty unless it's the owner occupying it. If you could rent your cabin out to other people while you don't use it that would help a lot of the people who are selling because they just can't afford to own their stupid cabin. Yeah I definitely agree with all that. Developing little towns would be an improvement. From my terrible memory I think Mayne has a sort of compact little village but definitely Galiano is as you describe, essentially a spread out string of randomly placed shops. Does anyone even have a plan for these places? It sounds like a tinfoil hat theory, but honestly from their actions it feels like the BC Liberals are hoping that they can strangle these islands to death so that they can justify scaling back ferry service further. It's remarkable to me that any government would stack the deck against a community as much as the BC government has these ones. I just don't understand what the BC Liberals are doing. The government should hire some folks to do a study of similar communities around the world (ie. American Gulf Islands) to find out what are some better practices they can engage in to make these communities more of a success. At the moment it seems like there's no one providing any guidance as to how they should develop and they're completely adrift.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:What is there to do on the Gulf islands? What do the rich people do there that they can't do in Vancouver? I have no idea. Paint, make pottery, raise goats etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't think the liberals or anyone is really out to get the islands, they're unsustainable from a bunch of standpoints. It's not that they are being sabotaged, they're just being given fewer and fewer handouts (because all money needs to flow into Vancouver). Cheaper ferry rates would help, but does the province really need to subsidize a bunch of xenophobic hippies and rich cabin owners to have their own islands? The gulf islands are following many small towns in BC and north america. They don't have a point, they don't have a use, so they are dying. The only use the gulf islands have is to be the salish sea's version of ontario's "Cabin country" but that's a bit of an extreme luxury. If they could figure out how to honestly make the islands economically sustainable by both condensing the populations into actual villages and figuring out how to serve them with bare-bones no-frills ferries (ie WA's system) that would be awesome, but I don't want the province to massively subsidize BC ferries just so some retired Victoria civil servant can enjoy his Pender cottage cheaper. Yeah that all seems reasonable. The government basically needs to sit down with the island folk and they need to hash out what the gently caress the islands are going to be about for the next 50 years and how they can work together to get there so that it's a win/win. The answer that seems obvious to me is that the islands should all be about tourism, but what's weird is that the governments actions to date are totally tourism killing so someone needs to sort this out. As an aside I've visited the San Juans a ton and the American ferry service is effective and charming. The American islands are pretty nice and honestly as a cyclist I'd rather camp out there than on ours...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Rime posted:Say what you will about Hal_2005, that was actually an accurate account of how Vancouver got to today. Not sure about the rest of his massive post, but his rundown of Vancouver development and urban design has no real basis in reality. The City of Vancouver is well aware of how important industrial land is and has done a pretty good job of maintaining industrial land. Yes industrial lands in Yaletown were turned over to residential development in the 90s, but they were literally in the centre of the expanding downtown core and there's obviously no real business case for keeping log booms in the middle of False Creek. The next nearest light industrial areas have all been maintained and they're doing really well. I don't know maybe he's referencing some scaleback of industry in further out areas of Metro Van? I don't get what point he's trying to make disparaging Vancouver's road network. Vancouver transportation planning is highly regarded and it's a model for NA. The City proper has no freeway, and has the highest level of public transportation commuters in the west by a wide margin 20% vs 16% Calgary and 15% SF. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/5-kids2-adults1000-sq-ft/article23875496/?service=mobile There was another recent article about this trend in Vancouver that went a bit more in depth and interviewed more people. Two kids, two salaries – and an extremely compact inner-city loft For what it's worth the city has put in a lot of effort to try to change the makeup of what condo buildings look like so that not every condo building going up is just all 500 sqft bachelor pads designed for investors to rent out. They're trying to get more 3 bedroom condos built to make living in a downtown condo with a family through the teen years an actual viable lifestyle. The city is seeing that some people want to live this way and are bending over backwards to try to make it work, but realistically with a small 2 bedroom apartment it's going to fall apart once kids get older. There's another core issue though that there's this absurd gap in housing types in Vancouver that create this problem. On one side you have million dollar plus detached single family houses and on the other 1000 sqft condos. There should obviously be a lot more choices in between, such as row houses and stacked townhouses, but Vancouver doesn't build nearly enough of them. Apparently there has been all sorts of zoning and building code rules which blocked this sort of thing in the past, which has resulted it not being on the radar culturally, and I think it's only slowly changing now. