I would be so happy with a Parisian-style 1200 square foot apartment with close access to parks and services. My god. I never want to ever mow a lawn.
I have a lawn now, and it's nothing but a nuisance. It's nice to have a small space for the, now 1 year old, daughter to play in. However, whenever we take her to communal spaces she prefers being around the other children. It's an unnatural state for small children to be isolated into small squares of property. They, generally, much prefer being around other children and in the community.
My ideal plan would be to build up some equity in the house, and then, hopefully once they actually become available, use that equity to buy a 3 bedroom walk up townhouse. There's really nothing about the actual house vs a townhouse that I prefer.....maybe being able to have a larger BBQ? Maybe?
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I still want parking and I don't want to fully divorce from having a car but it would be a much different use case where the car is about having fun once in a while vs mindless commuting 99% of the time.
Around 70% of Vancouver's land is reserved exclusively for single family homes. There's plenty of land. We just aren't using it very well.
This has changed but too slowly.
Almost all single family lots are zoned for duplexes.
A large portion of lots around Cambie & other areas like Norquay Village are zoned for townhouse or multifamily now.
Now the city is looking at allowing 6plexes on many single family lots.
The problem is these missing middle properties were neglected too long and now even they are undersupplied and extremely expensive due to the land values & construction costs needed to create them.
Vancouver essentially needs to artificially create a massive oversupply if they actually want to bring prices down. I don't see any way that's possible now.
Lets keep reality in perspective here. That's like saying Liverpool is a commuter suburb of London. And there is a lot of land in the lower mainland, but as we saw last year, it is susceptible to flooding, and is very productive farmland.
Two points, first people do commute from Liverpool Manchester etc to London, not in vast numbers and normally not 5 days a week but the UK is about to cack handedly put in high speed trains at vast expense to reduce the time it takes to commute from the midlands.
Second you dont have to build all over the farmland, the hill sides of the North Fraser, increased density in the town centers of Langly Mission, Chilliwack etc would ramp up if you could catch a decent train into town, the valley is full of single family homes on 1/4 acre lots, it ought to be full of Burnabyish towns, tower blocks around the train station low rise apartments and town house beyond that
Almost all single family lots are zoned for duplexes.
A large portion of lots around Cambie & other areas like Norquay Village are zoned for townhouse or multifamily now.
Now the city is looking at allowing 6plexes on many single family lots.
The problem is these missing middle properties were neglected too long and now even they are undersupplied and extremely expensive due to the land values & construction costs needed to create them.
Vancouver essentially needs to artificially create a massive oversupply if they actually want to bring prices down. I don't see any way that's possible now.
Due to decades of feet dragging and the hyper-NIMBY anti-density proponents, we are now at the point it would literally take building tens of thousands of townhouses in Vancouver to satisfy demand.
I don't see that happening anytime soon either.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
A 100 years ago, that was most cities in the West. Today, many of those city cores are less populated because it turns out, it wasn't the way a lot of people wanted to live.
Ironically it could be said that the car saved cities, because it allowed all the people who didn't want to live there or pay for the housing costs to move away. If the cost of living in inner cities are expensive today, imagine Manhattan or Paris with 4 million residents instead of the 2 million today
A 100 years ago, that was most cities in the West. Today, many of those city cores are less populated because it turns out, it wasn't the way a lot of people wanted to live.
Ironically it could be said that the car saved cities, because it allowed all the people who didn't want to live there or pay for the housing costs to move away. If the cost of living in inner cities are expensive today, imagine Manhattan or Paris with 4 million residents instead of the 2 million today
It’s not because it wasn’t how a lot of people wanted to live. It should be no secret why, despite these cores’ population dropping, rural population is also shrinking while urban populations grow.
The issue is that a lot of housing in these areas have turned into offices, stores, and other business-use buildings. As you remove livable areas, you create scarcity, which raises the prices, etc. People didn’t want to stop living in tight-knit, busy, walkable neighbourhoods. They were forced out. That’s also why a lot of these suburban areas people were forced out to do their best to mimic a tiny city with everything people need at arms length.
“Cars saved cities because nobody wants to live in cities” is too silly to stomach.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The issue is that a lot of housing in these areas have turned into offices, stores, and other business-use buildings. As you remove livable areas, you create scarcity, which raises the prices, etc.
They also got turned into other things because people and factories left first, though sometimes like in Detroit they became abandoned. Prior to rail transit and then the car, people were forced to live near where they work. Afterwards, they had options.
Quote:
That’s also why a lot of these suburban areas people were forced out to do their best to mimic a tiny city with everything people need at arms length.
Which is closer to what most people wanted, private space of their own (or at least not cripplingly expensive housing) yet the car still offering convenient enough trips to amenities and jobs. Few people were forced, so much as willing left and never looked back.
