Fluff piece? Did we read the same article? It covered at length the issue of the young couple essentially trapped in Surrey, unable to get enough space to have a child.
The author really went out of the way to emphasize the wealth of the investors, describing the buyer wanting a nonexistent car. The only remotely fluffy portion was describing the ecosystem of luxury services associated with the lavish spending. I think the article did a good job of conveying the huge negative effect to the Vancouver economy and way of life.
The requirements this young couple have is mind boggling. The have 111 sq meters and think they cannot have a kid in this space? A lot of my friends live in ~40 sq meters and are happy to have their own place at all. With a kid, even two. Surely they would like to move to a bigger places, but this isn't a showstopper. They would love to have 111 sq meters place.
Rising prices of properties is a real issue, but this particular couple is way above the standards I am used to.
What is the socially accepted minimal living standard for a couple with kids in the US / Canada?
> What is the socially accepted minimal living standard for a couple with kids in the US / Canada?
A lot of this comes from the expectation of what you had growing up versus what is available in your current situation, and how much you actually want kids. Do you want to bring up kids from 0 to 18+ in that same 111 sq meter space? The answer can be no for a few people, and people aren't seeing that they can move to something bigger even if it becomes necessary.
It's also not a good idea to compare floor space 1:1 across regions, floor layouts and building structure can have big impacts. 40 sq m used well can have the same level of comfort as 111 sq m used poorly, but because of various property restrictions (since it's not detached) they might not be able to modify the 111 sq m space in a meaningful way.
The main thing here in this case is that the couple represented have the choice of whether or not to have kids and they see the environment as not good for it. This is the sort of thing that happens when educated people sit down and consider whether or not having kids is the right plan for the moment.
Fair enough, it's more space than I have for two children. It's a bad example that trivializes the actual extreme difficulty Vancouver families face getting affordable housing.
The author really went out of the way to emphasize the wealth of the investors, describing the buyer wanting a nonexistent car. The only remotely fluffy portion was describing the ecosystem of luxury services associated with the lavish spending. I think the article did a good job of conveying the huge negative effect to the Vancouver economy and way of life.