what do you guys think about the new 81 storey building going up Surrey?

[mugwump]

Originally Posted by fable

attn mugwump::

Hmm i think that your not talking about privatization, your talking about something more akin to the model of community based living and operation?

uh im talking about the one where property is a commodity and can be bought, sold, or exchanged for something on the free market, based on mutual agreement/interaction.

Originally Posted by fable

Privitization means tha select developers have the ability to keep 100% of the profit, and a growing reality of not being held accountable by the public. If you are able to then purchase developed property by said developers then your in good, but your doing this at at the chance of the oppression and exploitation of the poor and working classes.

you're saying only select people would own property? that sounds like feudalism. not really following dude :209:

Originally Posted by fable

Im not saying that all members of the general populace who own property are bad, but DEVELOPERS are increasingly buying land that either the government of Canada has no business selling due to the fact that they dont own the land, or that they are buying and developing land that only a select percentage of the population have access too.

well obviously you shouldn't sell land that isn't yours, i agree with you there.

Originally Posted by fable

Please note that over 67% of British Columbia is Indigenous land that has yet to be purchased by the government.

truf.

[PaIniNyErAnUs]

i heard the condos were goin for like 99g's i would so be down, thats a fuckin wicked deal for a 1 bedroom condo


location is meh thou

[fable]

uh im talking about the one where property is a commodity and can be bought, sold, or exchanged for something on the free market, based on mutual agreement/interaction.

I understand that, but if owning property is only accesible to a disporportionate few, or that property is developed in an area where a large section of population cannot afford it, then we get...well what we currently have. Residential housing that takes no consideration of the CURRENT living situation, and or develops housing long before the economic situation of the community catches up/ all in the name of "making land valuable"

you're saying only select people would own property? that sounds like feudalism. not really following dude

Ha! your probably closer to the truth than you think. But currently in Canada we have a situation across the nation of developers catering to a ever decreasingly economic bracket. Asides from "token" housing, which is countered with the belief that the building of "low income housing" will contribute to more "ghettos" the reality of the situation is that affordable housing, whether houses, or condos is becoming less and less a viable oppurtunity.

Like i mentioned before, i have no problem with people who work hard enough, save enough ends and buy themselves a piece of shelter, but in this process there is a growing number of people who do not understand the nature of where they have bought said land, or how that land has been developed, or the social concerns in that land, etc etc.

Ill give you one somewhat related example; in the mid ninties, townhouses, condos, and cookie cutter suburban dwellings where start going up en masse in areas like Surrey, the ditch, and Poco. Now while on the surface these seemed to alleviate the housing problem for heads who are in a more comfortable financial situation, there was a huge area that was generally ignore - these being the low income residents who were currently living in the areas. So we have a situation of residents outside of these areas moving in, as to find cheaper housing, and pushing out the current residents who cant afford the housing.

What does this mean? That we as a society squabble with eachother, all the while most devolopers/private enterprises, and select members of government and about 2% of the population walk out with 100% of the profit. No new moneys is introduced into the larger working/poor class, and the desparity of quality of living between the classes is further deepended and exploited.

[mugwump]

Originally Posted by fable

I understand that, but if owning property is only accesible to a disporportionate few, or that property is developed in an area where a large section of population cannot afford it, then we get...well what we currently have. Residential housing that takes no consideration of the CURRENT living situation, and or develops housing long before the economic situation of the community catches up/ all in the name of "making land valuable"

i think where there's a market there's a way. why would developer price himself out of the market by making it too expensive for 'most' of the people? good businessmen don't think that way:):)

Originally Posted by fable

Ha! your probably closer to the truth than you think. But currently in Canada we have a situation across the nation of developers catering to a ever decreasingly economic bracket. Asides from "token" housing, which is countered with the belief that the building of "low income housing" will contribute to more "ghettos" the reality of the situation is that affordable housing, whether houses, or condos is becoming less and less a viable oppurtunity.

Like i mentioned before, i have no problem with people who work hard enough, save enough ends and buy themselves a piece of shelter, but in this process there is a growing number of people who do not understand the nature of where they have bought said land, or how that land has been developed, or the social concerns in that land, etc etc.

Ill give you one somewhat related example; in the mid ninties, townhouses, condos, and cookie cutter suburban dwellings where start going up en masse in areas like Surrey, the ditch, and Poco. Now while on the surface these seemed to alleviate the housing problem for heads who are in a more comfortable financial situation, there was a huge area that was generally ignore - these being the low income residents who were currently living in the areas. So we have a situation of residents outside of these areas moving in, as to find cheaper housing, and pushing out the current residents who cant afford the housing.