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I don't see this trend as purely an affordability issue. There's a lifestyle aspect here. Folks don't want to move into a massive house in car oriented suburbia with a massive commute along with it just because they had kids. They still want to be able to walk out the door and walk into their favourite coffee shop, and get some groceries around the corner. The problem could also be solved by creating transit connected walkable small towns with sensibly sized houses instead of sprawling car oriented suburbs with massive lots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Because you totally can't achieve this goal with renting. I don't really get what point you're trying to make. edit: My comment was about the folks who are living with their multiple kids in small apartments in case you thought I was responding to something else. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Morgan's Crossing really pisses me off. If you drive down White Rock's Johnson Road with all its new developments and increased density it's clear they're doing a good job revitalizing the area, and they're on the right track to creating a small, dense, sustainable little town. Then someone in Surrey approved Morgan Crossing, which is just another variant of the sprawly, suburban strip mall, and it's going to suck the life out of the White Rock/South Surrey peninsula town centre.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
etalian posted:Vancouver is hilarious since it has no jobs but has SF housing price ridiculous. It's different though. Both places have absurdly expensive real estate, but renting in Vancouver is dramatically cheaper than SF. The cost of renting in SF is completely absurd with 1Br being $3k+ being the norm, whereas in Vancouver it's "only" ~$1200. If you hunt around it's still possible to find something for under $1k. As a result if you can cobble together a down payment it seems very much worth it to buy in SF vs renting. I have no idea what causes this odd dynamic of super high rents in SF. High housing prices in Vancouver has not caused a similar sky high rent. There are tons of software folks getting big 6 figure salaries in SF so I guess they're bidding up all the rentals across the city but not as many buying houses? Everyone I know in SF immediately tried to buy a house because the rent was so high. Given the salaries in SF the price of housing doesn't seem that bad...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It's the least odd dynamic in the world. Rents are paid for out of current income; so high income implies high rent. That's why Vancouver rent is pretty low in comparison - huge swaths of the working population earn peanuts. Right I understand that mechanism. I guess what I mean is that it's odd to me because the balance of rent to housing costs seems a bit off where I'd expect it to be. Really now that I'm thinking of it, it's clearly SF that's the "normal" market, and Vancouver is the "odd" one as some housing prices in Vancouver have no relationship to the average income. The difference in rent/house prices between SF and Vancouver I think lend weight to the argument that outside money is substantially impacting the Vancouver market.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Also [Airport Chat] clearly Gander is the best airport in all of Canada. http://www.dwell.com/rewind/article/aviation-preservation#3 It sounds like it's under risk of demolition, but people at least recognize there's some heritage value here. I hope they can come up with some solution. https://www.heritagecanada.org/en/issues-campaigns/top-ten-endangered/explore-past-listings/newfoundland-and-labrador/gander-internati
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
etalian posted:Well in the case of SF it's basically all driven by the next tech bubble pumping billions of dollars into the area and thousands of new rich assholes into the area. SF did a study which predicted even if the ambitious new housing target could be met, prices for both homes and rents would still stay sky high. My personal feeling is that there is no bubble (this time around companies actually have revenue!) so I think this is the new normal for SF. They've moved up a notch into that NYC/London territory where it's just going to be a given that there's a ton of super highly paid people walking around.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"Things in [X City] are too expensive!" But everywhere else in Canada is a frozen hellhole...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:
Well I hope he meant "what will?" in terms of what he or his department could do. I don't think the city planners have any real tools to actually fix the problem, so all they can do is increase density, which helps little, but the reverse is worse, or negotiate with developers for sub-market priced units in exchange for extra height or some other thing or other. The only real solution is that some higher level of government just starts subsidizing housing. Unfortunately the province and feds aren't interested in this. Furthermore at this time no government is willing to enact policies that will cause property values to drop, as this would directly take money from their constituents and this seems like election poison. There's no real party that currently has any coherent policies on this right now. COPE was basically mostly cranks unfortunately. If they wanted to cause property values to drop I'm not exactly sure what policies the city could do that would cause this. Severe restrictions on foreign ownership is often floated but I haven't yet seen a really elegant way to implement this. Would that even be a thing the City of Vancouver could do or would the Province have to be involved? Peter Ladner recently suggested in the article below rewarding long term owners. Not sure if this would help anything. This article doesn't really suggest any real solutions and it's