16 replies to this topic

[piltdownman]

Vancouver 'severely unaffordable', study shows
Financial Post
Published: Monday, January 25, 2010

Vancouver not only has the least affordable housing of 28 markets measured in Canada, but of 272 metropolitan markets ranked in Ireland, the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, the U.S. and Canada, according to statistics compiled by the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Victoria was second only to Vancouver, with its reading rising from 7.4 to 7.0.

...

http://www.financial...d=2482163<br />

[piltdownman]

Here is an irish article on the study:

International study shows Irish housing affordability up but only affordable markets are in US and Canada
By Finfacts Team
Jan 25, 2010 - 7:44:51 AM


...

http://www.finfacts....e_1018886.shtml

[VicHockeyFan]

I love these affordability things.

The fact is Victoria is so darned unaffordable, that everyone wants to live here, thus driving up the prices.

On the other hand, Moose Jaw is very affordable, so much so that no one wants to move there, and thus prices are low.

I'd hate to think how many people would want to live here if it was affordable.

It's like the old saying "No, no one wants to live in Victoria anymore, it's just too darned unaffordable, no one moves there".

[jklymak]

First, the original is available at http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf.

Second, these stats can be very misleading if they are not done carefully. For instance, the CREA releases the median price for a single family dwellings. Many of the US real estate boards only release the median price for "dwellings". Then there is the difference in areas serviced by the boards. San Diego, for instance, is all of San Diego county, including way the hell out in the desert. Vancouver, on the other hand, does not include the Fraser Valley. None of this is discussed in the Demographia report, which is severely biased to argue against multi family dwellings and land use regulations. I wouldn't consider their reports a reputable source of information.

[Layne French]

I'm sorry, but just reading their policy recommendations make me dismiss this entire study. Yes because bear mountain developing on the fringes of Victoria did tonnes for housing affordability.

(1) establishing sound and simple performance measures;
(2) appropriately financing infrastructure and;
(3) allowing sufficient inexpensive urban fringes on which to construct housing that is affordable. Authorities should closely monitor the Median Multiple and institute effective supplemental indicators.

http://www.fcpp.org/...cation.php/3156

[Bernard]

It is a supply and demand issue. There is either a unbalance due to high demand or low supply.

Victoria house prices are high not because everyone wants to live here. We gain at most 3000 people a year, on a par with Kelowna and lately even the Comox Valley. Metro Vancouver gains about 50,000 people a year, 2.5 times as many new comers per capita.

Our problem is that in Greater Victoria we add new housing much too slowly. Saanich does very little to make it possible to build large amounts of new housing. Oak Bay and Esquimalt are stagnant in population.

Ideally this region needs to build 1500 housing units per year and every year just to stay still. Ideally we need 2000 units a year for a few years.


On a related note, does anyone know what the rental vacancy rate is in town? I have noticed quite a few apartment for rent signs outside of buildings in town lately.

[sebberry]

From 1990 to 2000 housing prices remained pretty steady. From 2000 to 2007 housing prices virtually doubled. I guess if you owned property in the late 90s you are doing ok now, but for anyone trying to enter the market now it's damn near impossible to not spend 3/4 of your paycheque on the mortgage.

[North Shore]

It is a supply and demand issue. There is either a unbalance due to high demand or low supply.

Victoria house prices are high not because everyone wants to live here. We gain at most 3000 people a year, on a par with Kelowna and lately even the Comox Valley. Metro Vancouver gains about 50,000 people a year, 2.5 times as many new comers per capita.

Our problem is that in Greater Victoria we add new housing much too slowly. Saanich does very little to make it possible to build large amounts of new housing. Oak Bay and Esquimalt are stagnant in population.

Ideally this region needs to build 1500 housing units per year and every year just to stay still. Ideally we need 2000 units a year for a few years.

So what's the upside to me, a homeowner, in supporting a pro-development council/lor? Lower property values, more traffic, more demand on recreation infrastructure, roads, hospitals...

[Baro]

Lower property values???

[VicHockeyFan]

Lower property values???

Well, if there was lots of extra housing around for cheap, everyone's property values would decrease.

[spanky123]

Well, if there was lots of extra housing around for cheap, everyone's property values would decrease.

Didn't work in Colwood!

[Mike K.]

I wonder what the vacancy rate is for market housing in Victoria. We have stats on office, retail space and rental vacancies but I can't remember ever seeing market housing vacancy stats (i.e. newly built homes waiting for buyers or homes for sale by owners who moved away or have moved into a new home prior to selling the previous one).

Apart from the odd condo development with more than a handful of empty units, most homes in the region are purchased well in advance of completion and already built stock rarely sits on the market uninhabited.

[Bernard]

So what's the upside to me, a homeowner, in supporting a pro-development council/lor? Lower property values, more traffic, more demand on recreation infrastructure, roads, hospitals...

As a homeowner there is not a financial benefit if enough housing gets built to lower values. But most eligible voters in are not home owners.

Higher density in the core increases the amount of local services and such close to where you live. It also improves the environment. More housing units will also reduce the property tax burden for everyone.

High house prices means your kids will have to move to Moose Jaw or some other place like that to be able to make a living and have a place to live.

When there is a problem with housing affordability, the community develops a bigger and bigger gap between the rich and poor. When this gap is created through an artificial manner such as high house prices and not created through work, the social contract of the community begins to fall apart.

More people will mean better public medical services. The BC Cancer Agency for Island is in Victoria and not Nanaimo because we have the population here. In 30 years it is realistic to have the Ladysmith to Comox swath of the Island to have more people that the CRD. At that point it makes sense to shift healthcare up island.

Finally, homelessness in Victoria is driven by high housing costs. We have very few places available to be rented for the welfare shelter allowance.

[gumgum]

Well put.

[phx]

But most eligible voters in are not home owners.

I wonder if that changes if you consider actual voters instead of eligible voters...

[Bernard]

I wonder if that changes if you consider actual voters instead of eligible voters...

That is a good question I do not know what the answer is. I suspect that in Oak Bay and Saanich it is more owners than others voting. In Victoria I suspect it is more renters than owners voting. But I have no proof of either.

[pseudotsuga]

^seems reasonable.
I'd say property owners are also far more likely to be the squeaky wheels that get the grease.

 

Admin edit: please continue discussions on Victoria home prices at http://vibrantvictor...-values/page-36