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."

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.

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.

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?