taxi
-
Posts
4,148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by taxi
-
-
16 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:
Mine were the cheaper ones from 2009 too so yeah we. You're probably right.
I do skate pretty hard. And I'm sometimes I'm out there for hours. Especially if I'm inEdmonton with the frozen outdoor ponds and streams
Lol. Definitely invest in quality skates, and get them professionally fitted too. Go to Cyclone Taylor sports. Spending an extra $200ish dollars on something you're using that much is definitely worth it. It changes the quality of your life. And yes, the difference between modern skates made from ultra light materials is night and day from old Canadian Tire specials they were selling for sub-$100 15 years ago. It'll instantly change your skating ability and the enjoyment you get out of skating.
For the amount you're using the skates, I'd probably go higher than my previoius recommendation and get something in the $4-500 range.
Stiffness should be a major consideration, depending on how much you use the skates. The higher skates are designed to be overstiff and work in quickly for someone using them multiple times a week. If you're just going a few times a month, then don't get those and stay mid range.
-
Yes. Up to a point. I got a top pair of skates (retail price was like $800) for $300. This was about 6 years ago. They made a huge difference. The new materials are just better. They fit better, they are lighter, the edges seem better etc...There was a huge leap forward in tech about 10 years ago, with new materials, but not a whole lot has changed since then.
For what you're doing, a mid-range skate will make a huge difference. Your technique will get better, you'll be faster, and your exercising will get better.
I'd look for a well rated skate in the $450-500ish range, that is on sale for $250. If you're buying skates within the last 10 years, the tech hasn't changed all that much, so something that is 2-3 years old and on a huge discount is the way to go.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Warhippy said:
TFW's are not home buyers. While they still need housing they are not home buyers. The real estate magazine you posted suggests that every single one of the suggested 1.45 million new permanent residents will be home buyers which is rather out of scale from the truth of the situation, especially when so many of those new permanent residents are in fact refugees without the means to purchase a home.
They need housing. Whether they are renting or buying, they are contributing to the shortage. The shortage is affecting rents, which increases the demand by investors for investment properties.
And also, yes, a lot of non-permanent residents have been buying properties. There are surprisingly large amount of students who can afford million dollar properties in Canada.
Even under the new rules, students can buy properties priced at less than $500k. No restrictions on value for temporary workers.
https://www.canadim.com/blog/can-a-temporary-resident-buy-a-house-in-canada/
-
8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
those numbers are taken directly from government and immigration sources.
So do tell me more sir about how those numbers are wrong but yours are seemingly more correct.
Let's start here
https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-levels-plans.html
We will then move here.
So please tell me again how the numbers I posted are wrong and yours suggesting a million a year are more in keeping with reality.
You're numbers are wrong, because they just include permanent resident additions. The total number of immigrants is higher, as it would include other classes of people: refugees, the new "Temporary" settlement program, etc...
QuoteThe country welcomed 437,000 immigrants in 2022, while the number of non-permanent residents in the country increased by 607,782, accounting for a "record-breaking year for the processing of immigration applications", according to the government's news release.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
1 million?
Where is that number coming from?
Everything I see states the max possible is 460k increasing to a maximum possible of 500k by 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/23/world/canada/canada-record-population-growth.html
QuoteTORONTO — For the first time in its history, Canada grew by over one million people last year and most of them were newcomers, signaling that the federal government’s ambitious goal of boosting immigration to fill labor shortages is within reach.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65047436
QuoteCanada's population grew by over a million people for the first time ever last year, the government has said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-record-population-growth-migration-1.6787428
QuoteTotal population grew by a record 1.05 million people to 39.57 million in the 12 months to Jan. 1, 2023, and about 96 per cent of the rise was due to international migration, the statistics agency said.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Warhippy said:
You own 150+ properties and don't see how you might be the gd problem?
It's Canadian real estate that's broken though right?
We can fix that by limiting entirely how many corporations or individuals can buy homes and how many they can buy.
That would solve a lot of the issue. An individual or corporation owning 150+ homes IS the issue. Owning that many properties allows them to skew the market
1 million new Canadians per year and not enough housing to house everyone is the problem. If you get rid of scarcity investors will stop investing.
-
9 hours ago, Warhippy said:
So hey. Guys. Wanna hear some funny math?
The largest bulk or swath of home purchases in Canada in recent memory came in 2018 and 2019. We are now at the tail end of the first year since the largest series of rate increases in over a decade or more.
