1. The definition of “Vancouver” is wrong. The opinion piece by Tyee is worse.
    If you define “Vancouver as MetroVancouver i.e. including places like Coquitlam, Surrey or Ladner there are PLENTY of condos available in MetroVan for under $300,000. And many more under $400,000, almost 700.
    ==> OF COURSE you cannot afford a house in Vancouver as that IS THE NORM in almost any city, be it Hongkong, London, Paris, New York, Munich, Vienna ..
    And guess what, with increased density SFHs will get even more expensive in Vancouver. We can debate taxation levels if you want as we certaily do tax these houses far too low.
    click here and you see OVER 300 listing under $300,000
    if you click here you will see almost 700 units for sale under $400,000
    Cheaper in Okangan or Edmonton, AB, or Regina, SK or Hamilton, ON btw !! Last time I checked it is a free country and the option to move still exists, although CO2 emitting airplane travel, or worse, by gasoline powered cars, might be restricted one day too by our green mayor.

    1. Exactly.
      And if you overlaid any of those cities on a map of Vancouver, you’d see that the areas occupied by single family houses in Vancouver are occupied by dense apartment blocks and have been for a hundred years.
      Go to the top of the Eiffel Tower and see how far the 6 storey apartment blocks stretch for – as far as the eye can see – certainly as far as the West Side is from downtown and probably to our equivalent of Burnaby.
      Back in the 1950s and 60s – remember the old comedy shows set in New York City –
      – in I Love Lucy, the Ricardos moved to Connecticut to buy a house.
      – in the Dick Van Dyke Show, the Petries lived in New Rochelle
      They certainly weren’t a 5 minute drive or bike ride from their offices.

  2. Millennials need to stop whinging – God it’s embarrassing.
    Somehow we’ve arrived at this bad equilibrium where society is being subdivided into ever smaller categories of people, and each group relentlessly howls about their own victimization and helplessness. As if victimization bestows a moral superiority… as if oppression is a virtue and success is a vice. As if the pot of wealth is fixed, and each identity must endlessly squabble over it.
    Millennials – break the cycle, rise above! Decline the cynical invitation to victimhood, and dare instead to succeed! Create something and grow your own wealth. Identify as an individual, not a group…be an agent that makes things happen rather than an object that has things happen to it!

    1. Nah, we’re ok.
      Just don’t expect us to bail you out when your retirement nest egg depreciates following a housing market crash over the next few years.

    2. While I wouldn’t classify Millenial concerns as whinging. I agree it’s embarrassing. The Baby Boomers and Gen Xers etc created the world they live in and were the ones who educated and socialized today’s youth. And when they get active and vocal, it’s a poignant reminder of how far behind the grey and wrinkled left their high-falutin’ ideals. That’s embarrassing for sure.
      Some of us watched y’all trade in the patchouli and peace for power suits and profits. Quit whinging because today’s young people are still idealistic enough to believe in change. Positioning it as victimhood when all they are asking for is some sign that their elders give a f*ck about their future reminds one of who proudly bore the ‘Me’ generation, until principles of altruism and collaboration were the tools required to ensure the grey and wrinkled years are as cushy as the ones that came before.

      1. Sometimes we Boomers weren’t that sophisticated. Some of us just wanted to see Clapton letting it rip in Cream’s 1969 farewell tour at the Royal Albert Hall and hoped to be able to pay next month’s rent with the income from a job in a gas station. But I still get a kick from the poor quality YouTube vid.

        I can’t reconcile that with the fact my Millennial relatives and neighbours tour obscure parts of the world every year or two and have at least a master’s when complaining about paying rent instead of a mortgage in Vancouver.

        1. It’s the same reason why kids in the ghetto have nice shoes.
          The larger priced essentials are so far out of reach that you don’t even bother trying, and just spend it on other things.
          I’m under 30 and have made around $100K/yr for the last couple years, but looking at the housing market I can’t compete. So bugger to buying a home. I have 2 cars, a motorcycle, a healthy stock portfolio and part of a vacation property.
          A house in my neighbourhood went for 47 times my annual rent in a similar house. Never mind that the new owner will have to pay maintenance, taxes, fees, interest etc. Absolute lunacy.
          So to heck with buying a house in the near term, I’m buying a hot tub, going on a trip to Hawaii and retiring by 40.