The truth lies between both narratives, it is foolish to suppose people don't want to have a rec room, dining room, back yard and spare bedroom, maybe a workshop and double garage, particularly if they have kids, if I could have that in East Van I would, people wanted to move out to the burbs, it offered them a lifestyle they just couldnt have in the city, the car just allowed it to happen, what people really want is to be close enough to the city to get a decent job but also have a 2500 square foot detached house
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
It’s not because it wasn’t how a lot of people wanted to live. It should be no secret why, despite these cores’ population dropping, rural population is also shrinking while urban populations grow.
The issue is that a lot of housing in these areas have turned into offices, stores, and other business-use buildings. As you remove livable areas, you create scarcity, which raises the prices, etc. People didn’t want to stop living in tight-knit, busy, walkable neighbourhoods. They were forced out. That’s also why a lot of these suburban areas people were forced out to do their best to mimic a tiny city with everything people need at arms length.
“Cars saved cities because nobody wants to live in cities” is too silly to stomach.
It could be arms length if not for the vast parking lots between each store. God bless cars.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Two points, first people do commute from Liverpool Manchester etc to London, not in vast numbers and normally not 5 days a week but the UK is about to cack handedly put in high speed trains at vast expense to reduce the time it takes to commute from the midlands.
Second you dont have to build all over the farmland, the hill sides of the North Fraser, increased density in the town centers of Langly Mission, Chilliwack etc would ramp up if you could catch a decent train into town, the valley is full of single family homes on 1/4 acre lots, it ought to be full of Burnabyish towns, tower blocks around the train station low rise apartments and town house beyond that
You don't need a new high speed train and a tower in Langley. Just put the tower at Commercial-Broadway, or on Cambie St, or in Kits, or Strathcona. Leverage the existing/near future infrastructure and walkable/bikeable distances.
Langley, Surrey, Mission, Chilliwack are all inferior substitutes. Do it right and put the density in Vancouver where people are closer to their downtown jobs, their friends, their entertainment, their schools, and the beaches instead of making them commute to and from the valley. A condo in Chilliwack isn't a like-for-like substitute for one in Vancouver even if you put in the best train in the world.
You don't need a new high speed train and a tower in Langley. Just put the tower at Commercial-Broadway, or on Cambie St, or in Kits, or Strathcona. Leverage the existing/near future infrastructure and walkable/bikeable distances.
Langley, Surrey, Mission, Chilliwack are all inferior substitutes. Do it right and put the density in Vancouver where people are closer to their downtown jobs, their friends, their entertainment, their schools, and the beaches instead of making them commute to and from the valley. A condo in Chilliwack isn't a like-for-like substitute for one in Vancouver even if you put in the best train in the world.
The truth is we need both, we need more density in the city and in the valley and we have needed a decent train system to Hope since the 90's
I have a lawn now, and it's nothing but a nuisance. It's nice to have a small space for the, now 1 year old, daughter to play in. However, whenever we take her to communal spaces she prefers being around the other children. It's an unnatural state for small children to be isolated into small squares of property. They, generally, much prefer being around other children and in the community.
My ideal plan would be to build up some equity in the house, and then, hopefully once they actually become available, use that equity to buy a 3 bedroom walk up townhouse. There's really nothing about the actual house vs a townhouse that I prefer.....maybe being able to have a larger BBQ? Maybe?
Huh. I prefer a huge back yard and spending more time outside than inside. Would you say that its more comfortable living in a larger social circle for you? I grew up in cities and now I couldn't go back.
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
Huh. I prefer a huge back yard and spending more time outside than inside. Would you say that its more comfortable living in a larger social circle for you? I grew up in cities and now I couldn't go back.
Everyone obviously has their own preferences. I'd say most of the people living in the cities would prioritize things like centrality, decreased commuting, restaurants, etc... Over a backyard.
And there are many people who feel the same way I do, as that's exactly why certain cities are so popular.
The point is that places like Vancouver have failed to deal with the reality of their population, and this is why life satisfaction is so low. And moving to cities that don't offer that places like Toronto and Vancouver have is not going to make people happy.
Are there any examples of wonderful, walk-able, live-able cities/neighbourhoods that aren't also oppressively expensive? I'm struggling to think of any good examples of this.
Are there any examples of wonderful, walk-able, live-able cities/neighbourhoods that aren't also oppressively expensive? I'm struggling to think of any good examples of this.
Up until recently there was. Even in Vancouver, ten years ago, you had various neighbourhoods in East Van that were pretty great for that. Commercial Drive, Hastings Sunrise, Mount Pleasant, etc...Over the last ten years housing in these neighbourhoods has probably increased in price 4 times.
With the current nation wide housing shortage, anywhere that is highly desirable has shot up in price. More and more people are pouring into the cities.