The volume of "home investors" that purchased in the last decade; specifically the last 4-5 years or so who will have to renew this or next year with their rates going from effectively 0 to whatever the current rate will be when they walk in averaging between 5.5% to 6.4% or possibly more.
These are people who will see their investment property mortgages increase by anywhere from $500 to $1200 a month depending on what they owe and what size of down payment they purchased with (many of them ver very little due to purchasing before the stress tests)
Rent right now, RIGHT now is already unaffordable. What do you think is going to happen when the next 16 months goes by and the people who purchased 4-5 years ago come in to renew their mortgages and need to find an additional $500-$1200 a month JUSt to keep holding on to these insanely overpriced investment properties they couldn't afford to begin with?
with the largest swath of home purchases happening between april and september. and the largest volume of home sales happening in 2018/2019 you are about to see an insane level of increases that will not be affordable for a large portion of people.
The rent from investment properties has also increased vastly over the last five years. The banks will also let people refinance, effectively starting their 30 year mortgages over with a lower balance.
Currently people are renewing at about 2%-4 above where things were five years ago, and there aren't a huge swath of defaults. The ultra low mortgages will be renewing around 2026. By then interest rates are expected to fall by then, leaving mortgage rates in the 3-3.5 range. That won't be enough to cause massive defaults, especially in the face of ever increasing housing shortages.
I just don't think we'll see this crash. Canada's current housing planning is abysmal. We'll, unfortunately, just continue to see people die in the streets in record numbers.
-
21 hours ago, bishopshodan said:
I totally hear what you are saying and agree. The housing problem is everywhere. That said, Nanaimo has lots of new developments planned, though probably not enough.
I would make the argument that mid Island is a very easy to commute. Quite a few surrounding areas. There are still many detached homes, if people want more than apts, in between Qualicum and South Naniamo for around 700+k.
Canada's population is growing by 1 million people per year, and that rate of growth is accelerating. A few housing developments in Nanaimo are going to do F-all to alleviate that stress. It's a myth that there are a bunch of great options for Canadians, and people are being too picky. There simply is not enough housing in Canada to accommodate it's level of population growth.
How many more people could Nanaimo realistically accommodate right now before it too saw a major spike in prices? All the larger cities in BC are already bursting at the seems and the population of BC is growing by about 150,000 per year.
Is Nanaimo even cheap anymore? Average price for a home in single detached home in Nanaimo was north of $1 million a year ago. It's dropped now to $837k (which isn't all that cheap), but any small pressure is likely to force things back up to $1 million again:
https://www.nanaimore.com/blog/nanaimo-february-2023-real-estate-market-report/
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:
It doesn't fix any general housing crisis but Nanaimo needs people. Lots of jobs. Also a good place to start a business as they are in need of serives for all the younger adults moving there.
Still some housing that is available at a reasonable cost in the area.
Nanaimo has lots of people already moving in. They don't really have the capacity for much more than a few 10s of thousand of people. There's some affordable housing available now, but how long does that last? We've seen the exact same thing already happen in Victoria and the Okanagan.
-
On 5/29/2023 at 4:05 PM, Coconuts said:
Nanaimo is nice to live in, maybe too nice as it draws folks from all over and makes it hard on locals. Yeah, I'm absolutely bitter but as a local it's been hard watching the housing market blow up over the last ten years or so.
Why live on the mainland when you can sell, move, and buy up property with cash left over. I hate how it's become an easy investment for mainlanders, it squeezes out the locals.
Exactly. The idea that there are just other places to live in BC and that if everyone moved out of Vancouver it would the housing crisis, is garbage. Assuming you can find a job in smaller city, when people move on mass to a small town/city the prices rise dramatically and someone else is getting pushed out. Look at Victoria and Kelowna. Both are totally unaffordable. Nanaimo is getting there and will be next.
-
On 5/15/2023 at 11:12 AM, Mj2345 said:
Where’s the best place locally to get Ultra Pro 9 pocket pages for my cards I put in binders? Wal mart and London Drugs seem to never carry them anymore…I’m on my last pack of 30 pages..
I'd try Zephyr Epic too. They have a 100 pack for $24.99:
https://zephyrepic.com/product/ultra-pro-9-pocket-platinum-pages-100-pack/
You can also just order them online. They shouldn't be too difficult to get. They are getting less popular for sports cards, but MTG and Pokemon players use them quite a bit.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Yes, I agree. $800k in the city is probably fantasy, but if you can get a fourplex unit in the suburbs for $800k then that should work for most people. Alot of people are working from home now, so the need to live right in the heart of the city has diminished. And for those that want to stay in the city, at $1.1 million they could probably squeeze that if interest rates dropped a bit.
Single family home builders would also get really busy all of a sudden building fourplexes, which would help with construction jobs and the economy as a whole.
I am surprised they didn't plan this 10-15 years ago. It's a shame really. We could have had thousands of these smaller homes already on the market and in the inventory cycle. The government was too worried about foreign buyers 10 years ago, thinking if you stopped them from buying it would fix the mess. They were wrong. Ultimately, fixing this mess is by building more multifamily homes, thousands of them...
They didn't plan it 10-15 years ago, because a bunch of NIMBYs were going on about the "character of the city" and for, whatever reason, the flawed argument that more supply increases prices persists. Yes, building homes for $1.1 million won't help the very poor, but the other option is to just have a bunch of decaying basement suites that landlords won't fix. Overt time, increased supply does open up more supply for everyone. And at the end of the day, in a situation with low supply, money talks and the poor get outbid anyways.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
All single family lots will become multi-family lots in Vancouver as early as 2024...
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-multiplex-single-family-zoning-rs-proposal
City of Vancouver proposes allowing multiplexes for all single-family neighbourhood zoning
They are even looking at doing it across all municipalities...
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-single-family-lots-secondary-suites-densification-policy
Up to four homes to be allowed on single-family lots across British Columbia
With this new legislation, they could build smaller units that would drop the price from $1.55 million to around $1.1 million...
Based on the City’s calculation using conventional input costs and average rates, a fourplex unit would carry a $1.1 million estimated purchase cost, with 39% of the house cost, $221,000 for the 20% down payment, and a combined household income requirement of $235,000 annually.
This fourplex unit scenario on a lot is comparatively more affordable than a duplex unit with an estimated $1.55 million purchase cost, and with 55% of the house cost per unit, $310,000 down payment, and an income requirement of $326,000. Single-family houses are, of course, even more out of reach, with an estimated $2.82 million estimated purchase cost, and 100% of the house cost per unit, $563,640 down payment, and $586,000 for income required.
The densification would apply to all single-family zoning across Vancouver to ensure the policy is simple to understand for both builders and City staff reviewing applications, eliminating a major source for confusion. This distribution also better enables building opportunities, and the management of the impacts to utilities.
This is still unaffordable for the average family, but if they could get builders to build out thousands of these new smaller units then there is the potential to get the price even lower than $1.1 million. $800k I think is the sweet spot IMO. This way, young families don't have to rely on buying a 2-bedroom condo in a high-rise in order to get into the market.
If the plan goes ahead, and they can reduce the price, I'm all for it. Although I don't see the price in Vancouver proper going as low as $800k. It could easily get that low in places like Surrey, Coquitlam, etc... though.
Even at the projected $1.1 million that would make huge difference, as it would then be possible to climb up from a condo into one of these units.
-
1
-
-
On 5/16/2023 at 5:25 PM, Elias Pettersson said:
Building row townhouses right in the city isn't affordable for the average person. Also, they're not as profitable for the builder. Those lots on Nanaimo street are actually already zoned for multi-family. Every lot in Vancouver is now a multi-family lot. Problem is you are not getting 3 row townhouses plus a coach house on a standard lot. A developer would end up building a front and back duplex with a suite. Then sell off each side of the duplex, so 1/2 duplex for around $1.5 million.
Like @Warhippy said, that's not really going to help the housing crisis as the average buyer can only afford $700-800k. To afford a $1.5 million 1/2 duplex or townhouse your combined income needs to be like $300k. And that is if you have a 20% downpayment.
At the end of the day, the larger townhomes need to be built outside the city to get the price down to around $1 million max. There is lots of empty land available outside the city that can be rezoned for this purpose. Problem is the municipal governments are dragging their feet with all of the red tape...
The market will roll downhill. If you get the people who can afford $1.5 million into a townhouse, they won't be competing for larger condos. You build enough townhouses and the price drops to $1.2 million.
The major issue in Vancouver right now is the "missing middle". Lots of tiny condos and detached lots, not nothing on between.
Will Vancouver ever be a cheap place to live, failing a tidal wave, no way. Can you make it a realistic place to live by increasing density and supply, sure.
Also Nanaimo currently requires a permit to build a multi unit home. You have to apply for the permit, give notice to the neighbors, etc... It's not automatically zoned for multi unit.
-
4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Small families are living in one- and two-bedroom condos. That is all they can afford. They aren't living in townhouses. Townhouse inventory only accounts for around 10% of all inventory on the market today. Developers don't build alot of townhouses, especially in the city. There is no money to be made to build row townhomes on expensive land in the city. If you want a row townhouse for a small family you need to go out to the suburbs. Even then they are a million+ to start.
Developers don't build 3-bedroom condos for the most part. They are too expensive as a price point and it's alot more profitable to build one and two bedrooms. 3-bedroom condos only account for around 13% of all condo inventory.
At the end of the day, people need a place to live. And they need to be able to afford it. The dream is to have thousands of townhouses and detached homes on the market at affordable prices for families to purchase. The reality is these families can only afford a one- or two-bedroom condo. So, if you increase that portion of the inventory then at least you are allowing people the chance to actually buy a home they can afford. It's not ideal for alot of people, but it is better than renting and allows people to build equity for the next purchase...
The whole point is that there aren't nearly enough townhouses. Unless Vancouver totally rezones large areas of the city, which they are actually in the process of doing, we won't see any either.
Townhouses can definitely be profitable. If, for example, you rezone all of Nanaimo Street to allow for townhouses, where there are single family homes, you could make a large profit. You can have 3 townhouses plus a coach house on a single lot. You buy a teardown for $1.5-2.2 million and replace it with four 3 bedroom townhouses that you can sell for $1.5 million each.
-
1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Yes, it's a net increase of zero, however it adds inventory to a price range that is more in demand in the market. Adding inventory isn't just about increasing supply, it's more about increasing affordable supply. If you add 2,000 new homes onto the market for example in the $3 million price range, that will show as increased overall inventory, but isn't going to help most people to be able to buy a home...
I'd argue that there is a bigger shortage of options as you move to 2 and 3 bedroom places. There are plenty of studio and one bedroom places, and we don't really need more of those. We need more townhouses and units appropriate for small families.
-
54 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
That’s not true. If someone is moving from a one bedroom home to a townhouse, then that one bedroom home would be put on the market, which increases the inventory in that price range.
The biggest issue with inventory right now is finding homes for first time home buyers. Having a bunch of one bedroom and two bedroom condos come onto the market would definitely help the inventory issue. As well, these would be ready to move in condos, versus a developer putting a high rise up for presale and having to wait 4 years to move in.
Inventory levels are down all across North America, it’s not just a Vancouver thing, so there is legitimacy to this theory as interest rates have risen dramatically all across North America over the last 2 years.
The quickest way to increase inventory levels is for people to put their places up for sale. Waiting for developers to construct a high rise or waiting for the government to rezone some land takes years to accomplish the same objective.
Except they are also buying a place...which means a net increase of zero. Also, they may be buying a place with multiple units, which means a net decrease of housing stock.
-
13 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:
What is the reason for the lack of inventory in the market and the consequential price increases that are making this city even more unaffordable?
It's actually quite simple to figure out. It all has to do with interest rates. Currently, around 56% of all homeowners have a mortgage on their principal residence. Out of that 56%, approximately 71% of those people have a fixed rate mortgage. Which was obtained well before the rate increases of the last 18 months. These people are locked into rates that are well under 3%. 2% or lower for some. So, they are locked in at low rates and are not affected by this current rate environment. So, what does this have to do with low inventory?
Well, if you want to move you would need to sell your place, which means you would need to break that mortgage and get an even bigger mortgage at a much higher rate. And the people who tend to move the most, the younger people, are the ones who are affected the most as they can't really afford to move and lose that interest rate. So, people are holding tight for now and not selling at this time. Which is one of the major causes for the 20+ year low in real estate inventory.
My buddy told me this theory and it seems to make alot of sense. It's not the only reason for the lack of inventory, but it is one of the bigger ones. This should continue for awhile until these mortgages come due for renewal, which should be in the next couple of years. In the meantime, expect prices to keep going up this year. Next year might be even worse.
The problem with that theory, is that young people tend to move from smaller to larger places, which actually decreases inventory. You only get a net increase in inventory when people downsize, move to a rental, or leave the housing market.
There's so little inventory, because we simply don't have enough housing. A million be Canadians this year, and nowhere near enough new housing units.
-
1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:
So, was that the crash?
Demand is just too high in some areas for a true crash. If you could buy detached houses in Vancouver proper for under $1,000,000, they'd be gone in an instant. In a situation where there's low supply and high demand, prices will always stay high enough that a purchase is painful. You can go on about prices returning to a place that matches salaries, but as long as people are going large influxes of cash from mom and dad and/or foreign investments that will never happen.
-
1
-
-
Don't really use Twitter. I have an account, but don't really see the benefits of reading random celebrity thoughts. For news I still go to the websites of news providers.
Instagram is probably the one I use the most. Still Facebook for the marketplace, occasional messaging, and quick scrolls through my feed. Was in some groups, but those are all pretty toxic and full of scammers.
But yes, overall social media is not as exciting as it was. I still like the ability to get major updates from people I never see anymore. Whatsapp has pretty much replaced the group message function of Facebook though.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Odd. said:
In the video, the guy recording is yelling “He’s dead He’s dead He’s dead” while Schmidt was still breathing his last moments on the ground, his wife crying in the background.
What is also crazy is there was a guy on the patio who was sipping his coffee, looks down on Schmidt in a pool of blood, and CONTINUES to sip on his coffee
The guy sitting down while this is going down is pretty insane. The killer was still standing a few feet away watching over the victim, so maybe I can see why unarmed people didn't rush in. However, I don't know why the guy is just sitting at the patio and sipping his coffee. He doesn't try to step in or run away. Maybe he was paralyzed by fear? It's just very weird. Even if he didn't think it was safe to confront the guy, he could have grabbed the door to lock him in, while someone else pulled the victim away. Turning the victim onto his back or applying pressure to the wounds could have saved him.
I walk by this Starbucks most days, as it's right around the corner from my bus home. They've put up a memorial. Very sad.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:
Where do you live that first-time home buyers can actually buy a house? And why do you think it is so important to check the permits?
Unless it is a new or newer house that appears to have very sketchy construction quality, or has a dubious looking addition, in which case why would you want to buy it at all?
I can think of many things I would want to check before buying a house, like roof, drain tiles, plumbing, electrical, oil tank, etc, but for most houses checking the permits would be well down the list.
In Vancouver, it's not a bad idea. Lots of unauthorized additions and renovations.
When we were buying about 2 years ago, we viewed a house that looked fantastic. The only problem was the real estate agent told us that the back 1/3 of the house was an illegal addition, that the city had become aware of. The owners had applied for an Air BnB permit, which authorized the city to do an inspection. They found the unauthorized add on and demanded it's removal. The cost was going to be in the $300k range, as the add on had been built into the structure of the existing house.
The current owners were totally unaware of the illegal add on.
-
On 12/12/2022 at 6:34 PM, bishopshodan said:
Oh fun.
This is nice for home owners. It's because they base the value on 6 months previous, back in July.
2023 BC Assessment preview says many properties to see increase in value
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2022/12/05/2023-bc-assessment-preview/
Also,
I have noticed in my area that new listings are way down.
Likely just the time of year but it makes you wonder... Sales are way down, so are people deciding not to list and wait it out? Or for landlords like myself deciding to hold, also wait it out, and reap the very high rents that the low inventory is providing?
Lack of supply.
Realistically there's no way to make housing affordable with such a massive shortage of it.
And as you say, with so many people in it for the investment now, there's no incentive to sell until interest rates are back in check and prices begin to swing back up. As a landlord, investors can just sit back and collect their high rent or Air BnB.
-
1
-
-
On 12/5/2022 at 7:45 PM, ronthecivil said:
You can zone for more people. Just don't do it in the floodplain, which is where most of the ALR is....
People don't use all the farmland for farming because land in general is so freaking expensive these days (thanks inflation!) that pressure to do other things other than farming is immense. With a growing world population, is it a red herring to preserve our means of food production?
But none of that bothers me in the least. The fact that we would just be creating future flooded neighbourhoods does. For fun, let's do a thought experiment.....
A solution to Somas lake flooding, and general low lying areas in the Fraser valley, just dredge out the Fraser Valley, start barging in materials, and fill it up a couple metres (at billions or dollars of cost, just for the fill) and build a giant sprawling paradise. Never mind the traffic or environmental consequence, it would be built on the toothpaste consistency soil of the Fraser valley. If you design the elevation low, it floods periodically. If you design it high, it sinks, and it floods periodically. I have mentioned "what's the business plan for keeping Somas lake as farmland" as being a concern. I don't even need to ask about a business plan for defarming the fraser valley, it's an engineering nightmare.
Not all of the ALR is in a flood plane.
Once again you're using the argument that rezoning some of the ALR means rezoning all of it.
The BC Real Estate Discussion Thread
in Off-Topic General
Posted
You've also got inflation going on. If prices were to go back to 2019 levels, that would actually be a 30+% decrease in prices from 2019 levels, in real dollars. A housing shortage plus inflation is not going to produce lower housing prices.