disappointing to hear Reimer and Meggs suggest Airbnb as a significant issue, as it's really hard to see how it can be a significant contributor. Its existence is more of a result of the lack of affordability, and people trying to make cash in a severely unaffordable region. I haven't seen any data that shows that people are getting evicted to set up AirBnb hotels (which would be a problem), and Vancouver has had affordability problems long before Airbnb launched. quote:Homeowner equity vs. housing affordability: a tricky balancing act Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Also given that it looks like the overnight rate is not going up any time soon and is in fact predicted to close zero, what will be the main factor in the eventual liquidity squeeze/credit crunch that pops the bubble in toronto/vancouver? Will the CHMC have to make the first move? The weak oil prices will do the job in smaller cities (already taking effect) but I don't think it will have an effect in toronto/vancouver due to the amount of money sloshing around. Also politicians are strongly incentivized to preserve the status quo and I haven't seen anyone propose any policies that could possibly result in people's property dropping in value*. An example would be how the BC Liberals and City of Vancouver aren't even interested in collecting data about how many sales are from foreign buyers. I can't see oil prices having any affect on the Vancouver market. I don't know it didn't even really feel like the financial crisis of 2008 slowed the market much. * Unless you live on the gulf islands lol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Vancouver house prices fell off a cliff in 2008. Emergency interest rates, and Canadian exceptionalism were the only things that stopped them from cratering then. I did a few googles before I made the statement to make sure my anecdotal feeling wasn't wildly off the mark and it looked like sales dropped by 35%, but prices were only down 10-15%. 15% is a significant drop, but I don't think it was a dramatic enough drop to satisfy real estate pessimists. It's good that you point out the emergency measures taken by government because I would expect that to happen again if the market took a downturn. Politicians are heavily invested in ensuring the status quo of housing prices continues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
A high speed rail line connecting Vancouver to Seattle and Portland would be pretty nice. As it is there's a train that leaves Vancouver once a day slowly wending its way around the region, slowing to a crawl to go across a 100 year old bridge and through a popular area of a town (White Rock). Every once an a while someone gets killed by a train in White Rock and people raise the idea of moving the rail line, but the discussion usually goes nowhere with folks criticizing themselves for building a town near the train tracks and ultimately suggesting some additional safety signage as if that will do anything at all. It takes about 8 hours to get to Portland I think, but if the wifi on the train is working that's maybe better than a 6 hour drive? God it would be nice to do that trip on a 200-300 km/h train. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I find it weird how every time a train hits or kills anyone it's a huge deal and trains are dangerous and we need to take them out of the city and surround them with crippling regulations, but thousands of people are killed by car accidents and it's just what ever, that's normal, cost of transportation, and don't you dare try to enforce or increase safety rules because that's a war on cars. Also when a train kills someone it's almost entirely their fault but cars frequently kill innocent people following the rules. Usually when a train kills someone I feel like that autistic onion reporter and just hope the drain (and driver) are ok. I think the same "blame the victim" reaction that you constantly see with car accidents is there with trains as well. Similarly as when someone is hit by a car, people will find some excuse to explain that the victim got themselves killed. For example they were drunk or they were listening to their iPod. The difference between trains and cars is that White Rock locals probably want the train gone for a bunch of other reasons, so are more likely to suggest moving the train as a solution.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also has there been any followup on that Vancouver condo neighbourhood that was using a railway as gardens and wanted the railway to give them the land at ridiculously below-market values so the railway just ended up bulldozing everyone's gardens and made some noise about re-instating freight ? I really liked that. This isn't really the scenario. It's been City of Vancouver policy for a very long time, through several different political regimes, that the Arbutus Corridor should be reserved for a "transportation corridor" for use by light rail* and/or some bikeway/walkway. You can dig up the 2040 Vancouver transportation plan and have a look at the exact wording. This is because it would be very difficult and expensive to cobble together a contiguous North/South path through the city if the City ever wanted to build a "relief" line for the Cambie line and connect the Kerrisdale neighbourhood with Downtown. Basically they're taking a super, super long view on development and have zoned the land appropriately in case they ever want to do this. As the land is zoned purely for use as a transportation corridor and it would be impossible to build any thing on it, it is not worth very much money. The $100 million+ valuation of the land that CP is seeking has no basis to reality, as the valuation is completely hypothetical, and related to using the land in a way that is not allowed. Similarly I'm sure Stanley Park would be worth a great deal if you could build condos on it, but you can't. The City wanted to buy the land for around $20 million, which is apparently what it is worth as a transportation corridor. All this being said, supposing the City did own the land, and people had built a bunch of gardens on the land over the years because it had been unused for decades, I'm sure that if the City announced in 2040 or something that they were going to raze all the gardens to put in a street car line there would be a ton of push back by those local gardeners. I'd like to think that the City wouldn't bend on this and they'd go ahead with a street car though. * But not SkyTrain thanks to NIMBYs. Think street cars.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Rime posted:I can't blame them for trying to get the real estate valuation of the corridor out of the city, when the city has done the same to all the other land that CP gave them for free. Yeah this is a good point. I believe the City offered CP some sort of contract where if the City ever changed its mind and development CP would be paid compensation, but I guess CP didn't go for it. I don't think it's much in doubt that the gardeners have no real rights to the land. The controversy stems from the acts by CP being dick moves with no business case behind them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Reverse Centaur posted:Yeah both sides just wanna sell condos for lots of money, there's no good guys. I dunno I think the notion that the City is wanting to scoop up this land for peanuts and then develop it is a tinfoil hat theory. If you want to take the evil developer angle there's plenty of money to be made for the City by building the street car line, then up zoning parcels at major stops to higher density condos. The fact that this plan has existed for so long, from government to government, makes me think it was made by urban planner technocrat street car nerds that would push back against any government scrapping it for short term gain. The street car plan along Arbutus makes too much sense not to proceed with. Even though Vision is clearly pro-development, they've made good decisions around transportation policy so I think they listen to their urban planners (somewhat).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Reverse Centaur posted:I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with street cars. That line was supposed to be where the Canada line was going until NIMBYs chased it east to Cambie. This is purely about condos, it's already a filthy rich area and no one wants public transit there. Everything you say about the NIMBYs is correct, but I'm still doubtful that the city would flip this for property development. At the moment no one in this neighbourhood is ready for increased density, and a street car line is not on the table for the immediate future, but I think the city is taking a very long view here and keeping options in place for when easier to develop areas* are fully developed, and more people make use of and recognize the advantages of public transit. The city has gone to great effort to keep spaces open for future street car lines (eg. Pacific Boulevard, 1st Ave in the Olympic Village) and I think they want to keep the option on the table. Supposing the City bought the complete Arbutus lands tomorrow I'd expect it to remain a "greenway" for several decades before serious thought would go into whether it should be a street car line or not. * eg. The entirety of the Cambie corridor
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
quote:A new $535-million casino-hotel at BC Place, under construction on the opposite side of the stadium from Site 10C, is also likely to increase land values around the stadium. No I'm pretty sure this is going to be a white elephant and a giant failure just like the current casino.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Baudin posted:If everyone's property value goes up by 100% but the city council keeps their total tax request the same no one will have an increase in taxes because the mill rate will be lowered to compensate for the increase. Don't blame speculators for tax bill increases - they've got literally nothing to do with it. Thanks for the informative post. I didn't know this was how property taxes worked. I also assumed it was a more direct relationship to assessed value. Is there a problem of uneven property value increases though? In your contrived example here everyone goes up equally but we know that in Vancouver for example there are massive spikes in the west side of Vancouver vs the rest, and overall most of the crazy price action has been in detached houses, whereas condo prices haven't risen nearly as radically. How does that affect things?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
We have more marijuana dispensaries than Tim Hortons.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Half serious answer: Vancouver has several significant athletic and outdoor apparel makers. Arc'Teryx, Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ, Lululemon, Kit & Ace and MEC are all based in Vancouver. Arc'Teryx and Wings & Horns/Reigning Champ also make a lot of their products in Vancouver so there is a highly skilled clothing manufacturing industry present. I believe this highly skilled workforce also makes a lot of outdoor wear for other brands. (this industry is tiny and doesn't account for the housing bubble in any way, but wasn't this factoid kinda interesting?)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Homeowners also get rebates so they pay less property tax on their homes than on their investment properties. Tenants' rents are such to pay for the complete costs of the investment properties which receive no property tax relief.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Regarding the Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) that Baronjutter is talking about that developers are forced to make by the City, I've read positions on both sides. Some say that this doesn't affect the price of the units and the other opinion is that developers are dead set on making their x% profit and CACs of whatever price will just result in an increase of unit price by an equivalent amount. I have no idea who is right here. It's a black box to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
