3:53 Their profit increased, only their margin as a percentage of the more expensive whole is smaller, not exactly weeping for them

It's obvious the solution to housing is to increase SUPPLY

The label of "luxury" is just a marketing gimmick. When you think luxury, you think of marble countertops, chrome appliances, rich hardwood flooring, etc... but choosing one type of aesthetics is negligible in terms of cost, when you compare it to the overall cost of building a home. A more "economical" looking apartment will barely change the price of the unit. Either way it will be pricey, so developers/builders will probably use the "luxury" material to market the units as "upscale", thus buyers can emotionally justify the amount they will be paying.

I disagree with you. Your model is working under the assumption that people with the ability to afford to move into those new buildings, will move in. The truth is, most of these buildings are built as 1 bedroom, cramped terrible places to live with no room for any real expansion if you want a a roommate or a family. These are overwhelmingly units meant for one person, but priced in a way that only 2 or more average people could afford to pay for it. Vancouver wages have remained stagnant in most sectors, it’s simply impossible for most people on their own to afford getting in on these new developments on their own. The amount of people who can actually afford one of these, even after someone who got in decides to sell- is still ridiculously limited. Prices in these styles of buildings have been falling for months, and people simply aren’t buying for this reason. Sure, in a few years this might get to the price point where the average person would be able to afford it, or if might be seen as a good deal- but that’s going to discourage investors even more from building housing- as people are already cutting their losses when they decide to sell. They want rental income when they buy these properties, investors want the investment to pay itself off. So yeah, as I am concerned about the type of building being made here, this doesn’t benefit anyone accept the richest first and there simply aren’t that many rich people that need these styles of buildings.

Vacancy chain sounds like an effect spread research funded by builder lobby

I wish to become a realtor one day where I rent out these non-market houses but also tourist/hotel/AirBnb properties for commercial purposes.

Great video, good insight

That sponsorship made me so mad at first LOL nice one

I want to see a breakdown of what all those the "Costs" are for these buildings.

That assumes zero population growth

I heard an economist explained that rent controls in places like BC are actually desirable for developers because they increase the costs for new developments as only the big fish with lots of money can afford to create new developments at a profit so reduces their competition it drives prices up

Just replace the word "luxury" with "modern" and you capture the same aesthetic without the cringe.

If you are not in the financial market right now, you are making a huge mistake. I understand that it could be due to ignorance, but if you want to make your money work for you...prevent inflation

where we build is also important to prevent gentrification in culturally significant places like city centers in Europe ect

As one housing advocate said, the thing we need is more 30 year old apartments. We unfortunately need to build more luxury apartments every year.

Great video, but I mean, duh? Increasing supply obviously will lower demand. I wish you would’ve gotten into why places like San Fran are hard to build in and why places like Austin are easy to build in. Also, I don’t think expanding outward is necessarily a bad thing. Single family homes should be relatively affordable too a little further outside the city.

1900/month is still baffling when you check the hourly minimal wage in Canada. :/ Another problem is that we don't have time to wait for those coops to get cheap nor do we have time to wait for their loans to go to zero. Top it off with the fact that coops will not be able to house enough to solve anything...

The fact this has been made by an asian looking guy has made me chuckle a bit. (Vancouver is also filled with asians for some reasons)

I also think the city should be keeping anonymized records/meta-data on all apartments and buildings and for how much they are being rented, size, amenities etc. I think not knowing what’s out there and the data is a HUGE problem. Right now people and cities are doing guesstimating on top of guesstimations. There is more open data on people than on buildings.

oh believe me germany doesnt build much better nowadays

Lmao no way this bozo is trying to claim that trickle down economics works in housing you’re a shameless shill

When I moved to Oakland, CA I moved into a new building in 2019. I would never have moved into old housing in Oakland, CA. I was already living in old housing in SF. I was paying $2750/month for a jr 1 bedroom otherwise known as a studio apartment.

"Luxury" hahah, right. Most of these aren't even close to "luxury." A granite counter top and a walk in shower doesn't make something luxury.

I miss something, if in many countries the population has started to decrease why is there talk of building more houses?

HA! $3800/month for a luxury 1 bedroom is a steal!!!! My tiny “luxury only in New York City” one bedroom in Manhattan rents for $5400/month.

There is only one way to fix the housing crisis: Build more housing. Everything counter to this goal will ultimately hurt the housing crisis. When “unaffordable” housing is built, it still increases the housing supply, as high income earners move from lower quality housing to the newer housing, freeing up space for others. It’s not a perfect setup, but it’s far, far better than building nothing. NYC had a great system until recently where buildings that set aside a certain portion of their units as affordable housing were given tax breaks. This cost the city nothing, increased both high end and affordable housing and led to a major construction boom.

w boycot chineese

The signs always say LUXURY this and LUXURY that. That word is WAY overused. I'd love to see a sign that says basic, comfortable average apartments but that's never gonna happen.

This is the stupidest video ever

So people are complaining that the rents are too high and at the same time are protesting against building new dwellings 🤔 As a landlord, can someone please explain to me why I should not raise my rents when I get the opportunity?

ok well the problem with what youre saying is that adding a staircase doesnt force devs to tripple or more the total size of the building. did you speak to developers or architect firms? the culture of devs is to fit the largest building possible on each lot. you have a wonderful idea, but n. america can build nice apartments, but they wont because they want to make just a tiny bit more money.

Great video Uytae, thank you for the commentary!

I could have told you just to pay the mortgage the rent must be high.

0:38 Wow, that's wild! So they're protesting the building of new housing, driving up costs by making the developer spend almost 10 years just on permitting, and then trying to blame the *developers* for housing being unaffordable? 🤦‍♂ THIS SITUATION IS LITERALLY YOUR FAULT! Get out of the way and let people build! 😒😒

Thanks for covering this. Problem with your core argument: the denominator is under government control. The spigot of immigration can be racheted up on demand, far faster than we can ever hope to build new housing. In fact, the reality is simple: the more tiny condos we build, the more "homes" are official listed as being built and the easier it is for governments to push 3% + population growth per year. Even if no one wants to live in these tiny shoeboxes, they will be equal to real homes in the official government figures used to push the next immigration plan. Supply only lowers costs if the government stops pushing demand higher every time we build more units. The way to reduce the price of housing is reduce the rate of population growth, cut government fees by 400% on new housing construction, and allow developers to build something other than the most expensive type of housing possible (high density condos in city centres). Edit: What will really blow you mind is if you calculate the cost per sqft of a SFH compared to a new condo. Usually the new condos are more expensive per sqft living space, and have zero land to boot. It's wild how much the government fees and taxes are pushing up the cost of new builds.

The problem is, cars, I mean, trucks and SUVs are enormous but children haven't changed. It's so difficult to see children on the road out of these giant behemoths. If governments really wanted to reduce emissions and everyone's health... start with the size of the "cars" rather than their emissions on paper.

NIMBY karens in $2-3 million 1970s _Vancouver Classics_ complaining about $900k “luxury” apartments 😂😂😂

funny listening to NIMBY karens with $2-3 million 1980s homes complain about “luxury” $900k condos

WE NEED new unique architecture. Our cities are pale in comparison to European cities

12:40 because they _shouldn't_ be luxury. There should be price caps to keep them affordable. The American (Canadian?) Dream is for every family to own their own house. Not be a slave to landlords.

Sponsored by Wesbank.. i LOLD

Was just talking to someone about it. Apparently they've been submitting drawings that get approved and then changing things like having a separate entrance for low income housing or putting low income housing in really cruddy positions. This is all unverified

Great video, as always. Except for the Surfshark ad. It was predatory. The statement "when you're using a public wifi connection, other people can...eavesdrop on your searches [and] your passwords," while technically true, grossly oversimplifies the modern web. Virtually every website we use on a day-to-day basis utilizes the TLS protocol, which encrypts your data by default. There is no additional risk of losing paswords/other data while surfing these sites on a public network compared to using a VPN. Further, even if you were using a website which didn't use TLS (which every modern browser would warn you against), the risk is not limited to connections on a public network; your unencrypted data will traverse the public internet whether or not it begins on a public or private network. This defeats the premise of the quoted statement. I'm concerned that as a result, your viewers may be led to view internet communication originating on their private networks as 100% safe against attacks, which is not the case. Computers and the internet are complicated. Most people don't know anything about how they work. Surfshark abused this fact to their advantage. That's predatory. The internet can be used as safely for free as it is with a VPN. But that doesn't help Surfshark, so they have to resort to scare tactics to prey on poor technological literacy. I encourage you to assert your editorial power when agreeing to reading advertisements in the future. And if you don't know enough about the subject matter, find someone who does.

The 'luxury' tag for these new developments is stupid at best, complete BS at its worse. These are not luxury; they are cramped, lack storage, have minimal kitchen layouts and don't maximize the square footage nor do they offer interesting details. They're just 'new'. Bare-bone, white, boring and new. And expensive. Luxury means something else entirely.

HOT FARTS!!

Does Uytae have a gay brother I can date? 😊

much of the argument against lies in just the semantics of what a luxury house is rather than underhing the overall effects it can have with building it, great video explaining it

One scenario that I've seen that isn't consistent with the vacancy chain model you described is the skyrocketing of rent in working-class neighborhoods that middle-class people avoid living in like it's the plague. The cause seems to be the purchasing of homes by out-of-town investors. How can high rents be combated here?

1. More subsidized housing. There's almost nowhere in the world that doesn't need "more" housing. 2. Require all multifamily redevelopment to increase density. Since even with a duplex, the ship has already sailed, so if you rebuild it, it's now a quadplex and etc. 3. Take "expensive" neighborhoods and ban any major rework of existing houses without density upgrades. 4. Remove all "single family only" property restrictions in urban areas. 5. Remove all utilization restrictions in urban areas. 6. Build a really big hole and throw all the NIMBYs in it. That would probably fix everything.

@1:18 Nice bait with the "sponsor" LMAO