Thanks to ‘Durr’ at VREAA 30 July 2011 for alerting us to a report, prepared for UBC Campus Planning, by McClanaghan & Associates, and dated more than one year ago, July 2010. pdf here.
The commissioned study was aimed at assessing “housing choices and housing pressures for staff and faculty members” in order “to provide important research and data for UBC to understand the potential implications that the cost of housing can have on their recruitment and retention of staff and faculty members”. The study used census data, MLS data, CMHC data, a web-based survey, UBC income data, & UBC focus group sessions held in April 2010.
The entire report is of interest and worth the read. We will relay a handful of the reported statistics, and then, given the major focus of VREAA, record many of the personal anecdotes ‘snippets’ that the survey gleaned.
UBC employs 12,700 staff and faculty members (1% of Metro Vancouver workforce)
36% faculty, 64% staff
34% originate from outside Metro Vancouver
41% want to live closer to campus
31% take transit to work (69% drive)
Average annual faculty income: $93,524
Average staff income: $51,754
[For comparison, City of Vancouver incomes -
homeowner households: $66,087
renter households: $34,872]
Given lender guidelines, income thresholds required to purchase -
a 2BR condo or Townhouse ($611K price): $138K p.a.
a Single detached house ($1M price): $195K p.a.
Only 29% of staff or faculty members live in a detached SFH.
24% of those have a secondary suite in their home that they are currently renting out.
Renting or owning:
39% own
45% rent
(16% no response)
Average rent: $1,229
Average mortgage cost: $1,901
Average monthly condo fee (46% of owners): $260
Satisfaction with current housing situation:
Satisfied 60.2%; Dissatisfied 20.9%
When surveyed on what is important to them about housing, the UBC respondents indicated as follows (selection):
Affordability 90%
Close to employment 83%
Close to social opportunities 64%
Close to friends and family 62%
Close to schools 34%
FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES (excerpts from various question categories):
How long have you lived in the Metro Vancouver region?/Are you a recent arrival to the Vancouver housing market and how does this affect your housing choices/arrangements?
• Recent arrival from US (last fall). Recognize that this is a very expensive and difficult to read market and will not consider buying for at least 2 years until they can comprehend the local circumstances and context.
• Shortly returning to UBC after a sabbatical but the return will be ‘very tough’ due to housing market conditions.
• Recent arrival from US. Coquitlam resident, renter. Unable to afford any housing closer to UBC. This move have made it challenging to find housing that is adequate and affordable.
• Has moved to Vancouver in recent years. Busy establishing career. Has one child with second on the way. Likes access to UBC and rents a house in close proximity. But is unable to purchase a home.
• Long time Vancouver resident with large family. Previously lived at UBC but unable to find suitable housing arrangements at UBC. Proposed co-housing option but UBC expressed no interest.
• Arrived in Metro Vancouver in 2001, but never got a chance to enter the real estate market, as budget was taken up by childcare expenses for young children.
• Housing has been a big disappointment with UBC & Vancouver and a perpetual source of struggle.
Describe your experience in looking for housing in the Vancouver market. (Difficulty, vacancy rates, market conditions, narrow range or choices, type of neighbourhoods, trade off with commute time to work, etc.) What challenges, trade-offs did you have to make?
• Luckily, were able to land one of the few rental options with not too great an effort. Anticipates market will go down as in US and thinks that may be a good time to buy. But is generally leery of buying if market remains high.
• Challenging. Bought 5 years ago and even then, had to share a mortgage for a single family home with another family/household. This was not preferred option even though it has worked out well. Wife is so frustrated with local housing market and lack of opportunities that she would happily accept offer of employment from a university in another city.
• Difficult. Live on campus at Acadia Park and am entertaining the UBC housing offer. Realize that there are few strong opportunities in local housing marketplace and thinks that UBC may be best opportunity. But it, too, is a challenge.
• Sticker shock. Housing is very expensive and rental market is narrow. Came from US and had to move to Burnaby Coquitlam boundary to find suitable rental housing. This involves a long public transit commute. Would give up UBC employment if better situation could be found.
• Very difficult for young couple still paying off student loans. Forced to live with in-laws in east Vancouver basement suite to attempt to save money for down payment (get a rent break). Would like a family but the housing situation is putting planning on hold. Car pools to UBC.
• Complete unaffordability of 4BR option for a 2 child family as a long-term option ($3,000+ to rent; $6,000+ to buy).
• UBC should be a leader, as proposed by our president, on reducing the environmental
footprint and addressing climate change. Yet faculty are pushed far off campus & into private vehicles.
• There is no solution to housing problem off campus with $1,000,000 homes not accessible to UBC faculty income.
• Could afford $750K-$800K for type of housing household requires, but nothing is available.
• Very tight market, very few options, short-term leases. Very hard to settle down in durable way.
• Willingness to stay at UBC over time is eroded.
Metro Vancouver is recognized as a high cost housing market – what implications does this challenge have for you/your household in terms of the choices that are/were available?
• Generally speaking, this has severely constrained options.
• Buying and settling down is “beyond hope” for young tenured professor with family
• Unable to buy, Forced to rent, Forced to live in a basement suite
• Forced to live with in-laws
• Forced to share mortgage with another family.
• Unable to move up in housing market as they could do in most housing markets.
• Forced to wait to see where the local housing market goes (delaying decision).
• Forced to put off having a family.
• May have to limit the size of planned family.
• Forced to consider options that are long distance from employment.
• Also has implications for UBC with faculty who would spend less time on campus or with students due to imposition of a long commute.
• Off-campus market is “very very tight” with very few rental options available
• The few suitable rental options are “around $3000 to $3500 per month”
• Family would consider offers from elsewhere (other universities) as a function of the local housing market.
• Inability to settle in Vancouver or at UBC may lead me to leave UBC (despite being ranked as top faculty both in terms of teaching and research)
If you were advising a potential new recruit to UBC, what type of housing advice would you provide?
• Rent and observe the market for some time.
