tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post7165424295196216582..comments2024-03-26T03:52:23.395-07:00Comments on Housing Analysis: BC Population Growth to Q2 2013mohicanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06094213357140749289noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-79835987997338662312013-09-29T05:38:35.970-07:002013-09-29T05:38:35.970-07:00Arnold, thanks for the comment. I'll try to qu...Arnold, thanks for the comment. I'll try to quickly(ish) summarize a thought on why population growth is cyclical.<br /><br />When population growth starts to rise it requires more dwellings and workers to build those dwellings. Dwellings are built for housing new entrants as well as the workers to build the housing. This feeds on itself on the way up.<br /><br />Once the housing is built the workers need to find other work. If no other work is available they will eventually migrate out, leaving an empty dwelling. This feeds itself on the way down.<br /><br />The cyclical nature of housing in places like BC is in large part because housing needs to be overbuilt to house the builders. Once those builders return "home" they leave empty houses. This cycle takes 10-15 years, so I argue.<br /><br />Not to say that other cycles aren't at play, but the large exodus from Ontario in the mid-1990s was in part because of their housing bust around the same time, and BC was a big recipient. Sure enough, after BC's housing market hit a soft patch in the late 1990s, population growth (especially interprovincial migration) began to ebb.jessehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02155122147972263497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31427364.post-72099193627046356682013-09-27T14:04:57.372-07:002013-09-27T14:04:57.372-07:00It is good to see the hard numbers instead of pick...It is good to see the hard numbers instead of picking up all the speculative chatter about "whether they are coming or leaving".<br /><br />What seems interesting to me was an appararent 12-14 year pattern from trough to trough which repeated itself since the '60s.<br />From the looks of it, from a purely technical viewpoint, one could opine that were history to repeat itself the "Net" number should just about be starting to increase again.<br />The question is, what has caused the cycle and whether such factor(s) are in place to see it repeat at this time.<br />I would appreciate your thoughts on this.<br />tks<br />Arnold Shuchat<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11833361544922186852noreply@blogger.com