The Decline of Vancouver.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/financialized-landlord-higher-rents-canada-1.7307015

August says the business model often leads these landlords to cut costs on buildings and find ways to raise rents through AGIs or evictions. Because of vacancy decontrol rules, once a unit is vacant, the landlord can raise the rent as much as they want to.

"Financial firms are raising rents higher than other types of landlords. On average, after a financial firm acquires a building, they increase the eviction-filing rate by three," August said. "They triple it."

Posted by: syncro

Maybe infrastructure pays for itself? Care to cite some relevant examples where this has been the case? 

With real estate the way it is and the projected population increases, Vancouver is going to change a lot in the next 20-25yrs. It's going to get built out with towers. People may move to other jurisdictions, but the majority of those people will probably come to metro Van. If you look at the other major urban centres in BC, geography also plays a role so the ability to expand is limited. Maybe PG could become BC's next big urban centre? The problem is going to be with transportation and getting out of the lower mainland to the interior of the province. Mountains and rivers are not cheap to build around and there is also the cost of upkeep and dealing with natural disasters similar to the washouts in Nov 2021. 

For me the topo map tells the story of how we are up against it and I unfortunately don't see things getting much better.

I am sure the Lions Gate Bridge and the Ironworkers Bridge paid for themselves long ago.  Didn't the Coquihalla do the same.  If done wisely the infrastructure adds to the economic activity which leads to a larger tax base, so it is better to build something that opens up new economic opportunities.  I don't think many economists would disagree that there is typically a positive return from infrastructure spending.  

I am not sure why we need to go as far as PG when there are large population centres on the Island and in the Interior that are closer.  IMO, linking the province's economic hubs is a no brainer.  It will cost money, but it planning for the future instead of reacting to the present.  What I see in this map are protected waterways that lack ferries and established corridors that lack any kind of commuter rail.  It's worse getting around BC today than it was when we were kids.

Rome wasn't built in a day.  We don't need to start building expensive high speed rail lines all over the place, just something better than nothing that we can build on.  There is already plans to build a commuter rail system from Kamloops to Osoyoos, so we should build that first so when we build a connection from Van to Kamloops it can connect the entire region.

Hullo is already doing decent business so maybe we will see more progress getting around the coast as well.

I don't think these ideas are necessarily bad. The question remains, how are we going to pay for all these things when budgets are already maxed out and not providing the infrastructure and resources we currently need.

It's a 4hr drive to Kamloops from, and the current time by trail is 9hrs.  I can't imagine the money it would take to build a rail line that would be able to match the 4hr drive time. In order for the service to be viable I'd think it would need to be at least as fast as driving or by bus (4-5hrs) and have a comparable cost. It's part of the same reason there's no passenger rail to Whistler, the line is limited to about 40km/h,  so it would need significant upgrades to make it work as an alternative to driving. There's the proposed MVX project, but it seems like more of a thought exercise than a realistic proposal. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mountain-valley-express-vancouver-whistler-chilliwack-high-speed-rail

Posted by: syncro

It's a 4hr drive to Kamloops from, and the current time by trail is 9hrs.  I can't imagine the money it would take to build a rail line that would be able to match the 4hr drive time. In order for the service to be viable I'd think it would need to be at least as fast as driving or by bus (4-5hrs) and have a comparable cost. It's part of the same reason there's no passenger rail to Whistler, the line is limited to about 40km/h,  so it would need significant upgrades to make it work as an alternative to driving. There's the proposed MVX project, but it seems like more of a thought exercise than a realistic proposal. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mountain-valley-express-vancouver-whistler-chilliwack-high-speed-rail

I know it will be expensive and I know there is not much of an appetite out there for what I am saying, but I think we should at least be planning for it.  The only high speed rail any of us are likely to see around here is the one planned to go from Vancouver to Portland, but a big reason for that is that is the cities all recognize the potential for the regional economy.  Some estimates have another 1.4 million people coming to Metro Vancouver by 2050 and the city is already the 3rd most densely populated in North America.  

Something like Chilliwack to Whistler is a good start.  We should be subsidizing passenger ferries on the south coast as well if we aren't already.

How about we call it a day and stop bringing people into the region?

Look at a rail map of europe,  the size of europe, how many RR's they have, how many people it serves, consider how long they been building rr's for  and thats why rail works over there

Posted by: XXX_er

Look at a rail map of europe,  the size of europe, how many RR's they have, how many people it serves, consider how long they been building rr's for  and thats why rail works over there

Honestly though even in the southern half of England which is by and large pretty flat and like you say has rail infrastructure built out over literally centuries, it's very expensive.  Training in and out of London to Salisbury, which is roughly the equivalent of a bit further than Chilliwack, was £40 each way, that's a big bite out of the average person's daily earnings. 

So, I don't think rail infrastructure is practical as an actual solution to the housing crisis, definitely not on its own, anyways. 

Densification still stands the best chance IMO. 

Enough of these projects might do something;

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/east-village-westbank-bc-housing-vancouver-hastings-street-towers

As far as infrastructure projects paying for themselves, a business case is created prior to the approval of any major project. 

The business case for the patullo can be found here:

https://www.pattullobridgereplacement.ca/app/uploads/sites/637/2020/10/Business-Case.pdf

Unless they have tolls, bridges as an example don't actually bring in any direct revenue, obviously, so the valuation is pretty abstract (bordering on arbitrary to me, as a layman, but I'm sure a lot goes into assigning $ values to the various components, which is kinda interesting. 

Densification has the potential to pay for itself though of course via tax revenue.

If they want to add more housing, then they have to add additional infrastructure like sewage/water lines (and possible capacity improvements to treatment plants). They have to provide more electricity. They have to provide other services like wiring for data communications. And they do.

What they do not do is provide better and smarter roadways, and instead are making them worse (and spending money doing so).

Take for example people living in the west side of Vancouver. If someone lives there but has to commute to the North Shore (or vice versa), they are forced to go through the downtown core of Vancouver. Not only does it make their commute much worse, it also plugs up the downtown core which in turn makes everything there worse. I suppose there could be a bypass, but noooooo, can't have something like that in Vancouver because it might not look good. But they can build big towers that block the view, even if that broke and old policy. However, the policy of no freeway within the city still stands (for who knows what dumb reason) still stands. And even worse, they take roads that were at least somewhat arterial and clog them up with a large dose of cholesterol laden parking areas or bike lanes. Don't put the bike lanes or roadside parking on less busy streets - that would be thinking.

Speaking of which, they DNV just spent a ton of money wrecking Mount Seymour Parkway. Motorist and cyclists don't like the changes (which were completely unnecessary). They could have used that money to fix up roads in other areas that aren't safe and improved the driving/cycling infrastructure and safety on those roads.

Anyway Metro Vancouver can't keep increasing density and not improve the roads. Decades ago they said people shouldb do their part and drive less because of pollution. Well, automobiles became much more efficient and soon they will be mostly electric, so they have to come up with a new excuse. What they don't get ( or don't care about) is that these new residents will have vehicles and will only increase congestion. Terrible, terrible policies and planning.

Just one more lane bro.  Make it a bus/bike lane only though. 

Unfortunately, the entitled will use it to sneak past like I witnessed in Richmond Arthur Laing yesterday when I chose to not pedal over the deathtrap bridge, instead I sat in a friends car for 1/2 hour.

To go from West End to the shore, one takes the Skytrain, Seabus and R2 or the seawall and Causeway bikepath.  Car?  Fugedaboutit.   Expand Skytrain service, not car roads, and certainly not a shitty parkway (aka city freeway). 

Get off my lawn hippy! (Our two cars have by design <5k on them this past year)

Posted by: syncro

How about we call it a day and stop bringing people into the region?

Seems like they bring themselves.   

Are you “from here”?   We aren’t.

Posted by: heckler

Posted by: syncro

How about we call it a day and stop bringing people into the region?

Seems like they bring themselves.   

Are you “from here”?   We aren’t.

Really Sven?

In the context of this thread it should be clear that we have had unprecedented immigration over the past few years. This also includes the scam (business) of foreign students attending what are often nothing more than diploma mills. I'm not against immigration, but what's been happening over the past 5-7yrs, past 3 in particular, has been atrocious. It's not only having a negative impact on the citizens of the region via limited options for housing and extremely high costs, but it hasn't worked well for the people coming here either. There is plenty of info about the negative impacts of this in the media.

Posted by: switch

If they want to add more housing, then they have to add additional infrastructure like sewage/water lines (and possible capacity improvements to treatment plants). They have to provide more electricity. They have to provide other services like wiring for data communications. And they do.

What they do not do is provide better and smarter roadways, and instead are making them worse (and spending money doing so).

Take for example people living in the west side of Vancouver. If someone lives there but has to commute to the North Shore (or vice versa), they are forced to go through the downtown core of Vancouver. Not only does it make their commute much worse, it also plugs up the downtown core which in turn makes everything there worse. I suppose there could be a bypass, but noooooo, can't have something like that in Vancouver because it might not look good. But they can build big towers that block the view, even if that broke and old policy. However, the policy of no freeway within the city still stands (for who knows what dumb reason) still stands. And even worse, they take roads that were at least somewhat arterial and clog them up with a large dose of cholesterol laden parking areas or bike lanes. Don't put the bike lanes or roadside parking on less busy streets - that would be thinking.

Speaking of which, they DNV just spent a ton of money wrecking Mount Seymour Parkway. Motorist and cyclists don't like the changes (which were completely unnecessary). They could have used that money to fix up roads in other areas that aren't safe and improved the driving/cycling infrastructure and safety on those roads.

Anyway Metro Vancouver can't keep increasing density and not improve the roads. Decades ago they said people shouldb do their part and drive less because of pollution. Well, automobiles became much more efficient and soon they will be mostly electric, so they have to come up with a new excuse. What they don't get ( or don't care about) is that these new residents will have vehicles and will only increase congestion. Terrible, terrible policies and planning.

Isn't your entire post a great reason not to use a car?

Why would anyone set themselves up to drive in a city plagued by road congestion?

Posted by: heckler

Just one more lane bro.  Make it a bus/bike lane only though. 

Unfortunately, the entitled will use it to sneak past like I witnessed in Richmond Arthur Laing yesterday when I chose to not pedal over the deathtrap bridge, instead I sat in a friends car for 1/2 hour.

To go from West End to the shore, one takes the Skytrain, Seabus and R2 or the seawall and Causeway bikepath.  Car?  Fugedaboutit.   Expand Skytrain service, not car roads, and certainly not a shitty parkway (aka city freeway). 

Get off my lawn hippy! (Our two cars have by design <5k on them this past year)

This is the way.

Organize your life so you don't have to depend on a car and can walk, ride, and/or use transit for as much as possible.

Support great transit and cycling infrastructure which, amazingly, typically also improve car traffic flow.

--

In other news, a welcome type of decline: "the average Vancouver rental rate was down six per cent from last year to $3,116 for the ninth straight month of decline" (CBC). Still a lot of money!

Posted by: switch

Speaking of which, they DNV just spent a ton of money wrecking Mount Seymour Parkway. Motorist and cyclists don't like the changes (which were completely unnecessary). They could have used that money to fix up roads in other areas that aren't safe and improved the driving/cycling infrastructure and safety on those roads.

absolutely wrong...  way safer now as a cyclist on MSP.  Vehicles used to swerve all the time into the bike land going up from Riverside and I almost got plowed a couple of times.