With all-time high housing prices reached in the last couple of years, Vancouver's residents are finding it more and more necessary to turn to alternative ways of financing their home ownership: basement 'helper' suites, enlisting the help of family members as investment partners, and even splitting a larger home with friends are just a few examples of the increasingly common strategies which propose non-traditional social, financial, and living arrangements as a solution to the problem of high mortgage costs. It is interesting that even financial institutions - traditionally some of the most conservative organizations out there - are now adapting to the challenging housing market; VanCity Credit Union now offers the 'Mixer Mortgage,' enabling you to share the purchase of a home with friends or family. A myriad of other alternative approaches includes the idea of cohousing, living in a smaller house in an intentional community and contributing time and finances to shared spaces and resources. (One writer's experience with organizing a small cohousing group is outlined here.)
I find the prospect of the many unforseen social circumstances that could arise out of such arrangements really exciting for the future of Vancouver; not only could it produce some scenarios that actually improve the richness and quality of daily life for many (having older people available for child care in a cohousing community, for example), but it could also point to a way out of the significant social and demographic disparity that exists in the city, producing instead more integrated, diverse communities. It is significant, however, that while so many are willing to go to great lengths to re-examine the traditional social expectations associated with the American Dream (a nuclear family in a single-family house in the suburbs), we seem less willing to examine as critically the cultural imperative of home ownership at all costs.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
our friendly financial institutions
In addition to the marketing machine which does so much to drive the housing real estate market, the very nature of the Western economic system - including a reliable system of land titles and financial institutions willing to provide credit - provides the framework enabling the ownership and sale of land and property. As the course content points out, it is very unlikely that anyone would be able to own their home without the necessity of a mortgage: the bank provides most of the money you require to buy your home in exchange for the right to seize your property should you default on your payments, as well as a hefty surcharge by way of yearly interest payments. In this way, many people pay for their homes at minimum a couple of times over by the time they actually own it, but by doing so they are able to live in a home as they are buying it, instead of the not-so-feasible alternative of paying rent to a landlord while attempting to save for a home.
Although this process is so ubiquitous as to seem hardly worth mentioning, it is extremely important in determining the shape of our cities. The interest rates charged by banks on mortgages have historically varied widely, but have been comparatively low for a while. More and more, financial institutions are competing with each other to attract mortgagees, offering a confusing array of new financing packages, and generally lending money to riskier clients. As this Globe and Mail article points out, while the recent upsurge in 'alternative' mortgages (especially in the United States) has made home ownership accessible to more people than ever, it has also left them more vulnerable than before to market fluctuations:
Although this process is so ubiquitous as to seem hardly worth mentioning, it is extremely important in determining the shape of our cities. The interest rates charged by banks on mortgages have historically varied widely, but have been comparatively low for a while. More and more, financial institutions are competing with each other to attract mortgagees, offering a confusing array of new financing packages, and generally lending money to riskier clients. As this Globe and Mail article points out, while the recent upsurge in 'alternative' mortgages (especially in the United States) has made home ownership accessible to more people than ever, it has also left them more vulnerable than before to market fluctuations:
The conventional mortgage that Mom and Dad had -- a fixed rate over 30 years -- has given way to an increasingly exotic array of offerings. These include subprime loans, or high-rate mortgages for riskier borrowers. Subprime loans now account for nearly a quarter of all new U.S. home mortgages. (That compares to roughly 5 per cent in Canada.) There are also interest-only loans (designed to maximize tax breaks), no-down-payment mortgages and negative amortization loans, where borrowers take a break on monthly interest charges and add the amount to their debt.Obviously, this new family of financing options makes it significantly easier for less qualified buyers to qualify for a home loan. But it also could mean more serious consequences if things go wrong - if interest rates increase unexpectedly, for instance. This piece from the CBC makes clear, based on the recent U.S. "subprime mortgage meltdown," some of the concerns surrounding 'subprime' mortgages and the effect they could have on the economy overall:
By late 2006, one subprime loan in eight was in default across the U.S. Foreclosures were soaring. More than 20 subprime lenders were bankrupt. And the National Community Reinvestment Coalition estimated that as many as 1.5 million Americans could lose their homes by the time all the damage is done.Could the same thing happen here? What would be the outcome in Vancouver, for example, if the many people who bought an expensive condo they could afford at 4% interest suddenly found themselves proud owners of the same expensive condo at 10% interest when their mortgage came up for renewal? Certainly, this change would have a significant effect on housing prices, and the net costs of home ownership as indexed by RBC's quarterly Housing Affordability Index, making it much less affordable overall to own. Clearly, for better or for ill, the shift toward non-traditional mortgages has presented a riskier side of investment in real estate, but it has also had a profound effect on the demographics of the city by allowing a wider range of buyers into neighbourhoods they would once have been unable to afford.
