Vancouver real estate prices are absurd due to a "perfect storm" of inflationary conditions.
It is one of the nicest locations in the country, so most of the population of Canada would move there if they could, and many are willing to make sacrifices to live there.
Its size is constrained by the mountains to the north, the ocean to the west, the US border to the south and the desire to maintain some of the country's most productive farmland to the east.
And then there is a bunch of foreign money really pushing things into overdrive.
You can't blame high density housing for this. It is an effect of stratospheric land values, not a cause. The cause is restricted supply and high demand. Housing affordability in Vancouver would be improved if they rezoned most of the city to permit higher density development. Housing affordability across the world would improve if the global population stopped increasing.
Sprawl has costs beyond destroying farmland or natural areas. I normally walk or bike to work and every time I find myself in a car during rush hour I am amazed that people can put up with traffic for an hour or more every day, when being stuck at a single intersection for more than one light cycle has me road raging. I also don't miss the 2 hours a day I used to spend on buses and trains as a student living with my parents in the suburbs. Some people will be more than willing to sacrifice a yard to eliminate commuting headaches and the associated costs. I consider myself fortunate that my city has a significant amount of affordable single family housing close to the core (the so-called "inner city") so I get the best of both worlds.
Vancouver is unique amongst Canada's housing markets as you say because it is contained by sea, mountains and borders, but that is one city. Most other cities can allow for sprawl. As for the foreign money pouring in, I fully agree, and have been quite vocal in my opposition to it.
That said, on a general basis, high density anti sprawl policies do in fact restrict the supply of land and thus drive up the cost of housing. While Vancouver does have some unique circumstances, most other cities can see a large amount of pressure taken off of housing prices just by allowing for more sprawl.
The fact is, if Canada is determined to maintain its current obsession with population growth (Justin plans on increasing immigration to triple our population yet has not pointed out how this will be good for the economic well being of the average Canadian), we will need to compensate by increasing the supply of developable land.
What evidence is there to support your suggestion that increased density zoning will do a better job of addressing housing affordability than sprawl?
As for the destruction attributed to sprawl, there has been a growing amount of research on the area of sustainable suburban development which shows that urban sprawl and the suburban dream can be sustainable with proper planning.
As for your not understanding why some would choose a commuting over a quick bike ride. The best thing is to allow for both sprawl and high density living in the city so both target markets can chose which they prefer. You might sacrifice some yard space to avoid high commuting costs, but I would do the commute to have a detached house in the burbs.
Again, sprawl gets a bad name, mostly because there has only been research against it until recently and now some of the newer research is providing a counterbalance to that. Allow for both sprawl and high density, and each group can have their choice of preferred living space and you create affordability without subsidization.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 01:22:08 AM by phtlc »
While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth