The spike in affordability in Vancouver wasn't caused directly due to a shortage in housing stock and an influx of residents. It was caused by rampant speculation from people essentially using Vancouver as a safety net to park wealth.
I can't overstate how detrimental this is to a city. What you end up with are entire neighbourhoods which are occupied at 50% or less, and yet with the value of the homes exceeding $2-$4 million. It causes stores in those local neighbourhoods to close because there aren't enough customers. It taxes the fire department because no one is there to call 911 when a fire starts. It guts schools because there aren't enough kids to fill classrooms.
And with all of this going on, former local residents and young people are pushed further and further out of the urban core due to affordability. Vancouverites make less than half of what an average tech salary pays in the SF Bay Area, and the jobs are much harder to come by.
That said, yes, Airbnb and other vacation rentals were exacerbating the problem, and causing Vancouver to turn further into a vacation/tourism destination instead of a real working city. San Francisco suffers from this to a certain extent, however, its real problem is that it has a massive influx of workers due to a booming tech economy, and not enough housing stock to accommodate all of those workers.
That one doesn’t sound bad at all. Every other school district complains about the reviser, too many kids and not enough teachers / tax dollars.
So I think the problem kind of goes both ways.
https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
I've read that this is the case in London, as well. And probably lots of other cities with names that are well known in China and Russia.
And on top of that, there were lots of real estate investors who weren't even trying to keep their places occupied?
Isn't that super irresponsible investing?
It’s not less irresponsible than buying Tesla stock.
The City of Vancouver implemented an empty homes tax, which has similar impacts on demand, but they had to ask the province for new powers in order to levy that.
It has had a real effect on employment, especially in tech. A friend of mine at hootsuite laments that sometimes they miss on great hires because even though the salary is competitive, there is literally nowhere within an hour of the office for the candidate to afford to live.
You do not recall correctly. https://www.reuters.com/article/canada-housing-vancouver/nea...
In 2011, I did an occupancy survey for a college group study, and yes we counted 31% vacancy in Coal Harbour
1% vacancy
5% unoccupied but not open to rent
So of the houses that are unoccupied, only 20% are vacant?
(I actually read it as 1/6th but the point is where the confusion may have come from)