|
It's true to an extent. Jane Jacobs and others that came after her outlined it well in the general theory of the "housing cycle" or "building cycles". The general idea is that a city always needs to be building and renewing otherwise you get bottlenecks in types of buildings. For instance if you put an entire neighbourhood in stasis due to zoning or historical protection, you eventually kill the neighborhood because you've stopped the housing cycle or locked the entire area into a single-stage of the cycle. A healthy neighbourhood and healthy city will always have a mix of older buildings on their last legs to brand new shiny buildings. The brand new buildings will always command the highest rents but over time they age and get cheaper as people move out into newer buildings, opening up the space for different uses. Or the building gets renovated and brought back to shiny-new status. Cheaper and even run-down buildings are incredibly important for a city to have, recent studies have even shown that districts that have a % of these sort of buildings actually do perform better. They provide cheap housing, they provide cheap leases for start-ups and small companies. Those companies if they succeed then outgrow their crappy old warehouse and move on to a better building, freeing up the lovely warehouse for the next startup or struggling business. The same happens for housing. Better housing becomes available so those who can move up and leave the cheaper space for others who need it. But this requires a few very important assumptions. One is that the pace of construction, decay, and renewal is fairly even and constant so you don't get bottlenecks (not enough renewal and an area turns into a slum and dies, too much and you get poo poo like yaletown). Vancouver and a lot of north america does a lovely job at this. We like our mega-projects and master plans. Build the whole neighbourhood at once and then it's locked in and done, this is incredibly unhealthy. The other is that the city actually has a healthy functioning economy. That companies are constantly out-growing their ratty incubators, that poor students living in an old rental get better jobs and go looking for better housing. And in a bubble most of that goes out the window as well. Bubbles lead to a massive boom of construction, a glut of a single type or class of housing, and then after it crashes there's a huge shadow. This is really bad and unhealthy for cities.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
See also: Rich Coleman announcing during the Portland Hotel fiasco that "The province is no longer in the business of providing social housing", and that existing properties on the books would continue to be sold off for market developments ala Little Mountain. In other words: gently caress The Poors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:See also: Rich Coleman announcing during the Portland Hotel fiasco that "The province is no longer in the business of providing social housing", and that existing properties on the books would continue to be sold off for market developments ala Little Mountain. If those poors want social housing they will just need to form a market segment, and find someone that wants to compete for their business, as god intended. Bootstraps gentlemen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Serious question: how do we fix this poo poo in the least painful way? How do we deflate the bubble without totally destroying the economy and completing screwing over a vast majority of "home owners" ? Or at least how do we do it in the way that will have the least overall negative effects on society, and then how do we keep it from happening again? I guess the depressing thing is that even if there was a clear best way of going about fixing out housing situation, no one will do it because they'll be blamed for "causing a housing crash" even if their policies avoid what would have been a much much worse situation later. This is really a situation where democracy ensures people will continue to only vote in leaders that support the bubble as so many voters depend on the bubble. Anyone trying to deflate or pop the bubble, even if it's in everyone's long term interest, will be met with violent opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
See also: Easter island, pre-collapse Amazonia, Rome, Great Britain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Serious question: how do we fix this poo poo in the least painful way? How do we deflate the bubble without totally destroying the economy and completing screwing over a vast majority of "home owners" ? Or at least how do we do it in the way that will have the least overall negative effects on society, and then how do we keep it from happening again? introduce restrictions on lending, increase wages to ease reliance on credit, expand social safety-nets for those who cannot survive as is and would be inordinately harmed by an economic collapse, some other stuff a more educated person could no doubt include as well
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Serious question: how do we fix this poo poo in the least painful way? How do we deflate the bubble without totally destroying the economy and completing screwing over a vast majority of "home owners" ? Or at least how do we do it in the way that will have the least overall negative effects on society, and then how do we keep it from happening again? I'm sure there will be those that disagree with me, but I think the government is taking the right steps for the most part now. A gradual increase of the costs of financing, by doing things like making insurance harder and / or more expensive to get, and forcing banks to take more equity in loans through restricting amortization periods and leverage (meaning more cost). There will eventually come action by BOC, and this is probably the biggest risk. The eventuality of a crash will depend on how measured and careful they are in taking their foot off the gas (low o/n rate). If it's done slowly and he messaging keeps consumers /homebuyers / etc from freaking the gently caress out and flooding the markets, then we will see a period of stagnation, which mean slow nominal increases and slow real declines. If they gently caress this up, we'll see potential nominal decreases outside of the particularly overheated markets, and that's when all the spec money will bail and flood he market, leading to a more painful glut with deeper losses for all involved. My position here has generally been that either of these could be possible but the systems in place ~should~ mitigate the flow through to he rest of he economy, not that a nominal decline is impossible. One alternative is the bandaid rip theory, which suggests that you avoid a more prolonged downturn by just popping o/n rates, eating lovely headlines for 6 months or so, while the economy starts to get on with the new reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
I just sometimes worry things are SO over-inflated it will take decades to of housing price stagnation for it to fall back to a "normal" level and this bubble is costing the economy and people in the meantime. Yes, things will get better in the future but in the future we'll be dead. There's a huge problem for the working class right now to even afford any housing, to afford or even find rents. I hope we can find a happy medium between "rip the bandaid off now and start getting over it" and "Stretch the bubble out over the next generation so home-owners get the slightest bit upset".