• Plan your family size carefully as larger families are particularly challenged in this market.
• Be prepared to make extensive trade-offs (location, amenities, affordability, commute time, size and age of housing, rental vs. ownership).
• Be realistic about lack of housing for families, as it can make life quite tough. Vancouver and UBC are not attractive anymore, due to the inability to settle down in a durable way.
Renting seems to be a big problem for some, showing the desire to get into a certain quality dwelling close to campus, citing $3k pm.
Look at the pay scale though. This is a case of increasing salaries with age, and we can expect most who are of older cohort to be “satisfied” with their housing. Any look at prices 10 years ago and the salary “track” should put a large cohort into some rather nice accommodations by today’s standard.
IMO they did the survey wrong, concentrating on all staff/faculty when it’s new recruits that are the concern, but interesting data nonetheless.
I suspect that the idea was to look across the board. Since the faculty at UBC are likely generally later in their career than at newer universities (e.g. UBC-O or UNBC), the administration is going to be concerned with all levels along the spectrum.
In addition, UBC tends to have more money and can hire big research guns, compared to even SFU and U Vic. But all the money in the world can’t attract mid- to late-career rocket scientists if there’s no way that that person could maintain the same standard of living.
Speaking as an academic (not a rocket scientist, however… not even a lowly brain surgeon), unless things change in the real estate market in the GVRD – no matter how good the offer that I might receive from UBC (or SFU) would be in terms of salary, lab space, and start up fund – I can’t imagine moving from my current position to the Lower Mainland. I would have to give up way too much in terms of family life, commute time, and lifestyle in general.
That said, times are tough for everyone. Including academics. There are a lot of young academics out there who have not landed a permanent position. If UBC comes knocking, they’ll take the job and ask questions about where they’re going to live later. So there’s always going to be a hiring pool for big-time universities, no matter the market.
The trick for the university in that situation, however, is to keep their new hires on for the long term. As in any industry, too much turnover is not a good thing. And more so in academia where stability and quality long-term teaching and research programs are highly valued.
The younger faculty who get caught in Vancouver’s crazy RE market are likely to be mobile enough to get out of Dodge when the opportunity arises. Ditto for the older faculty who are hot commodities in terms of their skills and could go on a moment’s notice if another decent school came knocking.
So I’d think that retention issues across the demographic range are a huge deal for the likes of UBC right now.
“UBC tends to have more money and can hire big research guns”
“Big guns” are still new recruits. Still we shouldn’t feel too bad here. Lots of universities are in locations far more expensive than Vancouver. Perhaps we can take solace that academics of all tiers work for a greater good. I hope that’s not the report’s conclusion — probably wouldn’t go over too well — but it’s not like most people teaching at UBC are doing it for the money. (Or are they?) To wit maybe we can compare the plights of UBC people to those in, I don’t know, Cornell.
It depends on how “big” the research guns.
UBC can attract young “up and comers” but the really big guns — the type that U of T or Yale or Princeton can lure in, are going to be much less likely to relocate because of the housing situation. Columbia deals with a similar situation, which is why they have a program for faculty housing. (And I think kids of faculty get some sort of private education deal.)
“In addition, UBC tends to have more money and can hire big research guns, compared to even SFU and U Vic. But all the money in the world can’t attract mid- to late-career rocket scientists if there’s no way that that person could maintain the same standard of living.”
Almost all faculty hires are new assistant professors. At the UBC faculty orientation this year there were about 30 new professors and only 1 was hired at the associate professor level (with tenure).
The reason is that assistant professors tend to be the most active in research. At associate and beyond, professors tend to get more involved in administration, and delegate more of the research work to their students and assistants.
The main exceptions are hiring a new department chair, which commonly come from outside the university, and special situations that allow hiring extremely famous people, like Carl Wiemann coming to UBC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wieman
“The reason is that assistant professors tend to be the most active in research. At associate and beyond,”
This is not true for the “top talent” that a Tier 1 research university hopes to attract. The housing situation in Vancouver is going to hurt the ability of UBC to poach mid-career top talent.
If UBC isn’t trying to move up in the rankings, then attracting that talent is not so important. The market is bad in the US, and UBC can attract ambitious asst. profs without children pretty easily. However, if those single profs can’t settle down, they will be looking to leave after marriage and children if the academic market perks up.
“This is not true for the “top talent” that a Tier 1 research university hopes to attract. The housing situation in Vancouver is going to hurt the ability of UBC to poach mid-career top talent.”
OK, let me revise my claim slightly. Associate and Full profs at UBC are usually still very active in research. But Assistants tend to be even more active in research because they have fewer responsibilities (e.g. administrative, possibly fewer family responsibilities) and they are working extra hard to get tenure.
But I maintain my claim that “poaching mid-career talent” is much rarer than hiring new assistant professors. I would claim that at least 90% of faculty hires are assistant profs.
“The market is bad in the US”
Not in my experience. In my field, the number of hires into tenure-track professor positions are as follows:
US: 18
Canada: 3
Europe: 4
Asia: 1
In the US, there were hires at Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, UIUC, etc. Note that UCLA, Rutgers and UIUC are public.
“UBC can attract ambitious asst. profs without children pretty easily. However, if those single profs can’t settle down, they will be looking to leave after marriage and children.”
I think you are right about this. With a UBC salary, asst profs without kids can have a great life in Vancouver, either renting or buying a small condo quite easily. Its once kids come along that life becomes much more expensive: childcare expense, larger accommodations, seeking good school districts, etc.
“But I maintain my claim that “poaching mid-career talent” is much rarer than hiring new assistant professors. I would claim that at least 90% of faculty hires are assistant profs.”
I agree — most everywhere this is constant. Asst. profs. are, of course, much cheaper to hire and poaching situations are much more rare. Universities poach when trying to draw established talent.
“The market is bad in the US”
The hiring situation in the U.S. since ’08-’09 has been much more difficult then in the decade prior. Perhaps your field has come back. I am not in the field of English Lit, but that discipline is a good example. The MLA did a study on this: jobs down 40% between ’08-09 and ’09-’10.
jesse: “Perhaps we can take solace that academics of all tiers work for a greater good.”
Well, sure. So do doctors. So do a lot of people. But people still need money to survive. And they still value family life and other aspects of a reasonable lifestyle.
Cornell. Davis (although that’s getting better with the collapse of the nearby Sacramento RE market). Berkeley. UCSF. Stanford. Perhaps various Toronto schools? All those might be decent comparisons.
I’d be interested to know what schools like that do to help incoming profs with real estate/housing issues, and how those strategies compare with UBC (and SFU and U Vic.).
(Fact of the matter is that there are a ton of good universities in North America that are situated within normal or near-normal real estate markets and where you get paid on basically the same pay scale as UBC/SFU/UVic.)
Those relocated to Cornell (Ithaca – Finger Lake region) are going to have a pretty easy time purchasing a house. The biggest problem would be slipping and falling on the ice walking downhill in winter.
Berkeley would be a mess, but with the current cuts I doubt they have much ability to help. Sacramento is easy and cheap to buy right in right now.
Cornell… depends what campus.
E.G., thanks too for all your good replies here.
Stanford has housing on campus that is reserved for faculty. They have a formula which determines its “price”. Roughly speaking, this formula is 50% of the price it would fetch off-campus, and price increases are limited to 3% per year. When you move out of the house, you must sell it back to the university at the current “price”. There is a waiting list to get into these houses.
The long and the short of it is that one can buy a 2000sqft house on a perfectly safe, gorgeous campus for about $700k.
I heard this information first-hand from a tenured Stanford faculty member.
My other information is about UCLA. I know this first-hand from someone who was recently offered a assistant professor position there.
Basically they will give you a small lump-sum downpayment, and a $1m loan at very low interest rates (2%? 3%).
Since UCLA is public, their salaries are publicly available:
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
I know someone who is currently applying for a faculty job, asst. prof. level at UBC.
I flat out asked if it was a good idea because of the housing prices, but the candidate is ok with renting if an offer does come through. In contrast, I won’t consider jobs in Vancouver because I don’t want to have to deal with the housing market. (And after reading this blog, I’m a little put off by the idea of living amongst too many people who like to show off the Beemers they bought with HELOCs.)
jesse -> Good point regarding how the survey looks at all staff/faculty rather than new recruits.
There is a relatively high ‘satisfaction’ rating 60% (vs 20% dissatisfied) from the overall group.
The comments reflect some pretty extreme dissatisfaction, most likely (in some cases explicitly stated) from relatively new recruits.
A separate look at new recruits (and perhaps most important, prospective recruits) would have been fascinating.
The roughly $50K housing allowance would be reasonable in most cities; here it’s a rounding error.
jesse -> “it’s not like most people teaching at UBC are doing it for the money.”.
E.G. -> “all the money in the world can’t attract mid- to late-career rocket scientists if there’s no way that that person could maintain the same standard of living.”
—
Money does influence behaviour, and almost all will choose a place with better housing options, when other things are pretty much equal.
Again, this whole UBC scenario appears to be another example of saying “You have to make sacrifices to live in Vancouver”; “Look, yes, you’ll make less, you’ll have far less disposable income, you’ll have to make x, y, z compromises. But remember, you’ll be living in a place with [insert Vancouver attraction here, customized to candidate].”
Why would they? If you find a plum post at a good institution with decent funding housing should be no consideration, at least for the dyed-in-the-wool academics that is. Heck some even relocate to horrid locations (with cheap housing, but there’s a reason…) full of black flies, tornadoes, hurricanes, and blisteringly cold winters, all for the Greater Good. You don’t choose academia, academia chooses you.
UBC, at one time when the economy was stronger, was advocating for pay rises because of competition from the private sector. IIRC said raise was given. Now one can argue that pay rises are required because not only does UBC need to attract top talent and pay them accordingly, but also the top talent needs a little extra something for affording a decent lifestyle. So here we go, and frankly if/when prices come down I’m sceptical any of those extra monies will be refunded. Last I looked, as mentioned above, it was rather competitive to get tenured positions at good institutions.
The big issue is, like everyone else, new entrants to UBC are woefully disadvantaged vis-a-vis their seniors when it comes to accommodations. That’s adding to stratification in an established institution where one hopes to afford the same lot as one’s forefathers. Now it looks like that’s a pipe dream and the last thing a newly-tenured professor needs is hosting dinner parties in a 500sqft condo. Talk about embarrassing!
So yeah UBC has a problem but it’s not necessarily a permanent situation like Columbia or Stanford, and the delta, as well as the stickiness of the academic world, matters.
jesse -> “it’s not necessarily a permanent situation”
—
Agreed. It’s one of the things a 50% price haircut will partially ‘solve’.
The point I think we’d all agree on is that, even though many (most?) academics have chosen to pursue intellectual pursuits and non-purely-monetary ‘strokes’, their behaviour is still shaped by income/disposable income/housing quality.
jesse -> “housing should be no consideration”
—
This is a central point.
In a typical situation (the kind of thing that we’d see as healthy for a community/society), individuals should have access to comfortable housing, pretty much commensurate with their income, compared to other similar cities. “Housing should be no consideration” when it comes to choosing a job or a place to live (it should be relatively easily attainable; shouldn’t be a crucial factor in deciding on a city.)
When it comes to Vancouver, where ownership (important for many) now costs two or three times what it does in comparable cities, housing has suddenly become a major consideration in determining whether Vancouver is an attractive place in which to live and work.
Even if this effect is only felt at the margins (the new-comers, for instance), it is of vital importance. It will shape the way the city develops (or withers). Currently, the effect is detrimental.
“If you find a plum post at a good institution with decent funding housing should be no consideration, at least for the dyed-in-the-wool academics that is.”
At some point it’s not worth it if the cost is too high or the annoyance is too great. Scholars aren’t masochistic and UBC is not the only research university in North America.
Besides, good researchers are much more likely to get better jobs elsewhere. I recall a specific article in which administrators from University of Washington boasting about the “Mt. Rainier” draw in reference to a scholar who had won a McArthur genius grant. Although the school could not offer better salaries, they thought the draw of living in Seattle where “everyone” wanted to live, would retain their scholars. Within three years he had accepted a position at Stanford.
I think it would be easier to find housing in Palo Alto & the surrounding areas (Stanford) then in Vancouver.
“At some point it’s not worth it if the cost is too high or the annoyance is too great.”
Ah so we should have a discussion about free market housing and how that relates to what one thinks they deserve from an institution. What I would call out here is that you can’t have it both ways and UBC is not unique in Vancouver in this respect. A real possibility from this survey is that UBC steps up its efforts to subsidize housing for (some of) its workers, and that means… students can follow this through just fine.
@vreaa there are two issues, one is that housing is unaffordable for professors and others alike — this report included both academics and support staff; second is that potential solutions offered — say, increasing stipends for certain people — will be the wrong ones.
I certainly don’t see UBC publicly lobbying the government to quench the housing bubble and why are UBC employees lobbying UBC itself and not the various levels of government?
“Ah so we should have a discussion about free market housing and how that relates to what one thinks they deserve from an institution. What I would call out here is that you can’t have it both ways”
Neither can UBC, which will be positioned at a relative disadvantage compared to other research universities looking to move up in the rankings.
It’s a fine situation, and fairly stable, but UBC should expect that other institutions will try to poach, and the housing situation puts UBC in a disadvantaged position. One lucky thing going for UBC is the housing bubble in Toronto.
VREAA host, you say it all. Thanks — I may forward this discussion to many including at UBC.
Don’t forget that the 60% “Satisfied” may include many faculty who arrived here long ago and got a bungalow in Point Grey when they were still affordable.
Yank and Jesse, thanks also for these very astute comments.
Jesse, just one argument to make — you said at one point “Lots of universities are in locations far more expensive than Vancouver.” This is actually no longer true. New York City, Palo Alto (where Stanford is), and parts of San Francisco are extremely expensive. But professors in New York can find places in some of the outer boroughs or New Jersey to live and the public transit is pretty good. Stanford and Berkeley pay very well. Other than those places, there’s actually not a single city I can think of in North America where housing costs are like Vancouver’s. The fact that faculty and staff can’t find housing here *when so many properties are owned by non-residents or even left vacant* is obscene — that’s not the case in any of the other cities I’ve mentioned here, as far as I know, and if BC had safeguards about ownership like Sydney and other cities around the world do, it need never have happened. Again we return to my position that something might have been done and it hasn’t, and unless UBC cuts down a whole lot more trees in Pacific Spirit Park and builds a whole lot more housing – including something other than $700,000 shoeboxes — the province’s flagship institution, recently rated as high as #34 in the world, is going to struggle to attract and retain faculty. It’s a terrible shame.
“Stanford and Berkeley pay very well”
Do Stanford and Berkeley pay well solely to attract the “best and the brightest”, or does it also have something to do with the costs of living? I’d argue it’s more the latter, and educated professionals in the BA — many of them I’m sure benefactors of these institutions — are paid well too. Another strike against UBC I surmise.
I agree unaffordable housing and land hoarding is a problem; I am very concerned the solution UBC will adopt will be increasing salaries instead of heavily lobbying the government to understand the root of the problem and fix the issues. I don’t like seeing students pay for the behaviour of speculators.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Sydney (or Melbourne) but owning property isn’t exactly cheap there either. Its collegiate campuses are perhaps more accessible than UBC’s, so perhaps the acute situation on the west side of Vancouver and its sole proximal location to the campus is a situation rather unique to, and unfortunate for, UBC.
“Do Stanford and Berkeley pay well solely to attract the “best and the brightest”, or does it also have something to do with the costs of living?”
Stanford pays to attract the best and the brightest. Berkeley used to but is in a situation due to the economic downturn.
But cost of living is a lot cheaper in the U.S. In addition, Canadian research universities pay significantly better then US research Universities. (Due to the faculty unions/ associations) I would be shocked if Berkeley paid better then UBC, especially considering the situation of the University of California system and the cuts, which have been obscene in this year and the past few years.
Due to the Canadian random mark up in prices (30% higher price mark up on food/ clothing/ books/ manilla folders (?!?) — faculty need about 30% more income to break even in Canada. Not surprisingly, faculty in Canada are paid about 30% then faculty at a similar rank in the U.S.
oops – should read Canadian profs are paid 30% more then those in the U.S.
“Not surprisingly, faculty in Canada are paid about 30% than faculty at a similar rank in the U.S.”
In my experience, UofT salaries are about 15% higher than UBC, and UBC salaries are about 15% higher than McGill. US salaries also vary a lot from place to place, e.g., UCLA looks to be quite a bit higher than UCSD. I would say that, on the whole, US starting salaries are comparable to UofT starting salaries. Some schools, like UCLA and UC Berkeley, have much larger salaries for full profs. E.g., at UCLA and Berkeley you will see full profs earning $250-$350k, but in Canada nobody earns that much.
You can peruse salaries yourself here:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/public-sector-salaries/advanced.html
http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/
‘”Stanford pays to attract the best and the brightest. Berkeley used to but is in a situation due to the economic downturn.”
This is consistent with my experience. In my field was a recent high-level defection from Berkeley (which is public) to Stanford (which is private). The word on the street is that his salary was doubled. Also, Stanford has made several strong hires in the past few years, whereas Berkeley has hired nobody.
But, reputations tend to be pretty sticky. Once Berkeley has money again, they will still be able to hire the absolute best. Even if it takes 10 years, their reputation will barely be tarnished.
“Canadian profs are paid 30% more then those in the U.S.”