bob rennie
Any discussion of real estate in Vancouver would be incomplete without a mention of Bob Rennie, creator of Rennie Marketing Systems, "pre-eminent marketer of residential condominiums in the Greater Vancouver Area." Beginning his real estate career when he was only 19 years old, Rennie's firm is now the leading marketer and provider of "unique and effective risk management plans to residential condominium marketing" in the Vancouver area, and increasingly across North America.
Rennie's 'sample' of past projects reads like a summary of Vancouver's residential redevelopment of its downtown. Clearly, his firm has spearheaded the marketing of almost every high-valued condo development in recent memory. It seems to go without saying that the vision of urban life marketed by Rennie has had a major influence on Vancouver's vision of itself as a cosmopolitan, global city in which it is possible to enjoy all the amenities of downtown living within view of the mountains and the ocean. As a major player in the local real estate market, and the person whose advice is most often sought by developers on everything from the most desirable interior finishes to the most profitable asking price for high-rise condos, Rennie is also frequently consulted by the media (as in this Vancouver Province article) for his predictions on the future of the market; his opinion - that it is "all systems go with every-rising prices" - has helped to create the popular perception that Vancouver's growth potential is nearly limitless, at least in the lead-up to the Olympics. In the same article, he cites Vancouver's limited land area and the fact that there is "virtually no inventory" of housing as a reason that prices will continue to grow. Surely, however, there is some limit to the market's potential growth; if this limit has not yet been reached at 70% of pre-tax income for a single family home, how much higher can it be?
Rennie's 'sample' of past projects reads like a summary of Vancouver's residential redevelopment of its downtown. Clearly, his firm has spearheaded the marketing of almost every high-valued condo development in recent memory. It seems to go without saying that the vision of urban life marketed by Rennie has had a major influence on Vancouver's vision of itself as a cosmopolitan, global city in which it is possible to enjoy all the amenities of downtown living within view of the mountains and the ocean. As a major player in the local real estate market, and the person whose advice is most often sought by developers on everything from the most desirable interior finishes to the most profitable asking price for high-rise condos, Rennie is also frequently consulted by the media (as in this Vancouver Province article) for his predictions on the future of the market; his opinion - that it is "all systems go with every-rising prices" - has helped to create the popular perception that Vancouver's growth potential is nearly limitless, at least in the lead-up to the Olympics. In the same article, he cites Vancouver's limited land area and the fact that there is "virtually no inventory" of housing as a reason that prices will continue to grow. Surely, however, there is some limit to the market's potential growth; if this limit has not yet been reached at 70% of pre-tax income for a single family home, how much higher can it be?
bubble watch
There seem to be conflicting opinions out there as to whether or not Vancouver's real estate market can be said to be in a "bubble," defined in this November 2006 article in the Tyee as a market condition in which real estate values rise, through speculation, to more than what people are willing and able to pay. The real question investigated by the article is whether or not Vancouver's recent dramatic climb in real estate prices "have risen to levels that reflect the current state of our economy, or whether they've risen too high (and will fall)." The key concern about a real estate bubble, of course, is that it eventually has to pop, sending real estate prices plummeting back down to levels reflective of the economic success of a given city, and leaving homeowners who 'bought high' owing far more on their homes than they can hope to recuperate in the short term.
Realtors and real estate developers, perhaps not surprisingly, hold firmly that the prices in Vancouver are reasonable and based on a variety of factors: the continued success of Vancouver's economy, the city's desirability as a destination for global visitors and retirees, and of course, the upcoming Olympics. But the article points out, too, the potential for a conflict of interest in asking realtors and developers to predict the future: naturally, the rosy picture they paint has the potential to benefit them directly, as potential buyers take the plunge with high expectations for upcoming growth. On the other hand, it is of course possible that they are right, and the real estate values that seem hopelessly inflated to locals are simply reflective of a wider demographic shift - thousands of baby boomers from across the country trading their expensive single family homes for a smaller condominium in what they view as a more desirable location, and being willing to pay a lot more than local first-time homebuyers, the traditional buyers of condominiums, are able to shell out. There is also the argument that globalization, which lies very close to the heart of the question of real estate in Vancouver, has resulted in a globally-competitive real estate market, with higher prices - and the accompanying higher levels of urban disparity - across the board.
But since the writing of this article in late 2006, there are already signs that the market madness may be slowing down. RBC's quarterly Housing Affordability Index shows - for the first time in a long time - that "both new listings and sales are cooling off simultaneously," likely indicating a controlled market cool-down rather than a dramatic bursting of the bubble per se. Keep in mind, too, that this recent trend (as of June) doesn't have house prices decreasing, just not increasing as quickly. It remains to be seen whether Vancouver's real estate is valued accurately when compared with the city's recent economic performance, and can be expected to grow even further in the future, or if, as UBC real estate specialist Tsur Sommerville suggests, "we had a really great party, but now the party is winding down."
Realtors and real estate developers, perhaps not surprisingly, hold firmly that the prices in Vancouver are reasonable and based on a variety of factors: the continued success of Vancouver's economy, the city's desirability as a destination for global visitors and retirees, and of course, the upcoming Olympics. But the article points out, too, the potential for a conflict of interest in asking realtors and developers to predict the future: naturally, the rosy picture they paint has the potential to benefit them directly, as potential buyers take the plunge with high expectations for upcoming growth. On the other hand, it is of course possible that they are right, and the real estate values that seem hopelessly inflated to locals are simply reflective of a wider demographic shift - thousands of baby boomers from across the country trading their expensive single family homes for a smaller condominium in what they view as a more desirable location, and being willing to pay a lot more than local first-time homebuyers, the traditional buyers of condominiums, are able to shell out. There is also the argument that globalization, which lies very close to the heart of the question of real estate in Vancouver, has resulted in a globally-competitive real estate market, with higher prices - and the accompanying higher levels of urban disparity - across the board.
But since the writing of this article in late 2006, there are already signs that the market madness may be slowing down. RBC's quarterly Housing Affordability Index shows - for the first time in a long time - that "both new listings and sales are cooling off simultaneously," likely indicating a controlled market cool-down rather than a dramatic bursting of the bubble per se. Keep in mind, too, that this recent trend (as of June) doesn't have house prices decreasing, just not increasing as quickly. It remains to be seen whether Vancouver's real estate is valued accurately when compared with the city's recent economic performance, and can be expected to grow even further in the future, or if, as UBC real estate specialist Tsur Sommerville suggests, "we had a really great party, but now the party is winding down."
Monday, June 25, 2007
the downtown lifestyle -- sans jobs
This article from Governing magazine, aimed largely at American city and state government officials, provides a somewhat interesting take on the pros and cons of "going Vancouver" with the planning of your local CBD. The author writes about the sharp increase in downtown residents over the last 20 years, the decrease in corporate headquarters (down nearly a third in the past 5 years), and most apparent, the sprouting-up of "hundreds" of residential towers.
"These are all striking changes, but are they really problems? After all, cities have changed their function repeatedly over time. If, 20 years from now, historic downtowns are mostly places to live, with diverse entertainment choices and a vibrant street life, and the offices and jobs exist somewhere else, who will really suffer?"
Who will suffer, the article goes on to claim, are those who rely on downtown jobs for their livelihood, as corporations will choose to move to friendlier suburbs, or even to other provinces entirely. Trevor Boddy, of course, claims that we will all suffer as our city becomes a resort, losing its diversity, its status as the province's major economic centre, and its claim to being a "real" metropolis. But wasn't one of the major attractions to living downtown supposed to be living close to where you work? I wonder if living downtown would hold the same appeal for the same demographic of young, working couples if they had to commute to work for 45 minutes each way - into Burnaby or Richmond. How long would it take them to relocate closer to work once they realized that the same amount of money they had spent on a downtown condo would buy them a house with a piece of lawn to mow in New Westminster? Doesn't that negate a large portion of the environmental benefit of an urban densification strategy, as well as a lot of the appeal? It seems to me that if a much larger portion of the downtown jobs were to relocate to other places, the only people
for whom living downtown would be really appealing are those only interested in the lifestyle, opening the door to it becoming even more of a resort atmosphere.
for whom living downtown would be really appealing are those only interested in the lifestyle, opening the door to it becoming even more of a resort atmosphere.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
vancouver's dorkiest condo names?
This somewhat tongue-in-cheek article, "Seattle's Dorkiest Condo Names," got me thinking a lot about the marketing machine that processes new residential real estate in Vancouver. Although it's written about Seattle, the article could have been written about almost any city undergoing a building boom. In highly competitive markets, it is the 'branding' of a project - not its design - that gives the developer a competitive edge in appealing to a given group; as a cynical architecture student, I would even argue that the more generic a city's current brand of architecture is, and the more inadequate the suites are in meeting the needs of buyers' imaginations, the more its producers need to rely on a marketing image to make it shine. Or just to make anyone buy it.
This phenomenon is certainly going on in Vancouver, too. While there are a lot of candidates for Vancouver's dorkiest condo name (the Elan, the Virtu, the Ritz, Soma, Uno, Firenze, Espana), my personal favorite is Bohemia. Surveying some of these websites, it quickly becomes clear that the developers are not in the business of selling the real estate itself, but an image or lifestyle. From Bohemia's website:
On the flipside of the romantic image-crafting involved in condominium sales is the dispassionate, commodity-style buying and selling of properties also common in a hot real estate market. It seems that properties in Vancouver are bought increasingly not as homes, but as investments. Buying a unit from the builder and selling it once completed, never lived in; the quick renovate-and-flip; the purchase of units sight-unseen because the price and square footage are right: the person who applies these insider tricks judiciously stands to make a substantial chunk of change. But gone is the romantic notion of the 'family home,' to be lived in for years. Instead, even the amenities most often sought in a suburban family home - back yard, sunlit windows, ventilation, space to entertain - have been replaced by symbols of a nice place to live: granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, hardwood floors, mountain view. All of these 'amenities' - commodities, really - are not only much easier to communicate in a three-line real estate advertisement, but they are also much easier to construct without spending too much time thinking about the real quality of a space.
This phenomenon is certainly going on in Vancouver, too. While there are a lot of candidates for Vancouver's dorkiest condo name (the Elan, the Virtu, the Ritz, Soma, Uno, Firenze, Espana), my personal favorite is Bohemia. Surveying some of these websites, it quickly becomes clear that the developers are not in the business of selling the real estate itself, but an image or lifestyle. From Bohemia's website:
"One day you want to go antiquing in Lower Shaughnessy, the next, it's bargain hunting in Mt. Pleasant. Whether it's finding that rare blues recording in Kitsilano, picking up fresh basil and curry from Granville Island, or taking in a new play at the Stanley, Bohemia puts you right at the source."
On the flipside of the romantic image-crafting involved in condominium sales is the dispassionate, commodity-style buying and selling of properties also common in a hot real estate market. It seems that properties in Vancouver are bought increasingly not as homes, but as investments. Buying a unit from the builder and selling it once completed, never lived in; the quick renovate-and-flip; the purchase of units sight-unseen because the price and square footage are right: the person who applies these insider tricks judiciously stands to make a substantial chunk of change. But gone is the romantic notion of the 'family home,' to be lived in for years. Instead, even the amenities most often sought in a suburban family home - back yard, sunlit windows, ventilation, space to entertain - have been replaced by symbols of a nice place to live: granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, hardwood floors, mountain view. All of these 'amenities' - commodities, really - are not only much easier to communicate in a three-line real estate advertisement, but they are also much easier to construct without spending too much time thinking about the real quality of a space.
vancouver: resort or metropolis?
I stumbled across this excellent article on Jason van der Burg's blog site which I think bears some discussion from the perspective of real estate as well as from that of urban sustainability. If you haven't already read it, you might find it useful - the author raises the interesting argument that by giving over all of the downtown core to new residential real estate developments, we may achieve a shining example of Larry Beasley's "liveable density" concept, but at the cost of the city failing as a vibrant, functioning metropolis which also attracts business and industry. He points out that while downtown currently seems hip and diverse, with typical residents portrayed as "mountain-biking software and computer game developers, walk-to-work denizens of the postmodern economy," a lot of evidence points to the fact that a significant proportion of new condos built in the last decade are owned by "a golden global class temporarily parking their investment dollars, linked with a huge cohort of Canadian baby boomers planning to spend their final years in Vancouver."