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
House prices can't just stagnate because the economy right now is running on fumes, and those fumes are largely FIRE sector, procyclical demand driven jobs. Once the market stops growing, those jobs go away, and that will plunge us into a recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
I don't really give a poo poo about all the assholes who have taken it upon themselves to get into a ridiculous amount of discretionary debt. Motherfuckers leasing landrovers and buying million dollar houses while earning paltry incomes deserve to get wrecked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I don't really give a poo poo about all the assholes who have taken it upon themselves to get into a ridiculous amount of discretionary debt. Motherfuckers leasing landrovers and buying million dollar houses while earning paltry incomes deserve to get wrecked. You should, they might be taking everyone else with them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ so they deserve to be rewarded for poor decisions?Kalenn Istarion posted:If it's done slowly and he messaging keeps consumers /homebuyers / etc from freaking the gently caress out and flooding the markets, then we will see a period of stagnation, which mean slow nominal increases and slow real declines. If they gently caress this up, we'll see potential nominal decreases outside of the particularly overheated markets, and that's when all the spec money will bail and flood he market, leading to a more painful glut with deeper losses for all involved. My position here has generally been that either of these could be possible but the systems in place ~should~ mitigate the flow through to he rest of he economy, not that a nominal decline is impossible. When and where has this ever happened without nominal decreases and the spec money fleeing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I don't give a poo poo about idiot "investment buyers", I just don't want to see the entire economy go down with them. I'm just hoping there's a way to minimize the impact of their chickens coming home to roost. If that means aggressively triggering the bubble to collapse right now then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:50
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't give a poo poo about idiot "investment buyers", I just don't want to see the entire economy go down with them. I'm just hoping there's a way to minimize the impact of their chickens coming home to roost. If that means aggressively triggering the bubble to collapse right now then so be it. I'm p.sure y'all are super-hosed either way at this point, I'm just hoping the echo effects aren't too horrific. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Rime posted:See also: Rich Coleman announcing during the Portland Hotel fiasco that "The province is no longer in the business of providing social housing", and that existing properties on the books would continue to be sold off for market developments ala Little Mountain. Do you have a link for this? I tried Googling the quote and didn't come up with anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't give a poo poo about idiot "investment buyers", I just don't want to see the entire economy go down with them. I'm just hoping there's a way to minimize the impact of their chickens coming home to roost. If that means aggressively triggering the bubble to collapse right now then so be it. It is far too late at this point. Letting it collapse in 2008 when it looked like it was going to would have been bad enough, but they let it even get crazier. Kaleen is probably close to the mark with what they need to do to try and pull off a "soft landing". However; 1) they need a way to keep all that spec money tied up in real estate once the returns are gone. 2) they need a way for the 20% of the economy currently tied up in building, selling, financing and insuring houses afloat during that period of stagnation. 3) they need a way to keep the bond market and interest rates at close to zero for the foreseeable future. 4) they need to keep the economy from having a recession for the foreseeable future. 5) they need to keep inflation near or above the 2% target so that real incomes catch up to housing inside a generation. I am sure there are more. All five of those things are individually unlikely to impossible, and any single one of them probably dynamites the economy. I don't want the economy to go to poo poo, but I am pretty resigned to the fact that unless there is some sort of miracle it is just a matter of time. Since that is likely the only path, "gently caress those guys, let it burn" is my attitude as well. ~~ Real Answer: Officially opening the country up to foreign real estate ownership/immigration, ala Spain may offset some of the problems. Ironic considering the perceived source of the problem by a lot of people. ocrumsprug fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
quote:Rich Coleman is the provincial minister in charge of housing. Asked if the province has the money to build 4,400 social housing units in the Downtown Eastside, he said: “No, we don’t. And we don’t do housing that way anymore, either.” The province prefers to pay out incentives to developers for units which are never constructed, and laughably small rent subsidies which are immediately eaten up by landlords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Serious question: how do we fix this poo poo in the least painful way? How do we deflate the bubble without totally destroying the economy and completing screwing over a vast majority of "home owners" ? Or at least how do we do it in the way that will have the least overall negative effects on society, and then how do we keep it from happening again? Simple: everyone gets to own the property they currently live in and all mortgages are nullified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Simple: everyone gets to own the property they currently live in and all mortgages are nullified. I've got a better idea. Why don't we abandon the cities and force everyone to cultivate weed in the country side. A year zero in the new era of neo Pol Pot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Simple: everyone gets to own the property they currently live in and all mortgages are nullified. The howling of the bears would be audible from Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
I would support this, so long as everyone affected had "I am a financially illiterate moron" permanently branded on their face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The howling of the bears would be audible from Australia. Ain't that the truth. Edit: but yes, I'm down with the branding idea. Lexicon fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
 Oh no the bankers and landlords would be ruined!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:When and where has this ever happened without nominal decreases and the spec money fleeing? He is saying much of the same stuff the politicans, 'experts', and economists said about the US housing bubble when it started to peak/stagnate and look how that turned out. The truth is the bubble is too drat big now to deflate with a minimum of mess. As others have noted its effectively propping up the whole Canadian economy at this point. When it blows you're going to get a self reinforcing recession that could easily go on for several years. Depending on how aggressive the Canadian govt. is at price propping and can kicking you may get a US-ish housing echo boom though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
I know all you hipsters never leave main Street so let me be the first to report that there is a new massive Mercedes Benz dealership being built at lougheed and boundary. You'd think the massive new one on terminal would be enough. All those joins being created! Thanks mayor moonbeam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Simple: everyone gets to own the property they currently live in and all mortgages are nullified. Yes, a multi-billion dollar handout to people who probably already have decent jobs and definitely already have a house. What a good idea!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:edit: ^^^ so they deserve to be rewarded for poor decisions? This is the big problem, as any sort of top-down policy that the Federal gov Fn.Mn. could put in place would also curbstomp demand in the suffering provinces like Quebec or the Maritimes while doing nothing really good for local price inflation in Vancouver or Toronto. If you look back at asset "bubbles" and compare the Price to book value ratio for other "bubbles" such as Shanghai, anywhere inside China, Tokyo and London, San Fran/NYC right now, property inflation in Canada is really tame. Also, small economies such as Canada or Spain/NZ/Aus. tend to have little in the way of being able to stem or control hot money speculation without drastically nuking everything else growing for a 5 year "risk-off" period. Which, in a word when global GDP is hovering around 1.2% and the Chinese/US manufacturing indexes are 0.3 (a statistical smoothing factor) away from recession, I really don't think we have much to worry about rampant inflation heading out 4 years in time. The flattening of the Canadian bond and US bond market seems to confirm that inflation expectations rolling past 2016. On the off chance we see a really big market panic, and Canada home prices suddenly crater, it would likely look like 1984-1989 where so much value destruction is caused to the REIT and bank lending sectors of the economy, Ontario and Quebec would suffer a near credit downgrade trying to match their large debt loads/entitlements; which they are already struggling to curtail with a roaring localized property boom. Spec money in housing/leverage asset classes where no anti-money laundering rules exist, like UK and Canadian property often get hit really hard and never come back due to the flighty nature of Black money / money laundering. Argentina and Mexico/Greece/Cypress proved this. You don't hear the locals complaining much in Greece and Cypress much now about full-blue collar/union employment and booming home equity valuations these days do you? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yes, a multi-billion dollar handout to people who probably already have decent jobs and definitely already have a house. What a good idea!  Everyone lives somewhere, that includes people that are renting. It would be a bigger handout to low income people. Everyone would get something unless you are literally homeless.*Homeless people should be given free homes as well* Rutibex fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:edit: ^^^ so they deserve to be rewarded for poor decisions? It happened over the last couple years in Vancouver. Toronto had had some pretty stagnant stretches recently as well iirc. Rutibex posted:
This wouldn't hurt landlords, it would help them. Re the 'bankers', do you have a pension, federal or otherwise? If yes, you're taking money out of your own pocket, as that's who owns all the mortgages in the country, and that's who would lose if you torched mortgages. Pull your head out of your rear end, thanks. Rutibex posted:
I feel like you couldn't actually be stupid enough to unironically suggest this... But I've been proven overly optimistic before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Re the 'bankers', do you have a pension, federal or otherwise? If yes, you're taking money out of your own pocket, as that's who owns all the mortgages in the country, and that's who would lose if you torched mortgages. Combine with a guaranteed minimum income. Any important businesses that fail due to the transition are nationalized. Bam, done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Combine with a guaranteed minimum income. Any important businesses that fail due to the transition are nationalized. Bam, done. And the Romano Fafard sets off in search of a new planet to relocate six billion dumbasses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Combine with a guaranteed minimum income. Any important businesses that fail due to the transition are nationalized. Bam, done. You'd be providing a payout to the the richest 70%+ of the population. The people who would most need that money do not have mortgages. This is a stupid idea, and you are stupid for suggesting it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Wasting posted:You'd be providing a payout to the the richest 70%+ of the population. The people who would most need that money do not have mortgages. This is a stupid idea, and you are stupid for suggesting it. People that are currently renting would now own their property and no longer need to pay rent. It would also be an anti-payout to anyone that owned rental property or investments in mortgages. It's not perfect egalitarianism but it's a lot closer to it than we have now and would cause a lot less social disruption. FrozenVent posted:And the Romano Fafard sets off in search of a new planet to relocate six billion dumbasses. I had no idea there was a Canadian Star Trek. I wish it was in english 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:People that are currently renting would now own their property and no longer need to pay rent. It would also be an anti-payout to anyone that owned rental property or investments in mortgages. It's not perfect egalitarianism but it's a lot closer to it than we have now and would cause a lot less social disruption. I'll take back the stupid comment if you can provide a reasonable answer to ownership claims, in the case of someone renting from someone with a mortgage on their property (this is very common now, with condos and townhouses). Similarly, what about people renting from a rental agency?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Wasting posted:I'll take back the stupid comment if you can provide a reasonable answer to ownership claims, in the case of someone renting from someone with a mortgage on their property (this is very common now, with condos and townhouses). Similarly, what about people renting from a rental agency? Its quite simple; ownership transfers to whoever the current resident is. In the case of apartment buildings/condos/town homes the ownership becomes a common co-operative with each resident having an equal share. Obviously a moratorium on evictions would be necessary right before. Any currently vacant residences go into a common pool to be distributed to the homeless. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Its quite simple; ownership transfers to whoever the current resident is. In the case of apartment buildings/condos/town homes the ownership becomes a common co-operative with each resident having an equal share. So if someone were renting their house to three people, it would now become a cooperative between the owner and the three people it was rented to? I'm about as far left as you can get, but that's basically confiscating property, and it's completely unrealistic. I mean, you'd be rewarding people who didn't rent out the family house for whatever reason, with total ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Wasting posted:So if someone were renting their house to three people, it would now become a cooperative between the owner and the three people it was rented to? I'm about as far left as you can get, but that's basically confiscating property, and it's completely unrealistic. Yeah I can understand situations where people are renting out rooms in their house becoming difficult; maybe in those cases the renters could be classified as homeless and have access to the common pool of vacant properties (with a rent subsidy until something become available/built in the mean time)? There is already a distinction in rental law for people that rent space that has common kitchen/facilitates with the owner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Too far out there, for me. I'd rather see some people go bankrupt and some banks topple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Its quite simple; ownership transfers to whoever the current resident is. In the case of apartment buildings/condos/town homes the ownership becomes a common co-operative with each resident having an equal share. Because you didn't get my sarcasm earlier: This is completely unrealistic; utopic would be using too kind a word. It won't happen short of the kind of social upheaval that would make this housing bubble a trivial issue. You're wasting your time talking about a fantasy most people grow out of before they graduate college.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
https://soundcloud.com/cknwnewstalk980/bill-good-show-thu-jun-5-hour?in=cknwnewstalk980/sets/the-bill-good-show Tsur Sommerville vs Ian Young e: Here's the shithead they're talking about, Bob Ransford: https://twitter.com/BobRansford e2: Wow if you're homeless and you choose abbotsford, you've totally failed at life. Please kill yourself. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 08:39
|
|