        2. You can buy a house further out, as you know of course. Or a condo. Or a townhouse. Or a 4-plex and rent out 3 units and live in the 4th.
          Decide on a high house/condo price and short commute or a cheaper house/condo and a long commute. That is VERY normal, and it will never change again as long as we have immigration, normal interest rates, a land locked city and an attitude that Coquitlam or Ladner or NewWest or Surrey is just not “Vancouver”. A choice, of course.
          As to a house for the average person in “Vancouver proper” that ended in the mid 1980s. The bubble talk and steep price appreciation started in earnest in the late 80’s after Expo 86. It has come down a hair after the 15% foreign tax this summer but I expect the upwards trajectory to continue.
          Special link for you 100,000 guy: over 2000 properties for sale in Metrovan under $750,000:
          Take your pick. You are blessed ! Of course renting is a choice too and like Quebec or Europe a 50% renter to ownership ratio is also normal and that has been the ratio, more or less, for the last century in Vancouver ! So, things are actually quite normal in Vancouver. Perhaps a house in Gibsons, commute 2-3 times a week and pray for a bridge and 100% value appreciation ? many many choices for the 100,000 singles or couples !

        3. You think a house can continue to appreciate beyond 47X Annual Rent? Price tags policy on personal attacks sure is restricting some times.
          The median amount of household wealth in Canada is only ~$340K. Household! Including retirement plans, all financial assets, property and any other assets. Double that and you’re still barely within a townhouse which can hold a family within an hours commute of my job. What the hell would I be aspiring to work for?

        4. House prices are especially high in Vancouver as they are not making anymore subdivision, there is immigration by poor and wealthy Asians ( plus Persians and folks from a few other nations that can chose to live anywhere) their taxes are very low on a worldwide scale per $1M of value, and in fact some are being replaced with multi-unit condos. Average wages are distorted as many folks that live here or have a second, third or fourth home declare their income elsewhere and as such show up as 0 income although it might be $1M/year. If you want a house there are plenty further out. Taking out condos I see 400 houses in MetroVan incl Gibsons here under $750,000

          When I first lived here they told me we are in a bubble, and that surely a $250,000 Burnaby bungalow is way WAY overpriced. That was 1988. That same bungalow is now $1.2-1.5M. Buy anything decent in Vancouver today, especially freehold, and it will double in 20 years, likely sooner. Perhaps join a real estate club like Ozzie Jurock’s REAG or REIN with monthly meetings to educate yourself. Rents will double too. So might as well buy now with fixed payments. Up to you. A choice.
          Vancouver on a world scale, in a city with ocean, clean air, safe streets, mountains, an international airport, beaches and decent weather is not expensive. Even condos that used to be $400/foot are now over $1000/foot. Houses will go up more as there is limited land. My lightbulb went on 30 years ago. Perhaps yours does too. Enjoy the ride. I blog here a lot on real estate and you can post question that will get answered by a non-hostile real estate savvy crowd: unlike the price tag crowd that seems to dislike wealth builders and allegedly greedy capitalists.

        5. @Alex, Cream was fantastic at the Saville on Shaftbury Avenue in ’67. Ginger Baker’s solo was mesmerizing. So dynamic and varied, all over the map. His entire being was completely into it. Everyone felt they were going to explode.
          Many people didn’t trade their casual clothes for a suit and cold cash. Many people were smart enough to see that to own big things one needed to work hard and save up. So they did. Now many of them can now enjoy life.
          There wasn’t the constant carping about demanding they should be able to live in Chelsea or on the Champs D’Elisée or the upper east side. They bought in areas that were within their practical capability.
          One gets the impression that many millennials act like unproductive aristocratic dilettantes, with no interest in managing their money. It’s what used to be called quite unbecoming and tiresome.
          Vancouver has always been a special place. As the third city in Canada it is obvious that high paying work is limited in a city that has few head offices and therefore few high paying ancillary industries. Toronto has the financing, the banking, the media, the publishing, the big ad agencies, and all the big law firms to service all that and more. Vancouver is also without much federal presence. Vancouver is a nice green resort town with the Port really being the big earner. A bit more expensive than Toronto but slow and laid back and with, generally, inoffensive weather.
          It’s getting near dawn.

    3. And by the way – I’m a millennial!!!
      Ours is a lost generation, and it’s not because of the economy or war or any external factor; it’s because we were raised to be fragile.
      We WERE raised to be subtly suspicious of the strong, and sympathetic to the weak and oppressed (just think hard of your memories in Social Studies class millennials). Meanwhile, we were raised with tremendous self-esteem and to think we were special and personally destined to greatness.
      Yet roughly half of us will end up below the average. How do we square this? We claim the mantle of oppression…and we collect as many oppression cards as we can to justify ourselves and our frustrations.

      1. In the US they used different words for this attitude. Rather than “poor” they used words like deplorable, racist, uneducated rural folks, white trash .. and that cost the arrogant out of touch Democratic Party not only the house, but also the senate and the presidency.
        It helps the educated city dweller ( speaking generally, but also specifically for price tags blog participants) to listen to voices other than their own. There is a whole world of retirees, farmers, blue collar workers, truckers, soccer moms and climate skeptics out there that don’t buy into all this educated climate hype predicting dooms-day collapse.

        1. “It helps the educated city dweller ( speaking generally, but also specifically for price tags blog participants) to listen to voices other than their own.”
          Lead by example Beyer. People provide you with facts that don’t match your opinions and you ignore them or worse yet, use it as springboard for yet another paternalistic lecture full of inaccuracies and lack of understanding of others perspectives. You can’t even take your own advice. Of course if we did, we’d be idiots. Decisions based on the opinions of the uninformed is not leadership, it’s pandering to a mob.

        2. I do learn by reading and listening Chris.
          I just do not agree with all opinions by others and have my own too. Truth is a set of facts plus values plus perception of its relevance. A set of facts can be interpreted differently, based on values. Values differ. As such the truth or shall I say, perception of reality, differs. Some people think global warming of 2-3 degrees is a catastrophe and others (like me) shrug their shoulders and say “so what”. As such, some think we ought to do about it, say CO2 taxes or stopping pipelines. Others do not. Some gladly pay 12% GST + PST and other are pissed off because they perceive the state as far too big already. Yet others think civil servants are underpaid and other think they are overpaid for the hours worked, benefits received and low layoff risk. I do not expect people here on this blog, or on Twitter or facebook or other blogs I opine on to agree with me. Many do, many do not. That is fine.
          Please also appreciate the fact that perception (of the truth) is shaped by life experiences, income levels, education levels, religious beliefs or age. What you perceive as important I may not, or vice versa.
          So, I rather have the city of Vancouver buy more e-buses than forbidding gas use for your hot shower by 2050 or support CO2 taxes. That is far more important to me and has a benefit today as opposed to a possible benefit, maybe, 100+ years from now.

        3. “Some people think global warming of 2-3 degrees is a catastrophe and others (like me) shrug their shoulders and say “so what”.”
          Bears repeating:
          “Price tags policy on personal attacks sure is restricting some times.”

        4. Please accept the fact that other people have other opinions or values than you do. That is how the world works. No need to insult people that disagree with you. If I like beef and you are a vegetarian we can still share a meal, can we not ? Some people like cars, some like bikes, some subways and some to walk, yet live in the same city. This is a urban issues / transportation blog is it not ? Multiple opinions are the life blood of blogs but also of democracy and progress as a human race. Embrace diversity. They are not all idiots just because they differ from you.

        5. Science doesn’t operate on opinions and values. I’m not insulting you. I’m offering my opinion of your values. It isn’t to your liking. Hardly my fault (or that of the others on this blog that put up with your incessant propagandizing for your position) that a dispassionate assessment of your statements returns a negative impression of your ability to comprehend the real consequences of a couple of degrees of temperature increase.

        6. Not only a bastion of anti-science writing, but here quoting an astrophysicist, not a climate scientist. And one without any relevant publications. Who is employed by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a crackpot think tank. And who, for this “study”, used a data set (RSS) that the publisher of advised not to use because it is out of date and not corrected. And even if it was, the data set is not measuring temperatures on the surface, but is inferring them the troposphere. But only over land, not globally. But what the heck, he used it to try and infer something about global temperatures and the effect of ocean currents. The reviews of this article go into even more detail, but that is probably enough.
          So many kinds of silly. But people buy it, Thomas among them. It is a very sad reflection of a lack of critical thinking skills.

        7. More questions about whether Thomas has a grasp of science emerge. Forget the models, Thomas. That is a higher level course. Just look at the data.
          How reliable are the links that Thomas provides, due to intentional bias by the authors?
          Here is the data related to the link that Thomas provided. Same RSS data set. Leave aside that it isn’t global because it is just over land, that it isn’t surface temperature (where we live), that it is outdated and comes with a warning from the publisher not to use it. The author picked this data set for a reason, and then picked two points in time, marked on the graph in blue. Now look at the trend, in red.

          So, no warming, you say? Look at the trend.
          Here is the full post. David Rose’s article, which Thomas linked to, gets special mention.

          Thomas, you wrote that you are a layman, and that you learn by reading and listening. You could do worse than to start by reading Tamino. His blog is called Open Mind. Read it, and let us know what you think.

        8. Thanks Alex. Tamino’s Open Mind blog is a good source on climate issues, with a focus on data and logic, not just climatology. Another one is And Then There’s Physics (aTTP), which is not by a climate scientist, and similarly takes a science and data approach. Some readers here may know these two already, but if not, worth a read.
          attP discussed David Rose’s article, which Thomas linked to via the Daily Mail, here:

          Speaking of which, where is Thomas in this thread? Since he posted that he learns by reading, I would hope that he would read these links and provide his comments.

        9. I wonder what your NASA blogger/video specialist thinks about her post back a couple of months ago, now that the Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is to head the E.P.A.

          I got sweet, sweet candy joy out of kicking a Donald Trump piñata where the real Trump “guarantees” he has “no problem.” Photo cred: @pipfind #trumpshowusyourpenis #piñata #forkicksandgiggles #candy

        10. I have no idea what your new crush thinks about that. Have you told her you are stalking her? I’d guess she probably wouldn’t be with the 40% of Americans who approve of his appointments (reported today).
          Do you find photos such as that to be good evidence on the subject of climate change?

        11. @Jeff: I can read without commenting. Conflicting opinions obviously, except for those converted that chose to eliminate anything critical or skeptical as any serious scientist would. A never ending quest for the truth, unless we declare “the science is settled” not more research required. Upper ocean, lower ocean, earth surface, air flows, ocean currents, icebergs melting then icesheets re-appearing thicker, hardly any global warming the last 20 years.. how is a lay person supposed to sort out which expert is right and which one is wrong and whether one biased source is better than another ?
          The paper From Wyatt and Curry apparently is from 3 years ago here and more here n the final draft that summed it up correctly as “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.” which (mysteriously??) disappeared in the Final version
          Fair to limit pollution (aka less diesel buses or coal powered electricity plants to mention two low LOW hanging fruits) and have more e-cars as they are quieter and ultimately cheaper per km, and thus useful for limited range city driving. As to replacing coal with LNG: that makes total sense to me, or nuclear.

        12. @Jeff: I told her you can’t resist re-tweeting her college science tweets.
          Photos like that give us a good idea how proud environmental scientologists think.

        13. Thomas: “I can read without commenting.”
          Sure you can. But you were asked questions related to what you posted. If you can’t defend your positions, fine.
          “Conflicting opinions obviously, …”
          No, evidence. Not the same thing.
          “…(rant on skepticism)…”
          Scientists are skeptical, and then embrace the evidence. Deniers are skeptical, and then ignore the evidence. You don’t have an exclusive on skepticism, but you demonstrate denial.
          “As to replacing coal with LNG: that makes total sense to me…”
          Didn’t you see the recent explanation on LNG? Do you mean natural gas? Why say LNG unless you want to promote LNG export dreams?

        14. Thomas, that’s great. We agree, L is for liquid. And since that particular liquid isn’t combustible, we don’t run power plants on it.
          Now, about all that evidence referenced in the posts above, having nothing to do with models, but everything to do with misrepresentation and outrageous falsehoods. Please either apologize for posting it (in an apparent effort to derail the discussion), or defend it. Either Tamino’s post, or the one by aTTP, linked above, will give you a list of the errors your non-scientist Daily Mail writer made.
          You suggest you are a lay person, and that it is all very hard to understand. Fine. I get it. But why are you attempting to debate the existence of climate change, and the impacts it will have, with others then? And why are you calling others names and questioning their motives if the root problem is that you don’t understand the subject?

  3. All of a sudden Beyer’s disinterest in variations of a couple of degrees goes out the window when it bolsters his opinion. The epitome of a find-the-fact-that-supports-my-opinion non-science approach to a complex topic well beyond his understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *