The Decline of Vancouver.

Sorry nit-picking but that's Mt.Pleasant, not east van.

Sorry re nit-picking, but that technically is East Van. East / West boundary is Ontario St. so by definition, Main st is in East Van.

Sorry re nit-picking, but that technically is East Van. East / West boundary is Quebec St. so by definition, Main st is in East Van.

That's what I was lead to believe until I just typed into google maps and shows East Van boundary at Cambie st… Weird.
Mount Pleasant is in East Van like saying Lynn Valley is in North Van.

That's what I was lead to believe until I just typed into google maps and shows East Van boundary at Cambie st… Weird.
Mount Pleasant is in East Van like saying Lynn Valley is in North Van.

If my address has a 'W' in front of it, I dont live in East Van. Google maps is also referring to it as the 'East Side' which I would consider to be different than 'East Van'

If my address has a 'W' in front of it, I dont live in East Van. Google maps is also referring to it as the 'East Side' which I would consider to be different than 'East Van'

for as long as i've lived here east van has been the neighbourhood and east side has been the designation for the east side of the whole city or everything east of ontario.

Sorry re nit-picking, but that technically is East Van. East / West boundary is Ontario St. so by definition, Main st is in East Van.

Yeah sure of course, Ont. splits the numbering east/west certainly making nit-picking the wrong phrase to use.
But I'll wager no real-snake agent would call 14th and Main East Van. Now that all the hookers are gone (remember the hookers?) Mt.Pleasant has a more up-scale ring to it.
Depending how close to Ont. the address is they might even get away with calling it "City Hall area".

for as long as i've lived here east van has been the neighbourhood and east side has been the designation for the east side of the whole city or everything east of ontario.

No way I live in East Van., it's Grandview-Woodland, man.

for as long as i've lived here east van has been the neighbourhood and east side has been the designation for the east side of the whole city or everything east of ontario.

That would be it.

A friend of mine bought a 2 bdrm condo In East Van about 7 months ago for $570k. The unit across the hall, which is smaller and not as nice, just listed for $650. Another 2 bdrm down the hall, which was a bit bigger and nicer, was listed for $750k and sold for $808k in a week or so. My friend's agent told him he could easily pocket $100k if he wanted to flip it. In 7 months. He said that while houses have cooled slightly, the condo market is insane.

Interesting. Perhaps there's a mortgage broker or realtor reading this thread, but consider these high priced condo's vs. older SFH in east van where you rent the basement suite for $1900 and skip the $300 strata fee? Better still, pretend you're like most and don't mention the rental income at tax time. All this presumes you have the 20% down….

Where I'm going with this is that most don't have $300K (20% of $1.5) equity for the older SFH down payment so they drive up the prices on condos. BUT, if you can stomach the bank statement that says you own $1.1M, I wonder how much more you pay a month after rental and strata are considered (ie you net $2200-2400 more a month than condo guy, maybe just $2K if you consider property tax) in this low interest rate setting. Sure, the bears will come in and say the big rate hike is around the corner, but with oil down [HTML_REMOVED] out I don't see it.

I guess my point is that the system seems stacked in favour of those willing to take leverage. Wait another year of SFH cooling and then pounce whilst your condo buddy read over depreciation reports and special assessments? I mean, the renters will beat a path to your door in this market, so its not like you can't pick [HTML_REMOVED] choose.

The big x factor here is the future price increases. If the SFH price stagnates and condos stay hot, this could tip the scales. Assignment sales are exempt from 15% and that could have a knock-on effect in the condo market. Another consideration is to get even more from AirB[HTML_REMOVED]B for the SFH suite. The city hearings on AirB[HTML_REMOVED]B had SFH owners coming out says the only way they can make the numbers work is AirB[HTML_REMOVED]B…but that's a whole 'nother topic..

I guess my point is that the system seems stacked in favour of those willing to take leverage.

12 years ago, I made a 25% down payment on a 2-bedroom condo so that I'd have mortgage payments that were well within my means. The expectation being that I would eventually "trade up" to something bigger to raise a family in. If I had fully leveraged that down payment to get, say, a 3-bedroom townhouse, I (in my opinion) would be better off today.

I would have lived in fear of rising interest rates (they did go up slightly after I bought), and been house poor, so I went with the fiscally conservative, low risk, option instead. Too bad my crystal ball couldn't tell me how things were going to work out.

12 years ago, I made a 25% down payment on a 2-bedroom condo so that I'd have mortgage payments that were well within my means. The expectation being that I would eventually "trade up" to something bigger to raise a family in. If I had fully leveraged that down payment to get, say, a 3-bedroom townhouse, I (in my opinion) would be better off today.

I would have lived in fear of rising interest rates (they did go up slightly after I bought), and been house poor, so I went with the fiscally conservative, low risk, option instead. Too bad my crystal ball couldn't tell me how things were going to work out.

I did what Paul didn't do and risked it into a 3 bedroom townhouse over a garage in Vancouver. There were some seriously lean points where money was really tight, but we managed and I don't regret it now. I don't think I would have been happy in a condo for long, as that just seems like renting to me…. I can't really explain why I feel that way, I just do.

so with this increased density who is going to pay for the increased infrastructure? Sure the hell isn't the developers.

Developers pay for it now, I don't see why they wouldn't pay for it then.

It would have also been a much more spread out cost had Vancouver densified in the way I outlined, rather than required intense capital expenditures to upgrade entire neighbourhoods to reflect massive jumps in density.

I'm pretty sure the developers aren't paying for the road upgrades… maybe getting politicians elected.

I'm pretty sure the developers aren't paying for the road upgrades… maybe getting politicians elected.

One way or another they are.

There are lots of one of deals - for instance increased density allowances traded for construction cost of new Rec centre, etc.

Plus permit fees make up a very significant portion of city budgets, so absolutely they pay for the infrastructure upgrades required.

Lastly, many jurisdictions force homeowners/builders to pay for utility upgrades when pulling a building permit.

That's like giving 1$ to a homeless dude on the street and saying you did something about it. The lack of infrastructure in this city is beyond inadequate. Not sure you can fix it unless you spend mega $$$ and developers will not do that. Citizens/tax payers on the other hand…
Developers are not tax payers, they are tax recipients.

That's like giving 1$ to a homeless dude on the street and saying you did something about it. The lack of infrastructure in this city is beyond inadequate. Not sure you can fix it unless you spend mega $$$ and developers will not do that. Citizens/tax payers on the other hand…
Developers are not tax payers, they are tax recipients.

I think were talking different scales of infrastructure.

What yourself and Jerry-Rig are getting at is large scale, i.e; Skytrain type developments.

In that case I agree, our current model is an absolute failure that privatizes profits, but uses public funding.

Translink should be buying up land around all planned Skytrain stations, and reselling at profits to pay off the lines when built - this isn't anything new, its how transit systems get paid for elsewhere.

Instead we fund the transit lines out of tax dollars, and private business enjoys the land lift by buying up land around stations.

I do think its worth repeating that Vancouver's/BC's absolute failure of a housing policy is the primary culprit behind the issues the region faces as a whole.

Discussion about 10lane bridges to Ladner wouldn't exist if we didn't have policies that encourage driving and sprawl.

If Vancouver and Burnaby allowed smarter density you would have a credible path at reducing some of the numerous issues (not so) slowly rendering this region unliveable for the most of us.