I think there's an argument to be made that a contributor to housing becoming more expensive in some areas has been the downloading of costs and ignoring of municipal concerns by the province and feds. Municipalities have a weak ability to raise revenue, but as higher orders of government abandon support they're pushed into spending more on areas they really shouldn't have to be spending much in, such as support for the arts and social housing. One solution is Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) on rezonings to generate income directly associated with various local amenity projects. In Vancouver I've seen these dollars contributed toward social housing, arts organizations, and daycare spaces, which seem to me to be areas higher orders of government should be handling, except of course they don't care at all, and so its left to municipalities. The possible knock on effects of municipal reliance on CACs is higher prices for housing as well as bad urban planning, as politicians are incentivised to rezone to higher densities than what should maybe be appropriate in order to get higher CAC payments from developers. Furthermore I've noticed that the public favours amenities generated by CACs to stay in the neighbourhood of the building (which does makes sense) but if good public services are being more reliably delivered via rezoning for new buildings, then only up and coming gentrifying neighbourhoods will be receiving significant amounts of new amenities while older neighbourhoods stagnate.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:Those two are already covered by DCLs. You're right. There must be some overlap though. Looking at the CoV website it says CACs go toward:
Libraries Childcare facilities Community centres Transportation services Cultural facilities Neighbourhood houses Whereas DCLs go toward:
Childcare facilities Social and non-profit housing As well this article says that some $11.4 million worth of social housing was purchased through CAC money so there must be some pipeline from CACs to social housing even if it's not direct?
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I can't believe you dumb motherfuckers are actually entertaining the idea of cutting back on municipal amenities to ~make housing affordable~ I'm just saying CACs seem like an inefficient, opaque, unsustainable and overall lovely way to pay for basic things a city needs. (I do not know what a better revenue model would be. Regional sales taxes?) btw great post Baronjutter.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Not to mention the fact that it requires owning a car and paying the gas bill for a daily four hour commute to downtown. Metro Vancouver did a study and if you factor in transportation costs, the top three most affordable communities were Burnaby/New Westminster (bundled for some reason), Richmond, and Vancouver. Least affordable were North Shore, Delta, and Langley. http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2015/04/new-study-will-shock-vancouver-most.html
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Also worth noting that the nice areas of the suburbs are way, way over $500k. I know someone who just bought a house in Fort Langley (It's the West Vancouver of Langley!) for $700k. This is basically the entry house price in Fort Langley. It goes up from there over $1 million.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Reverse Centaur posted:Metro Vancouver has 21 different municipalities, one "electoral district" (UBC) and only one of the many native reserves (Tsawassen). Many of them are nonsensical. And that's not counting anything from Abbotsford eastward. Huh??? North Van split in 1907. I guess street lights and buildings are "high density" compared to whatever wilderness the rest of North Van was back then. Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
City of Langley Wikipedia posted:Owing to its more urban development and related needs (such as street lights), the City of Langley decided to separate and incorporate as a separate municipality on March 15, 1955. "Look at those fancy aristocrats and their streetlights. We don't need em. Let them separate." Almalgamation in Vancouver only makes sense for the City of North Vancouver, City of Langley and White Rock, the three urban communities that split away from their ultra rural surroundings in order to develop. Since then they've been injured by their surrounding rural districts, as those rural districts stopped being rural and instead lazily built massive strip malls around the urban centres, stripping those of life. It makes sense to amalgamate these areas to bring some semblance of urban planning to the districts, which have truly hosed up again and again.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
That's interesting. I can imagine how ridiculous the conflicts could be if every city neighbourhood was its own town. Some amalgamation could probably make sense here. Has there been any push for amalgamation in Australia? Auckland amalgamated into a mega city recently.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:59 |
|
|
Boomers are going to live a long time. I think longer than people expect. There's going to be a multi decade gap between when older Millenials are having kids and looking around for a larger place (i.e. now) and when their inheritance arrives. Waiting for an inheritance isn't a real plan and people can't tread water that long. If people are lucky I guess their parents will cosign a mortgage for them or just loan them money? That's really the only possible way I can see how anyone could buy a house at this point.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 20:00
|
|