Depending on the discipline, some profs in Stanford are heavily into corporate-sponsored research so hey why not pay them big $. UBC is trending towards this, too, though IBM isn’t so much into ancient Chinese pot making techniques or understanding the late-life works of Chaucer.
Still I have to be honest here. No sad violin is playing in my head. Note how the discussion is focused almost entirely on professorships and other academic positions, never mind the survey includes all UBC employees, but I guess they can always find jobs the other side of the park so whateverz.
“at UCLA and Berkeley you will see full profs earning $250-$350k, but in Canada nobody earns that much.”
You are more likely to see this type of money for major talent who has been poached. It is very rare. Of course, mid-career top talent is much more likely to be in places like Berkeley and Columbia. Poaching seems to happen more in the U.S. then in Canada.
To give an example of the salary difference I have seen: In my fair Canadian city the Profs at the associate level are paid about 35% more then one example I know of at John Hopkins in a specific social sciences discipline. I also know of an Asst. Prof. at University of Wisconsin being offered 15K less then an Asst. Prof at a Canadian University in the same field, similar level of experience, similar training.
“Note how the discussion is focused almost entirely on professorships and other academic positions, never mind the survey includes all UBC employees, but I guess they can always find jobs the other side of the park so whateverz.”
obviously the housing bubble is a big pain in the neck for everyone, and I would expect that UBC may loose administrators and other employees.
Yank, you should also be aware that academic salary figures you hear in the US are often “9 month salaries” whereas in Canada they are always “12 month salaries”. The difference is that, in the US, the university often only pays you for 9 months (Sept-May) and for the summer months you have to pay yourself from your research grant. In Canada, I’m not aware of this ever happening. So you need to be sure that you’re comparing apples to apples.
A friend recently got hired at Rutgers. His 9-month salary is 15% lower than my 12-month salary at UBC, but his 12-month salary is 15% higher than mine.
“Note how the discussion is focused almost entirely on professorships and other academic positions, never mind the survey includes all UBC employees, but I guess they can always find jobs the other side of the park so whateverz.”
One would like to think that Vancouver’s economy depends a lot on the skills of university graduates: entrepreneurs, geologists, tech workers, doctors, lawyers, etc. For example, if D-Wave (a spinoff of UBC physics) turned into the world’s biggest quantum computing company, that could be huge for the local economy. I would imagine that the quality of professors strongly impacts the skills of the graduates, and therefore the local economy. The staff are of course important, but they have less of a direct impact on the students.
But, realistically, the local economy is all realtors and yoga pants, isn’t it?
“So you need to be sure that you’re comparing apples to apples.”
The two examples were a straight comparison. But I do appreciate your point. Something else to consider – salaries are stagnating in the states.
ALERT: LECTURE ON VANCOUVER HOUSING AND POTENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT SFU THIS WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
Loved the recent forum sparked by the VREAA host’s question “If you were housing czar….” I wanted to alert VREAA readers to a lecture this Wednesday night, Sept. 21, at 7 p.m., a the Djavad Mowafaghian Cinema, Room 2300, at SFU Woodward’s 149 West Hastings Street, Vancouver (enter through Cordova Street courtyard). The lecture is free. Unfortunately , pre-registration was suggested with an RSVP date of September 16, but why not see if it’s still possible to go if you’re interested? The lecture is by architect and housing expert Dr. Avi Friedman, who founded the Affordable Homes Program at McGill where he teaches. He will discuss “what’s making housing unaffordable in Metro Vancouver — as well as the direct and indirect contributions that affordable housing makes to communities. He will describe potential housing straegies, including examples of local and international projects, that offer innovative affordable housing solutions for this region.”
Yank -> “good researchers are much more likely to get better jobs elsewhere”
Vesta -> “the province’s flagship institution, recently rated as high as #34 in the world, is going to struggle to attract and retain faculty.”
–
Question:
“Is the cost of housing in Vancouver having a detrimental effect on the quality of research and teaching at institutions like UBC?”
“Is the cost of housing in Vancouver having a detrimental effect on the quality of research and teaching at institutions like UBC?”
With regards to classroom teaching, I would say the answer is no. The reason is that the quality of teaching is primarily determined by factors such as (a) class sizes, (b) number of lecturers (whose primary focus is teaching) vs number of profs (whose primary focus is research), (c) the extent to which you can convince professors to care about teaching (which is not their primary goal). These factors are largely unrelated to the ability of UBC to hire and retain top-tier professors.
With regards to research, I think it depends how long the bubble persists. The bubble has only been really bad for, say, the past 5 years. In my department, the rate of hiring is less than 1 per year. So there are fewer than 5 people whose decision to come to UBC was made during the extreme years of the bubble. (And the US was also in a bubble for 2 of those years.)
I think the effect will be more in attrition. The hires in the past 10 years who have young kids will realize that, by moving, their careers will stay largely the same but their family can have a much better life. I’m starting to see this happen. I’ll provide evidence in the future.
But, as I said above, reputations are sticky. UBC is a tier-1 research university in Canada. Even if the bubble lasts for another 5 years and no assistant professors are hired for 5 years, that would not hugely impact the reputation of UBC. But it would be a setback for their aspirations to climb the rankings.
Good perspective.
I thought rent was cheap here…so what’s the problem?
Out with the disgruntled in with the enthusiastic. Aren’t we better off under this scenario?
Too true! Why sweat things like ability or talent? Forget figuring out how to attract the best – focus on recruiting/retaining the rest! (Those who’ll buy real estate at any price make great math and econ profs especially.) And who worries about retaining people who’ve built up local collaborations or the cost of recruitment? Let me echo Rusty… er Rollie: out with the disgruntled, in with the gruntled!
[grun·tle (grntl). tr.v. grun·tled, grun·tling, grun·tles. To subsume any personal or professional goals in order to acquire deed to any Lower Mainland real estate.]
[hahaha; lol -ed.]
Rollie/Rusty/etc./etc. ->
Like most Canadian Firefighters, a large percentage of prospective UBC faculty/staff value ownership over renting; thus the price of property does make Vancouver a lot, lot less attractive than other similar institutions in other cities.
You seem blissfully blase about the detrimental effect of high RE prices on our city.
We know you are lulled by the apparent immediate benefits of the increase in market price of your own property, but remember that occurs within context. There are pressures on Vancouver to increasingly become a cardboard cut-out of a productive city; a vacuous tourist town.
Straw man troll, one can only conclude.
jesse -> “I certainly don’t see UBC publicly lobbying the government to quench the housing bubble…”
—
UBC has been co-opted wholesale into the speculative RE mania.
The university has become a property developer, and the massive profits from land development have overwhelmed any voices of sensible long-term planning.
There is NOT ONE public academic voice in Vancouver pointing out that there is a massive speculative bubble in this town. In fact, UBC’s Sauder School Of Business has spokesmen routinely reassuring the citizenry that there is no bubble (repeat, NO bubble).
Academics are supposed to question the status quo; to critically examine consensus viewpoints. Isn’t it absolutely bizarre, given the way that housing manias have played out in just about EVERY other market around the globe, that NOT ONE voice from UBC has even asked the question, or issued warning?
I think Dr. Somerville’s position is a bit more nuanced than this. IIRC the fellow does not own in Vancouver and has stated that parts of Vancouver (guess where) are sharply priced. That said, if Bob Shiller was an adjunct professor at UBC, he’d have some rather bearish opinions on the matter of Vancouver housing costs unheard of in the local media.
Yeah, agreed (regarding Shiller).
You’d expect at least a few clear dissenting voices. But then, many in position to voice those opinions own their homes, and sometimes also have ‘investment’ RE, so, strong personal incentive to keep mum.
I believe he does own in Vancouver (in the Douglas Park area). In any event, developers co-opted him completely long ago.
What vreaa said. UBC isn’t building housing for students or faculty housing.
They are building to sell off condos! Co-opted indeed.
This will not end well.
“There is NOT ONE public academic voice in Vancouver pointing out that there is a massive speculative bubble in this town. In fact, UBC’s Sauder School Of Business has spokesmen routinely reassuring the citizenry that there is no bubble (repeat, NO bubble).”
Older faculty are beneficiaries of the bubble. Younger faculty members do not have media representatives in their Rolodex.
Besides, there are probably very few faculty members whose expertise relates to asset bubbles. Most profs have extremely specialized knowledge — maybe I can tell you everything you need to know about photosynthesis, but nothing about finance.
Anyone heard of professor David Ley? He is Research Chair of Geography at UBC:
http://www.geog.ubc.ca/~dley/homepage.html
He has written a book-length study of wealthy migrants to Canada from East Asia called “Millionaire migrants”.
In this video he talks a bit about housing in Vancouver and the fact that prices are unsustainable for the local population:
doubledown -> Many thanks for posting this, hadn’t seen it.
Good video (if one can ignore the atrocious soundtrack).
Note that there is a bit of a semantic problem here: When Ley (and you) say “prices are unsustainable for the local population”, what does that mean? It appears to refer to the fact that ownership is increasingly out of reach for the local population/those dependent on local incomes. Correct?
But note that Ley doesn’t say that PRICES themselves are unsustainable.. he actually lists reasons that he sees for prices being (sustainably?) high: foreign money, ‘global’ market, limited land, close to US border, etc.
Yank: “Scholars aren’t masochistic and UBC is not the only research university in North America.”
Exactly. I don’t know of any truly masochistic profession. As an academic, I can tell you that “altruism” only goes so far, particularly when it begins to affect our families.
““altruism” only goes so far”
And nobody would expect academics to be free from want, we reserve those traits for the priory.
But seriously, I think the discussion here is not unique to academia and the solutions — ex altering Vancouver’s and Canada’s housing policy — will have to come out of someone’s pockets. I hope people understand this.
I’m sure they will understand it… just so long as it isn’t THEIR pocket.
“Exactly. I don’t know of any truly masochistic profession. As an academic, I can tell you that “altruism” only goes so far, particularly when it begins to affect our families.”
Yes, I agree. In my field, one can earn significantly more money (say, double), by working in the private sector rather than academia. So staying in academia is partially an act of altruism (of course, there are perks as well). But, as E.G. said, the altruism goes only so far. I didn’t spend 10 years in post-secondary education in order to commute 2 hours a day, or to send my kids to a crappy east van school with gangs and drug dealers. If those are the only options, then I would happily move elsewhere or kiss academia goodbye.
“But, as E.G. said, the altruism goes only so far. I didn’t spend 10 years in post-secondary education in order to commute 2 hours a day, or to send my kids to a crappy east van school with gangs and drug dealers. If those are the only options, then I would happily move elsewhere”…
This is precisely the issue that my wife and I (both tenured profs at UBC are dealing with), and why we have decided to actively apply to other institutions this fall…. with a firm idea of leaving Vancouver….
However, it is really important to emphasize that:
1. it is not only new recruits to UBC with families that bear the brunt
of the bubble…. essentially anyone in this city with a family who needs to work downtown or on the westside and who have been trying to enter the housing market (without an inheritance etc..) over the past 5 years has been under stress with balancing the issue of affordability, enough
living space, neighborhood for schools, long commute time…..
2. We do not believe in elitism…. there is NO REASON why UBC should pay profs some premium on account of the bubble…. what about the regular staff members?… what about other employee groups in this city?… We cannot forget that we are on the public purse…
This being said, it is very frustrating that
1. There is NO REAL SCHOLARSHIP that I can see from the key
people in the Sauder Business school investigating the cause of the
bubble or to lobby government. It is a sad state of affairs that faculty
who could make some impact and who have a public voice choose instead to parrot comments of the real estate board…..
2. that the UBC document is flawed by not separating the issues of recent recruits from older established pre-bubble faculty (who I am sure
are thrilled with the situation)…. In this way the document will have
very little if any impact on anything…. and they can simply tick the box that a study has been done….
