# *GRAPH* Vancouver Real Estate



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

Graph of average Vancouver house price vs. income:

http://vancouvercondo.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/VCI-avgprice-medianincome2.gif


----------



## Murph (Sep 9, 2009)

Wow, boy am I glad I don't live in Vancouver.


----------



## iherald (Apr 18, 2009)

Rickson9 said:


> Graph of average Vancouver house price vs. income:
> 
> http://vancouvercondo.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/VCI-avgprice-medianincome2.gif


It would be interesting to see what's happened in the last two years.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

The same thing is happening here in Toronto. Just not as obviously.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

why not live in van? i think everyone should. it is easy to afford, they just have multiple families living in a single house! rentals galore, have many people living in your house for years! welcome to the city!!


----------



## AntiBrian (Aug 26, 2009)

sprocket1200 said:


> why not live in van?


Only way that would happen is if I lived in a van, down by the river. Like Matt Foley Motivational Speaker.


----------



## FinancialJungle (Apr 22, 2009)

The Vancouver market is actually reasonably priced if record low mortgage rates linger over the next 10 to 15 years. Of course, it's hard to predict where rates are headed. For my selfish reason, I like to see Canada follows Australia's lead to raise interest rates to keep the RE market from overheating.


----------



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

Vancouver Real Estate (1977-2008):


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Rickson where's the Toronto Graph?

I read that the Bank of Canada may raise interest rates to slow down the Real Estate market. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gbE0zHyoMVL6i7BTQUONG7URZsdQ

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKP6ISKbUaLQd0nINgrgqrOSqr2wD9B75BN81

That one is about asset bubbles and why they keep happening.

That is one nasty graph to buy into. My husband was in California before the housing crash and he saw what was going on there. People were buying houses and getting crazy mortgages and selling every year or two trying to build equity. There was no way they could afford the payments the way the mortgages were structured. In Canada the nastier mortgage products were never even offered. Interest only, balloon payments and more crazy mortgages that seem absolutely insane to anyone not on drugs. Problem is that if you wanted a house in the last 20 years in California you had to play the game along with everyone else. 

That's what I think the most beneficial role our government plays. They are the protector of the common people. They advocate for consumers. Because people are stupid at times. We are told buy a house it will make you rich. Look at all these Flipping shows (now gone ) But If you are to buy a house the only way is to get into this crapola.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I know this is impractical, but the way to stop this is for people to go "on strike" and stop buying houses. If houses are too expensive, boycott them until the prices come down. I lived in rented apartments and cottages until I was almost 50; it did me no harm. There's a lot of cultural pressure to buy a house, and people seem to think it's a requirement. It's not. 

I say this not knowing what rentals are going for in Vancouver...if the monthly rent for a 3-bedroom apartment is the same as the monthly mortgage payment for a 3-bedroom house then it makes sense to buy. But apartments are usually cheaper than detached houses (as you can see in the graph above showing the difference in prices for detached houses versus condos etc.).

Prices kept climbing because people were willing to buy at higher prices. If they had kept their wallets shut and stayed where they were, prices probably would have stabilized.

It's the same deal with cellphone data plans. They're ridiculously expensive in Canada compared with many other countries, but the phone companies can get away with it because they know people will buy the plans anyway. If we all just said, "sorry, there's no way I'm going to pay that much for a data plan; I can live without one for a few more years" prices would come down in a hurry.

But, as I said, it's impractical. People will still buy houses and data plans because they view them as necessities.


----------



## leslie (May 25, 2009)

I am familiar with the downtown Vancouver condo market and that graph is correct. But I don't find it shocking at all. Condo have doubled in price since the beginning of 2003. But consider the reasons.

* A huge inventory of new construction came on the market with much larger square footages and much more high end finishing. The 'average' price does not compare apples to apples.

* The stock market has also doubled in that same period. There is asset inflation in many markets.


----------



## Mockingbird (Apr 29, 2009)

Most recent Greater Vancouver Average Price Graph.
[January 1977 to September 2009]

Almost right up to the last year's high prices.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

hard to predict where interest rates are headed in the next 10-15 years? you are kidding me. we currently pay 2%. I will guarantee you that rates are headed up in much less than 10 yrs
try 2-3yrs. get your cash ready, housing prices are coming down..

and to kill the 25-30% returns that everyone expects of real estate (except for the past year), even though historical returns have been 8%, take the above doubling since 2003 and use the rule of 72. 72/6 is 12%, half what everyone is expecting.

they just don't factor in time nor the costs (insurance, repair, property tax, interest). 

but, hey, keep buying those houses, the price will go up...