What does this mean? That we as a society squabble with eachother, all the while most devolopers/private enterprises, and select members of government and about 2% of the population walk out with 100% of the profit. No new moneys is introduced into the larger working/poor class, and the desparity of quality of living between the classes is further deepended and exploited.

I followed you somewhat until you said people were being pushed out of their homes. Do you mean they were ordered by the gov't to leave their homes or else a wrecking ball might be sent?

[thebobman]

funny thing about SFU in that building. They're still in the old Zellars. They moved some of the staff into a tiny bit of the tower, and that's it.

The problem with the set up is that it's RIGHT ON the skytrain, which means whatever gets developed there will be immidiatly beside the skytrain and won't really do much to help renew the surround area. so it'll be just like it is now, an incredibly shiney building but a block away it's still skidsville

[Leviathan]

Thats because the SFU campus hasn't completely opened yet, That won't happen till september.

Originally Posted by thebobman

funny thing about SFU in that building. They're still in the old Zellars. They moved some of the staff into a tiny bit of the tower, and that's it.

The problem with the set up is that it's RIGHT ON the skytrain, which means whatever gets developed there will be immidiatly beside the skytrain and won't really do much to help renew the surround area. so it'll be just like it is now, an incredibly shiney building but a block away it's still skidsville

[Antenna_Boy]

Originally Posted by mugwump

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vanc...8-4e98ff2eb45e

isn't Doug McCullum known for kickbacks and chit?

***DRAMA***

I personally am in favour of the route to build the 81 story building. Since the Surrey/south Surrey locations will be the new vancouver of the western end of the fraser valley, why not get it going up with a good highrise. I would personally like to see more towers than developing copious amounts of nice land to a bunch of spread-out townhomes. Plus, how about 50,000 people a year import here every year, I think it is better to build up than out.

[fable]

think where there's a market there's a way. why would developer price himself out of the market by making it too expensive for 'most' of the people? good businessmen don't think that way:):)

Most developers understand that other than those of the highest tiers of the economic scale, there is a portion of society that will indebt themselves to "own" property, as this is part of the their perception of " success or long term security " The rising numbers of homes bought within the last decade that are now subsidizing a second mortgage by renting, could be an example.

Please note that im am specifically talking about poor/working class citizens who make up the largest (and growing) segment of the population.

As for developers pricing themselves out of the market. I do belive that the number of residential areas that are sold out before the foundations are set, is more an example of lower initial investment requirements needed for mortagages these days, but which is countered by the higher interest rates and far longer mortgage terms, and additional mortgage close out fees, than people being able to actaully afford houses these days.

Canada first set out to comidify land (indegenous owned) in the 1860's and its been non stop since. The boom of house buyers is an artificial representation of the economic security of people these days in my belief, but regardless, more and more new residential housing is at the expense of the poor/oppressed peoples of the nation.

Its going to become harder and harder to buy current property (341 000 and up range - for 600 - 800 square feet) without the reality that your new residence comes at the price of someones elses chance to live in affordable housing.

I followed you somewhat until you said people were being pushed out of their homes. Do you mean they were ordered by the gov't to leave their homes or else a wrecking ball might be sent?

The term "housing" does not just include mortagaging, but renting as well. Another thing to think about is what are the chances that lower income citizens have to live in their current establishments when higher priced over hyped housing comes in, current properties are sold at a premium, and said citizens have no chance to afford the new crop of residence?

Its not about creating ghettos, or projects, its about building residence that is both affordable, and subject to same ideals of middle class (does one even exist?) communities - a la acess to law enforcement, fire departments, community food co-ops, schools, and free parks. This essentially in non existant in this day and age.

ps. whos that girl in your avatar?

[BongMan]

I suspect a lot more people can afford to live there then you think maybe they wont be able to own but to rent at the very least. Under 200 K is a steal for a brand new condo on the upper floors compared to DT, Burnaby and the such. Surrey is in for a big change in the comming years there are a few high rises in the works not to mention we are getting the provincial RCMP headquarters a couple blocks away. Personally I can't wait to see what the future holds for this city why dogg on progress just cause it isn't subsidized housing??

[fable]

Under 200 K is a steal for a brand new condo on the upper floors compared to DT, Burnaby and the such.

I cant argue with that, Whats the square footage on the place?

why dogg on progress just cause it isn't subsidized housing??

"Progress" for who? i have no problems with progress on humanistic terms, but really all were talking about here is more money to a select few, more commidification of land, and more people trying to scramble to get their piece of the pie, because deep down we all know things are going to hell. Which really i cant hate on, becuase at this point, with current low level of awareness and solidarity between the oppressed cmmunities, people are doing what they believe is fair and just. But its in the context of a system that is anything but.

I believe that YOU understand this as well, perhaps deep down, so please spare me the "why you gotta hate on progress"

Id feel safer living besides a Hells Angel Chapter House than a RCMP office. There are many good, and fair and just police officers out there, but the RCMP historically was built to carry out the systametic control of Indigenous populations first in Northern B.C and eventaully the country, and still to do this day, regardless if specific officers of specific ehtnic backgrounds made it into the uniform on their own merits, the RCMP is still as inherently racist as it was the day it was created.

[fable]

suspect a lot more people can afford to live there then you think

I suspect you have no fucking clue.

[esoter1c]

Id feel safer living besides a Hells Angel Chapter House than a RCMP office. There are many good, and fair and just police officers out there, but the RCMP historically was built to carry out the systametic control of Indigenous populations first in Northern B.C and eventaully the country, and still to do this day, regardless if specific officers of specific ehtnic backgrounds made it into the uniform on their own merits, the RCMP is still as inherently racist as it was the day it was created.

Truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue dat !

[Leviathan]

What is your definition of a poor working class citizen? People who work at McDonalds, trades people? Engineers? I know I work everyday, and I don't consider myself poor.

[Chewy]

7 fnk gib tecks!!!

[fable]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

What is your definition of a poor working class citizen? People who work at McDonalds, trades people? Engineers? I know I work everyday, and I don't consider myself poor.

working class = citizens responsible for the creation of product that is NEEDED to substain society.

poor= obtaining enough money to purchase adequate food, shelter, clothing is extremely difficult.

Im happy you dont consider yourself poor. i dont know anything about you, so i can really get in a discussion about that.

[BongMan]

I like how you basically agreed with me then said I had no fucking clue YAAA. Anyways as being in the working class I can afford a 2 bedroom condo with a roomie there I looked into when they were first announced mind you I would have little entertainment funds. I also agree I would rather have HA beside me then an RCMP officer because well the HA take care of their hood first and foremost. Although the RCMP headquarters being in Whalley will increase thier presence there greatly more beat cops, squad cars, and a new ghetto bird or 2 are in the works I do believe. This really is progress for the city of Surrey I and many others would much rather highrises and aparment buildings. I have no sympathy for a lot of the homeless out there in Surrey they are drug addicts and lazy mother fuckers. I have been in the shoes of a drug addict I almost ended up on the streets luckily I saw the light in time and changed. As for people saying I can't get a job that is bullshit I know a lot of companies that will hire transients because they get a tax credit for it. I agree there should be more affordable housing but I also think that the downtown core of Surrey needs to be built up first it is all urban sprawl houses. There is a lot of subsidized housing in Surrey if you look aroung unfortunatly not enough but then again it is very hard to get approval for it without an uproar from the community you are building by. Nobody wants that stuff by thiere house cause it brings with it problems such as drug use, crime and noise.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by fable

working class = citizens responsible for the creation of product that is NEEDED to substain society.

poor= obtaining enough money to purchase adequate food, shelter, clothing is extremely difficult.

Im happy you dont consider yourself poor. i dont know anything about you, so i can really get in a discussion about that.

awesome thats almost a purely marxist definition, one which was outdated in 1844 when it was formulated. Actually marx's definition of working class were those who used their labour power as a input of production, where as the capitalist/bourgouse were definited as the ones who owned the capital/means of production. it is clear that while this definition was outdated even in the 1844's it is increasingly more so. witness the almost universial particiaption of canadians in the capital market, even if you do not own stocks, bonds or real estate the fact of the amtter si that if you work you're employer and the government are deducting EI and pension benefits from your pay cheque. This money does not stay inert, it is managed by huge institutional money managers and finds its way back into capital markets. hell a few of the major property developers in vancouver are fully owned by union venture capital/pension funds. essentially we are all members of the capitalist class.
also you do realize that real estate developers are creating habitat which is necessary to sustain society does that not make them working class? Does this not clearly put them within the scope of your definition? Yet you hate on them simply because they took the risk and some of the profit associated with that risk.

as for the cost of housing, and your ill informed rant regarding the nature of the housing market. The previously mentioned project in surrey is the definition of affordable housing. Secondly due to the historically LOW interest rates which have been in existence since the Q2 2000 stock market bubble, more people then ever have been able to purchase homes, due to the low cost of debt. This empircial relaity is in direct opposition to your observations. The broadbased increase in house prices world wide but in particular in canada is a symptom of the increase demand in housing. a significant portion of thise demand is a result of the entrance into the market of a class of home owners who previously were unable to afford homes, but now can due to the relative affordability of mortgages.

[fable]

sean you make me sick.

Real estate developers providing "habitat" thus they are "working class!?!"

We all pay into EI and Pensions so, and because of what financial institutions do with that money, we are all capitalists!?!

Secondly due to the historically LOW interest rates which have been in existence since the Q2 2000 stock market bubble, more people then ever have been able to purchase homes, due to the low cost of debt. This empircial relaity is in direct opposition to your observations. The broadbased increase in house prices world wide but in particular in canada is a symptom of the increase demand in housing. a significant portion of thise demand is a result of the entrance into the market of a class of home owners who previously were unable to afford homes, but now can due to the relative affordability of mortgages.

Jeebus! You honestly dont think this is an artificial financial landscape we are currently living in? You think anyone outside the gated community dwellers that you surround yourself with could afford anything and everything. What stats are you reading, let me guess the economist?

You flat out supported gentrification before, so as far as im concerned you are the one with the bias, and like most "market reports" you are fake, blind and purely self serving.

The current market for housing sales does not exist seperate from other social statistics. Statistics that show a growing number of citizens are finding an ever increasingly difficult time of just surviving. The stats that surround homelessness, poverty, crime, violence, and abuses of power must be considered when you got you nose in deep into your precious market reports.

[BongMan]

you really have an odd way of looking at things with an unbiased opinion

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by fable

sean you make me sick.

Real estate developers providing "habitat" thus they are "working class!?!"

We all pay into EI and Pensions so, and because of what financial institutions do with that money, we are all capitalists!?!



Jeebus! You honestly dont think this is an artificial financial landscape we are currently living in? You think anyone outside the gated community dwellers that you surround yourself with could afford anything and everything. What stats are you reading, let me guess the economist?

You flat out supported gentrification before, so as far as im concerned you are the one with the bias, and like most "market reports" you are fake, blind and purely self serving.

The current market for housing sales does not exist seperate from other social statistics. Statistics that show a growing number of citizens are finding an ever increasingly difficult time of just surviving. The stats that surround homelessness, poverty, crime, violence, and abuses of power must be considered when you got you nose in deep into your precious market reports.

i live in maillardville in coquitlam just a few blocks away form the hells angels club house, its hardly what id call a gated community. Im not a gated community type of guy anyway so i dont see why you got that when i said east van is a shithole.

if i had access to updated STATS canada figures(id have to pay for them) i could point out to you that home ownership, income for all classes, are increasing and incidences of violent crime and homelessness are decreasing. i never said i wasnt biased where do you get your information from? perhaps you are the one who is deluded.

http://www.statcan.ca/

[fable]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

i live in maiilardville in coquitlam justa few blocks away form the hells angels club house, its hardly what id call a gated community.

you got me there man.

[BongMan]

Common you know you live in a planned community no one with a net income under 100 G's may cross the gates the sign says so.

[fable]

a recent report submitted by CCPA, Social Watch and independant economists stated:

"Poverty is rising among children and new immigrants, the middle class is finding it increasingly difficult to afford education and housing, and there are 250,000 Canadians living on the streets"

and

Federal spending stands at 11 per cent of the economy, down from 16 per cent in 1993-94 - well below historic averages. Recent increases in spending have not offset the deep cuts of the 90s.
Only 38 per cent of unemployed workers receive government benefits, down from 75 per cent in the early 90s.
More than 1.7 million households live on less than $20,000 a year, and most are precariously housed. They do not own their own homes and spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent.
Cuts to post-secondary education and deregulation of fees have doubled or tripled tuition costs.
Despite repeated promises, there is no national child care program.

and from the Centre for Policy Alternatives

September 14/05 - CNEWS

OTTAWA (CP) - Inequality and homelessness are rising in Canada despite a sustained economic boom and repeated federal promises to cut poverty, says an international study.

from an article on the "hidden homless" by Raising the roof.

80% of Canada's homeless are improperly housed or on the verge of eviction. Many are sleeping in temporary beds - with friends or relatives, in church basements, in welfare motels, in abandoned buildings and vehicles, and in other sites away from the public eye.

i can go on forever man, every major credible stats provider shows that homelessness and poverty is growing and growing, You and i can banter back and forth, so im outtie, but sooner or later the relevancy of that old tried and true cliche statement "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is increasingly becoming a reality. You only need to open your eyes.

[Billy Shears]

80% of Canada's homeless are improperly housed or on the verge of eviction.

80% of the homeless don't have proper homes... what does that even mean?

[Leviathan]

So why are these poor people poor? Why do they have such low incomes that they can't afford a place to live? Are they unskilled and uneducated? and if so, why? Its not the cost of property that is causing this.

I just don't buy into the fact that someone should be able to work at McDonalds full time and be able to afford to buy property, it breeds lazyness.