In any event, everyone makes their own choices and has limits on what they are willing to take. As mid-career academics who have each won several major prizes our viewpoint is that the prestige factor of the university is ultimately completely secondary to securing a good quality of our family. There are many other very good universities in Canada that will offer an overall better quality of life….
Higher Ed is having a bubble very much like RE in Vancouver.
Universities in the US are starting to cut-back and there will be a ripple effect here in Canada.
Do not worry about lack of molly-coddling UBC faculty – there aren’t many viable options for them elsewhere.
I come from Germany where Professors or Universities may not be internationally known – and despite this, our country has very innovation companies and services.
Ironically. talking about academics, I made a spelling error, the sentence ‘Do not worry about last of molly-coddling UBC faculty – there aren’t many viable options for them elsewhere’ SHOULD READ as ‘Do not worry about lack of molly-coddling UBC faculty – there aren’t many viable options for them elsewhere..’
[corrected. And this post left up to record your admirable capacity for self-criticism. -ed.]
VREAA host and others, how good to hear you telling it like it is!
Yesterday in the NYTimes online there was an article about a protest on Wall Street. Where can we all meet up for a march about housing???
Let’s storm something. Or lie down in front of a bulldozer.
jesse: “I think the discussion here is not unique to academia …”
Exactly.
But, since we’re discussing academia, I’d also like to point out that that UBC salaries are quite a bit higher than those at various GVRD colleges (Langara, Douglas, Capilano, etc.). So, if this discussion is ongoing at UBC in terms of negative effects, can you imagine the effects at those other institutions? And places like UBC/SFU/U Vic depend upon the colleges for quite a sizable proportion of their students, via transfer.
Granted, of course, some of those colleges are in slightly lower-priced markets. But not all of them. And, in any case, GVRD sticker shock is pretty universal no matter where you are in that region these days.
I think one difference, in all fairness, is that (as I mentioned above) UBC has a geographic problem that limits the choices of those who want to live with a reasonably viable commute to the PG campus.
BTW I think UBC, all its employees, students, and academics, should be arguing heavily for density increases on the west side of the City. That would help things incredibly, having a decent town/rowhouse for under $600K (say), comparable to the cited costs on other west coast American campuses. That would be something I would think the university could get behind. (Hopefully not too far behind…)
After reading what Vesta has been claiming, that density may actually be decreasing of late due to land hoarding, is concerning, and to be honest I haven’t gone to see some of the monsters being built recently to see if they have suites. But it’s arguable that more rooms ~= more density. I’ve seen this in SE Asia where large houses are built but sparsely occupied and the problem takes many years to correct itself, even after prices fall. If that problem is infiltrating Vancouver in a more significant way it should be on the radar of City planners as offside.
Jesse, it’s terrific to read your posts.
Two things:
1). I absolutely think the discussion about housing at UBC should focus as much on the struggles of staff as of faculty. Many staffpeople make less than teachers there, and the whole push for better, less expensive housing near campus needs to be completely democratic — the people who clean Sauder need to be given every bit as much consideration, or MORE (given that they’re paid less) than the highest-paid professors there.
2). I completely agree that UBC ought to push for density increases on the west side. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I think Peter Ladner’s idea of every teardown being replaced with a duplex or triplex would go some way toward solving two problems: 1). speculation and hoarding (it would dampen the enthusiasm of those who want the land to build palaces to flip); and 2). lack of housing on the west side generally.
Someone in the housing-czar thread suggested more townhomes/rowhouses (*and not just on major arterials — why IS it that people with less money are shoved by people like Michael Geller toward living on 6-lane streets, when Michael Geller lives in the Southlands?).
3). I wasn’t writing just out of my own experience about density decreasing due to land-hoarding, though this is something I very definitely have seen very up-close and in my daily walks. I’ve heard about it countless times from friends and neighbours and from other housing activists, and at meetings of the Cityplan Implementation Committee I used to be on. I mean, even common sense will tell you: what person able to afford a $3 million dollar home is going to want to rent out that basement theatre to, say, a UBC janitor?
“Peter Ladner’s idea of every teardown being replaced with a duplex or triplex would go some way toward solving two problems: 1). speculation and hoarding (it would dampen the enthusiasm of those who want the land to build palaces to flip); and 2). lack of housing on the west side generally.”
There is no law that states that one cannot speculate on a townhouse and keep it vacant. These are unusual times and to be honest many neighbourhoods on the west side will fight tooth and nail against density outside the palatial Catalan-esuqe boulevard scenes we all like to draw sipping our glasses of claret with Davis chumming on the horn. But hey one person one vote; if the City is serious about its seriousness it should grow a backbone and rezone. Nothing is forever after all, even a 1920s bungalow, and the alternatives of keeping it are far less palatable in the long run.
jesse: “UBC has a geographic problem that limits the choices of those who want to live with a reasonably viable commute to the PG campus.”
Heh. What is it about BC universities being built in inaccessible locations? UBC out on a peninsula. SFU and UNBC on top of huge hills. U Vic out… there.
UBC only has access to one extremely pricey neighbourhood within 3-4 miles of the campus. UVic is surrounded by housing 360, SFU has cheaper housing in Coquitlam, Burnaby, and New Westminster, all reasonable commutes to campus. The colleges are located in central locations, except possibly Capilano located on the rather pricey North Shore.
UBC has it bad, but as I mentioned that shouldn’t distract that the entire region suffers too, all institutions included.
Hi, I’m the guy that dug up the report for this post.
“BTW I think UBC, all its employees, students, and academics, should be arguing heavily for density increases on the west side of the City”
I whole heartedly agree.
It is not just UBC faculty who are caught up in this – Victoria created 5 new universities (Capilano, Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, Kwantlen, Emily Carr) but then froze faculty salaries and funding. Top of scale senior faculty at these new “universities” make $10K LESS than a top of scale Alberta high school teacher (and waayyyy less than UBC profs, so if they are being squeezed imagine the situation for those at Kwantlen or Capilano!) Those who live on the island or up the valley might have lower housing costs, but those stuck in the Lower Mainland are screwed. Faculty at universities like Kwantlen are in the same boat as BC teachers in the Lower Mainland – paid approx. 20% LESS than their colleagues in Alberta and Ontario, but facing vastly higher housing costs. Our MLAs, the Lib Government, and the senior bureaucrats love to argue for parity and competitive compensation when it comes to their own salaries, but they sure like to force the good old “sunshine tax” down everyone else’s throat. These low salaries and high housing costs are scaring away potential faculty, creating both a “brain drain” and a “brain drought” – we are losing existing faculty and we just can’t find good people to fill new and existing positions. Heck, from the perspective of potential hires, even exile at Lakehead U. in Thunderbay looks better than an underpaid job in the overpriced Lower Mainland. But then again, perhaps we can lure new faculty with the promise of a discounted realtor license and the possibility of supplementing their salaries by flipping condos.
I have two family members at Kwantlen. I’m told the “official” top of scale is around $85K there. But there are some who make more… not sure how they exceed the official faculty scale but there are some making six figures there. And at the entry level Kwantlen’s pay is very competitive with SFU at least (not sure about UBC) with more certainty about class size. I don’t know how much Alberta high school teachers make but I doubt the assertion above that top faculty at the newly-minted universities make less than top high school teachers in Alberta.
Jesse — yes, there definitely are lots of townhouses out there, and of course condos too, that are vacant and are objects of speculation — I’ve been running around trying to find a rental and have found this to be true. My point about the duplex/triplex thing is that more people will be housed and fewer large lots will be taken up by housing for fewer people — the killing two birds with one stone prospect.
As for bungalows, don’t forget that these were the last remaining “affordable” houses in Vancouver, when prices were lower. Given how many families want homes with a bit of yard, I’m not sure it makes sense to target those for teardowns.
Anyone notice which houses seem most likely to be vacant, don’t re-sell well, haven’t held their value? It’s the big ones built in the 90s in the Hong Kong rush. Is this going to happen with all the big ones going up now where affordable, often historic bungalows used to be?
“these were the last remaining “affordable” houses in Vancouver, when prices were lower.”
These are pricing in significant densification right now, so if you want one you pay the price. This has always been the case with these properties, even 10 years ago and IIRC the rental yield has been poor for a while (decades) because the lot wasn’t at highest and best use. It will be challenging to tear down a large recently-built home to make way for condos, the only target for such a policy as Ladner’s will be low-density housing nearing the end of its useful life. I know it sucks for those who like small little fix-er-upper houses with a yard but this is what it has come to. Someone has to give up land if density is to go up. Either it gets built into big house with many rooms, house with suites, multiplex, or rowhouse. I prefer #4 fee-simple, personally. Stratas can “lick me today”.
Interesting points, including things I didn’t know (e.g. about the rental yield for bungalows having been poor for decades). Ten years ago bungalows remained more affordable than now, were priced closer to their real value, though perhaps inflated even then — ?
i like the rowhouse idea too.
Alternatively, why don’t UBC take some of that condo profits over the last decade and plow it back into building, oh I don’t know, faculty and staff and student only buildings? There are still lots of land for townhouses and condo and domitories. They don’t need to be super high end and the rent can be kept at a reasonable level. They can also have for sale/co-op type units as well for those who just want to buy rather than rent but only those who work at university are eligible.
Scary thought: maybe they’ve needed every nickel earned from widespread development to limit the amount of borrowing needed to sustain current salaries and services.
Seriously: I have no idea where that money has gone.
UBC has several completed ‘co-developments’ on campus. I was never involved in one, but I think a group of employees would start the co-development and advertise to other staff so all the units could be sold/spoken for. I recall a few things such as, prices being 30% lower than market because no $ is spent on advertising and if unit was sold before a number of years (5?) staff have to pay UBC (or management?) 30% price difference. I have not heard of any new co-developments in the last 5-6 years.
No, there haven’t been any new co-developments. Moreover, owners of the older ones are allowed to sell them at market prices. I can understand how this would be fair to the owners, but it means that housing originally meant for faculty/staff, priced so they could afford it, becomes once again out of reach.
I think one of things that is missing in this conversation is that UBC business school has a real estate expert / department, I wonder why the UBC business school did not do this research.
There is some densification taking place on the west side, but you have to pay 1.7 mill for a tear down, then rebuild a house with a suite and have a laneway house. Who can afford that? I looked at some builders sites of laneway homes and they expect you to rent them out for $1500-2000 a month to recoup the cost of the laneway home. Who can afford that?, or want to do that? Many people in Dunbar and pt. Grey oppose these types of dwellings. I found it interesting that some have to rent a basement suite or live with in-laws to survive.
Very good point above – the gov’t has increased their own pay greatly while telling other groups to expect 0% raises.
Again who has benefitted from all this re madness??
Of course the residents oppose developments with suites, it “ruins” the neighbourhood. I oppose them because it’s bad policy to require owners to be part-time landlords for a horrible return. Still, prices — and the concentration of discussions here — show the market wants more density close to UBC. The greater good needs to step up.
What effect will allowing increased density have on Westside housing prices?
[Warning: a more complex question than it may superficially seem.]
the mortgage helpers might increase the price of a single detached housing. The whole basement renter thing being figured into mortgages is a strange cultural development.
I would promote brownstone row houses. No strata fees – not condos. And brownstones look nice, too.
nah, the developers won’t be able to rape us for profit that way
Vreaa, that’s actually a difficult question. Too much money in the system to know how it would go down.
A big problem is the oversubscription to westside schools; adding density will strain them even more, so the provincial government has some role to play here.
The issue is getting families into housing close to their places of work and ensuring the housing mix is appropriate in the long run. Stresses on school enrollment should be dealt with but that’s another unpopular provision that could well see values rise even more. No easy answers I’m afraid, though a severe debt market beating would probably be a good start.