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Luckily I bought my house in that dip you see in 1991. I know prices are to high but alot of the buying comes from Asians with very deep pockets and I don't think many of them would care to move to anywhere else in Canada. Others have lived here for many years and also don't want to move no matter what thier house is worth. I happen to be in that boat I can't think of anywhere else I would want to live.


----------



## FinancialJungle (Apr 22, 2009)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...an-banks-raise-mortgage-rates/article1322321/

5-year fixed rates are up by 0.35%. ING Direct was offering 3.99%, now 4.34%.


----------



## canadianbanks (Jun 5, 2009)

sprocket1200 said:


> hard to predict where interest rates are headed in the next 10-15 years? you are kidding me. we currently pay 2%. I will guarantee you that rates are headed up in much less than 10 yrs
> try 2-3yrs. get your cash ready, housing prices are coming down..


I couldn't agree more! If anybody thinks/hopes that interest rates will remain that low for long, they are in for a rude awakening.


----------



## PMREdmonton (Apr 6, 2009)

The effects of interest rates on the paydown rate of my current mortgage ($250K) has been staggering.

Before everything went to heck my P-0.75 variable rate mortgage was 5.50% meaning debt servicing costs of $1146.

Presently with rates at 1.5% I'm paying a whopping $312.50.

People who bought variable rate mortgages that they can't afford at more realistic long-term interest rates (think around 6-8%) are going to be in for a rude awakening.

I hope the government is paying attention because all of us are potentially on the hook as the taxpayer is the CMHC. I'd like to see a return to a minimum 10% downpayment and up CMHC to 5% on such mortgages.


----------



## FinancialJungle (Apr 22, 2009)

PMREdmonton said:


> I hope the government is paying attention because all of us are potentially on the hook as the taxpayer is the CMHC.


Bah. That's penny wise pound foolish. I'd love to be on the hook for CMHC, if it means getting a 6 figure discount on a Vancouver property.


----------



## FinancialJungle (Apr 22, 2009)

dogcom said:


> I know prices are to high but alot of the buying comes from Asians with very deep pockets and I don't think many of them would care to move to anywhere else in Canada.


Dogcom, do you have any statistical data to back up your claim?


----------



## DuckConference (Sep 20, 2009)

Mockingbird said:


> Most recent Greater Vancouver Average Price Graph.
> [January 1977 to September 2009]
> 
> Almost right up to the last year's high prices.


Eh, without inflation adjustment it's not hugely useful.


----------



## Rickson9 (Apr 9, 2009)

DuckConference said:


> Eh, without inflation adjustment it's not hugely useful.


It's not useful with or without inflation adjustment.


----------



## sprocket1200 (Aug 21, 2009)

FinancialJungle said:


> Dogcom, do you have any statistical data to back up your claim?


stats? just walk into any house in East Vancouver and knock on the door. ask them how many families are living there...

it is not that the individuals have deep pockets, its that many generations (including all siblings) do and all live together. Canadians don't do that. Hence, the term, Hongcouver...


----------



## FinancialJungle (Apr 22, 2009)

sprocket1200 said:


> stats? just walk into any house in East Vancouver and knock on the door. ask them how many families are living there...
> 
> it is not that the individuals have deep pockets, its that many generations (including all siblings) do and all live together. Canadians don't do that. Hence, the term, Hongcouver...


By Asians, I'm assuming dogcom meant foreign mainland china Asians, not existing Chinese from Hong Kong. The "Hongcoverites" have been here since the late 80's early 90's, but the Vancouver RE market hasn't been invincible in that period.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Can someone please explain to me why people and extended families working together to achieve a common goal is a bad thing. I admire their willingness to live in crowded inconvenient conditions for everyone's financial benefit. 

I know here in Toronto families that band together to do this pay off the house and then buy a second house and pay that one off too. Then both sets of people have a house. 

Good that's what I say. Canadians don't work together in this way ? That is their loss. There is a lot to learn from other cultures. Maybe instead of being snarky and judgmental we could emulate their success.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm not Canadian-born Canadian, but I think that cramming multiple families in a single house is not a good thing. If we cannot afford a house like all the previous generations then why are we working that hard for? And I think that immigrants should stop giving lessons to Canadians. You came into Canada, you should learn from them, not the other way around. 
And I don't like what the east and south Asians have done to the housing market in Vancouver and suburbs.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

*I'm not Canadian-born Canadian, but I think that cramming multiple families in a single house is not a good thing.*

What exactly is wrong with this? No one is forcing you to do it. People are getting together to buy a house, they cannot afford to live one couple per house they choose to get together to buy a house because that is the only way they can afford it. Sounds good to me.

*If we cannot afford a house like all the previous generations then why are we working that hard for? 
*
Is there any answer to this question? In any case it doesn't really matter does it? Houses cost what they cost. You do what you have to.

*And I think that immigrants should stop giving lessons to Canadians. 
You came into Canada, you should learn from them, not the other way around.* 

Really I think that I should learn from other people no matter where they are from. I don't like my own ignorance. As far as I know Canada has no monopoly on intelligence or idiocy either. 

*And I don't like what the east and south Asians have done to the housing market in Vancouver and suburbs.
*
What exactly have they done? Paid more than you can afford? Now that's criminal..... I'll bet you are in favor of capitalism too.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> *I'm not Canadian-born Canadian, but I think that cramming multiple families in a single house is not a good thing.*
> 
> What exactly is wrong with this? No one is forcing you to do it. People are getting together to buy a house, they cannot afford to live one couple per house they choose to get together to buy a house because that is the only way they can afford it. Sounds good to me.


What`s wrong is that they are illegally transforming single-family neighborhoods into crammed multi-family ones. If you want to live in a multi-family building, get an apartment. It`s cheaper and (almost) anyone with an income can afford it.



Berubeland said:


> *And I think that immigrants should stop giving lessons to Canadians.
> You came into Canada, you should learn from them, not the other way around.*
> 
> Really I think that I should learn from other people no matter where they are from. I don't like my own ignorance. As far as I know Canada has no monopoly on intelligence or idiocy either.


Well I came to Canada because I liked the Canadian lifestyle and I expected I had to made some adjustments to fit in. If I wanted the lifestyle of southern Asia, I would have applied for permanent residence in India. I would not ask Canadians to change their lifestyle to resemble that of my native country and I don`t want natives from other countries (for example countries where multiple families share the same building or even room) to do that.



Berubeland said:


> *And I don't like what the east and south Asians have done to the housing market in Vancouver and suburbs.
> *
> What exactly have they done? Paid more than you can afford? Now that's criminal..... I'll bet you are in favor of capitalism too.


No, they have transformed single family neighborhoods into multi-family ones, and most new houses are really multi-family houses on tiny lots with tiny rooms and extremely overpriced. Speculators are buying 40 years old single-family 4 bedroom 2500-3000 sqft houses on 8000 sqft lots, are dividing the lots in two and are buidling two 8 bedroom 3500 sqft houses. I wonder how many families will be living in those 2 houses. Each is advertised as having 2 suites, so I guess the number would be at least 6, or about 30-40 people. And that is replacing a single 3-4 people family.
Not to mention all the ugly apartment buildings that are now built because the houses are too expensive for regular people.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

*


osc said:



What`s wrong is that they are illegally transforming single-family neighborhoods into crammed multi-family ones. If you want to live in a multi-family building, get an apartment. It`s cheaper and (almost) anyone with an income can afford it.

Click to expand...

*


osc said:


> Wow that's very Canadian of you. Lets prevent people from buying houses and make them rent apartments because we don't like the way they live. While we're at it let's insist that all immigrants be very highly educated and then when they get here let's not recognize their credentials or work experience so they can work at Tim Horton's or drive a cab. If it is illegal get the proper authorities involved.
> 
> *Well I came to Canada because I liked the Canadian lifestyle and I expected I had to made some adjustments to fit in. If I wanted the lifestyle of southern Asia, I would have applied for permanent residence in India. I would not ask Canadians to change their lifestyle to resemble that of my native country and I don`t want natives from other countries (for example countries where multiple families share the same building or even room) to do that.*
> 
> ...




That is truly amazing that these people have created all this urban density planning just so they can get buildings built and approved by city hall and developed by developers. Just so they can erect ugly apartment buildings. Truly a gargantuan conspiracy that you have exposed for all to see. And it's spread all the way to Toronto even.... my lot is 60 by 120 and right behind me they are building houses with 14 foot frontage, 76 of them. I have lost my personal dog walking park as well just so 76 or so families can move in. It's truly tragic. 

I am just curious what are "regular" people?


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> If it is illegal get the proper authorities involved.


Unfortunately it seems that the "proper authorities" are in bed with the speculators as most houses are freely marketed as having "illegal" suites. That is supposedly an advantage. Also if there were any real authorities they would not allow the practice of building 4000 sqft "single" family houses on 3000 sqft lots. 
If people want to build multi-family dwellings that's fine, but build them in multi-family zones, don't ruin everything.



Berubeland said:


> I am just curious what are "regular" people?


Regular people are middle class people with regular jobs and with a normal family (1-2 children). And they cannot buy a regular house because these days it takes 3 or 4 middle class family incomes to buy an average single-family house. By middle class family income I mean 80k-100k/year and by average house I mean one that costs 750k-900k.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> And it's spread all the way to Toronto even.... my lot is 60 by 120 and right behind me they are building houses with 14 foot frontage, 76 of them. I have lost my personal dog walking park as well just so 76 or so families can move in. It's truly tragic.


Actually I believe it is. You are describing the ripping off of green space in order to cram more people into the same small area. 
Canada is a large country, even if we consider only the permafrost-free area. We should preserve our standard of living and the green space. Just spread the people more evenly and better manage the immigration and all housing pseudo-problems would be fixed. 
This is an artificial issue due to speculators and the banks (which are the same thing). Why have we changed the minimum down payment to almost nothing and the amortization to 35 years? Who's benefiting from these changes?


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I come from a small town of 500 people. There is tons of green space. Houses can be had for $50,000. I could live there if I so chose. I'm sure they have places like that in BC as well. 

I choose to live in Toronto. To buy my house I had to rent out the basement apartment. Now I have my office down there but for many years I rented it out. 

I don't understand why this is so onerous to you. 

I especially don't understand why you blame immigration for the increasing density of our urban areas. 

It seems very childish to me to say Bah houses in Vancouver are too expensive then to blame the problem on people who just came to Canada. Surely the problem originates right here in Canada just like the solutions. 

Also like I mentioned my middle class grandparents and many like them raised 18 children in a 4 bedroom house. This is the original Canadian lifestyle. 

What I hear you saying is that you don't think the lifestyle is affluent enough rather than Canadian enough. I'm sorry to disturb you but people have to live how they can afford. Everyone is just trying to get ahead.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> I especially don't understand why you blame immigration for the increasing density of our urban areas.


Unchecked immigration is responsible for the ethnic enclaves that we have here in Vancouver and for the explosive increase in density. In order for Canada to remain a multicultural society we should do something about that. I think economic migrants who wish to emigrate to Canada should first find a job before being granted permanent residence. Otherwise ask them to settle into areas with low density for at least 5 years.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Also like I mentioned my middle class grandparents and many like them raised 18 children in a 4 bedroom house. This is the original Canadian lifestyle.


I'm sorry I just don't believe that having 18 children is the "original" Canadian lifestyle. If it was, then this country would have been more populated than US or Mexico.
As far as I know, the post WWII typical family in a developed country had 2 children and that is decreasing on average.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

osc said:


> I'm sorry I just don't believe that having 18 children is the "original" Canadian lifestyle. If it was, then this country would have been more populated than US or Mexico. As far as I know, the post WWII typical family in a developed country had 2 children and that is decreasing on average.


My Grandmother was born way before WWII if she were alive she would be 97 today. She was unusual in the fact that she had 18 surviving children. It was not unusual to have that many children but it was unusual for them all to survive. It is only since reliable birth control that birth rates have gone down and that occurred in the 60's. 

In any case your whole premise that Vancouver is being taken over by rampaging hordes of immigrants is challenged by the official Canadian census. 

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil122g-eng.htm

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil122c-eng.htm

There are 2.8 people per household in Toronto and 2.6 people average per household in Vancouver. There are less 6 or more people families per capita in Vancouver than Toronto.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

*Unchecked immigration is responsible for the ethnic enclaves that we have here in Vancouver and for the explosive increase in density.
*
There is no such thing as "unchecked" immigration. Every year the government allows a preset number of people to move here according to the number of people they predict we will need to pay tax to make sure your Old Age Pension check doesn't bounce.

*In order for Canada to remain a multicultural society we should do something about that.
*
I'm not sure where you're going with this thought...... 

*I think economic migrants who wish to emigrate to Canada should first find a job before being granted permanent residence. *

There is no such thing as an "economic migrant" 

There are investor class immigrants who must have $400,000 to invest in Canada. 

There are regular immigrants who are highly educated and must apply an average of 60 months before they want to come here. They must also show proof of funds before they come. They need the funds to support themselves for a year and need more money for every member of the family.

There are sponsored individuals who are being sponsored by family. They also cannot collect social services of any kind or the sponsor must pay the government back. The time the sponsor is responsible for them is 3-10 years. 

There are refugees who come from countries like Congo, and lately the Philiipines. 

There are seasonal laborers that pick all our fruit. They cannot get permanent resident status. 

There are people who come here to work. They need to get a job that no canadian wants or is qualified for as approved by HRDC. The company seeking to hire that worker must apply and it takes a long time. The company must advertise the position. 

But no economic migrants. 

*Otherwise ask them to settle into areas with low density for at least 5 years.*

I come from an area that has very low density a small beautiful town of 500 people. Houses there cost $50,000. I would like to still be living there but there are no jobs that's why there is no density. So why would you require an immigrant to live there? It seems not so Canadian to tell people where they can and cannot live. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> There is no such thing as "unchecked" immigration. Every year the government allows a preset number of people to move here according to the number of people they predict we will need to pay tax to make sure your Old Age Pension check doesn't bounce.


Unchecked immigration: over 80% of migrants are from east Asia or south Asia. And most of them are going to Vancouver or Toronto where they create over-populated ethnic enclaves. 
I think it's bad policy to base anyone's retirement plans on migrants coming here. I surely don't expect to be living at retirement on $6000/year from the government.



Berubeland said:


> There is no such thing as an "economic migrant"


All migrants which come here for economic reasons are economic migrants. They come here because they were born in a poor country and they want to live in a developed country.


Berubeland said:


> There are investor class immigrants who must have $400,000 to invest in Canada.


Is that a joke? Are we calling people with $400k investors? Invest $400k in what? An apartment in Vancouver or Toronto? There are millions of Canadian "investors" with more than that and they still need to have a normal job for living expenses.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Ok OSC I agree.

I am tired of arguing about this. 

Even though by definition immigrants have only been in Canada a short time immigrants are to blame for everything. They are ruining Vancouver, ruining health care and taking over the government. 

There is no way that Canadians could be responsible for this because they were born in Canada and are perfect. They made the rules and follow them. They are all geniuses. 

Wow I feel much better. I'm sick of facts. Why substantiate an argument with research when you can just make things up?


----------



## osc (Oct 17, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> Even though by definition immigrants have only been in Canada a short time immigrants are to blame for everything. They are ruining Vancouver, ruining health care and taking over the government.
> There is no way that Canadians could be responsible for this because they were born in Canada and are perfect. They made the rules and follow them. They are all geniuses.


I don't know what you are talking about. I am myself an immigrant. All I said was that I think that the immigration policy is not good enough and is causing some problems. 
And I don't think and didn't say that anyone who was born here is perfect (otherwise the immigration policy would be perfect, wouldn't it?). However on average they must have done something better than the countries from where people are coming here. If they weren't, we would have Canadians emigrating to China, not the other way around.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

osc said:


> All I said was that I think that the immigration policy is not good enough and is causing some problems.


Most "developed" countries with active immigration programs face these issues.
It's very hard (almost impossible) to have a perfect immigration program.
I don't believe any country that achieved that yet.
Canada and Australia are among the very few first (or second) world countries still with an open immigration program.
Most other countries, including the US and most of Western Europe, have closed immigration policies.
What I mean by that is immigration is by invitation only - you need to have an approved, confirmed job (verified by the immigration authorities) before you are allowed to immigrate.
Canada (and Australia) on the other hand allow immigrants to come purely on the basis of their educational background and work history (subject to some proof of funds limits).


----------