Boddy also suggests that because 90 percent of downtown tower construction over the last 10 years has been residential condos, not only is Vancouver faced with a serious shortage of new rental housing, but Vancouver's downtown is
Estimates are that one-quarter of downtown purchasers are international speculative investors and another quarter are Canadian non-residents who rent out their apartments, Vancouver's only new source of rental housing in a decade. These mainly young renters give downtown its current
air of diversity. But soon after the arthritis kicks in for their greying landlords, these cultural creatives will get booted out.
Boddy also suggests that because 90 percent of downtown tower construction over the last 10 years has been residential condos, not only is Vancouver faced with a serious shortage of new rental housing, but Vancouver's downtown is
heading towards a fate as a dormitory suburb (transit ridership projections have more people leaving the core than coming in each morning, and downtown traffic levels and commute times have been reduced)
while new employment continues to locate in suburban fringes ill-served by transit.
When I considered focusing my blog around real estate demographics, I must admit in retrospect that it was in fact the intense focus on residential development so apparent in Vancouver at the moment that had piqued my interest. I had almost forgotten that the real estate market also governs the other important uses of land that drive a city's economy: agriculture, retail, industrial, and of course commercial. It looks like it's possible Vancouver's planners have made the same mistake when it comes to the downtown peninsula.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
most liveable city?
Some time ago, I read this story on CBC's website. It contained a staggering statistic: Vancouverites spend by far the most in Canada -- an average of nearly 70% of their pre-tax income -- on home ownership. Pre-tax. After I'd started breathing again, this left me with a lot of questions about one of the world's "most liveable cities." How on earth do ordinary people get by when 70% of their income is devoted to having a home, and the rest goes to pay taxes? How does the cost of living in this market relate to the increasing rate of homelessness in the city? How are Vancouver’s many distant -- and growing -- suburbs involved; are these the only places working people can afford to live? What will happen when the baby boomers’ generation becomes ready to sell their larger family homes close to the core – will the influx of desirable homes lower prices across the market, or will people still be willing to pay the high prices these homes command now? (If so, who's buying?) Although our planners have good intentions -- arguably some of the best intentions in North America -- how these intentions are actually turned into a city depends more than we might like to admit on the sheer economics of this very complex situation.
In this blog, I’m really interested in looking the city as a real estate market: the fact that everything in the city is bought, sold, rented, and profited on has fundamental implications on the physical, economic, and social fabric of Vancouver. In particular, I'm interested in the ways that Vancouver's social demographics are affected by – and in turn affect – the residential real estate market. The shiny, demographic-oriented marketing of new condos seems like such a bold contrast to some of the poorest urban areas in Canada that neigbour them; the economic system and conditions that create both situations seems like a good place to begin to understand this disparity.
In this blog, I’m really interested in looking the city as a real estate market: the fact that everything in the city is bought, sold, rented, and profited on has fundamental implications on the physical, economic, and social fabric of Vancouver. In particular, I'm interested in the ways that Vancouver's social demographics are affected by – and in turn affect – the residential real estate market. The shiny, demographic-oriented marketing of new condos seems like such a bold contrast to some of the poorest urban areas in Canada that neigbour them; the economic system and conditions that create both situations seems like a good place to begin to understand this disparity.
the vancouver experience
The Tyee has some interesting articles dealing with the social side of living in Vancouver’s inflated real estate market; many speculate about some of the causes, and of course about how this might affect the prospects of the city’s inhabitants in the future. One article, “Struggling to Survive in Vancouver” examines the reasons that people choose to stay in Vancouver, despite the almost impossibly high housing costs. In particular, I found the following observation interesting:
To accept a lower quality of life in order to continue to live in a place because of its high quality of life, to march willingly into that deal, may be one definition of mental illness.
I was also interested by the suggestion that the great experience of living in Vancouver that so many people are so passionate about is enjoyed only by the lucky ones who can afford to live in the city’s west side, where everything is scenic, green, and accessible, and the industry, agriculture, and working class which sustain this paradise are out of sight and out of mind. Where do all the people who survive on a Starbucks wage actually live?
To accept a lower quality of life in order to continue to live in a place because of its high quality of life, to march willingly into that deal, may be one definition of mental illness.
I was also interested by the suggestion that the great experience of living in Vancouver that so many people are so passionate about is enjoyed only by the lucky ones who can afford to live in the city’s west side, where everything is scenic, green, and accessible, and the industry, agriculture, and working class which sustain this paradise are out of sight and out of mind. Where do all the people who survive on a Starbucks wage actually live?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)