The latest census results are out from Statistics Canada. The Prince Rupert Census agglomeration had the 5th highest decline in Canada from 2006 to 2011 (-2.5%). It went from 13,392 to 13,052.
It would sure be nice to get an accurate number of how people live “in the city.” Because there cannot be 13,000 people living in this city - I understand they take certain outlying communities populations in account as well…
You can see there’s more people here by the increasing home prices, but not by business growth. 90% of the new businesses were new owners changing the names, the only thing ‘new’ since 2006 is the Sanaaih Market on the rez. We lost the Zoo, the Chevron and the Northern store since then.
Here you go, NW has had a decline in the last 10 years, with Prince Rupert taking the biggest hit in terms of city populations and Terrace & Area in metro populations.
City Populations:
Prince Rupert - 14,643 in 2001 (-2,135 from 2011 @ 12,508)
Terrace - 12,109 in 2001 (-623 from 2011 @ 11,486)
Kitimat - 10,285 in 2001 (-1950 from 2011 @ 8,335)
Smithers - 5,414 in 2001 (-10 from 2011 @ 5,404)
Metro Area Populations:
Terrace Area - 19,980 in 2001 (-4,411 from 2011 @ 15,420)
Prince Rupert Area - 15,302 in 2001 (-2,250 from 2011 @ 13,052)
I think the rather large decline from 2001-2011 in the Terrace area is partially due to changing the definition of the Terrace area. For example, in 2001, the Terrace area probably included the Nisga’a lands, which in 2011 are in their own area. I’m sure the same is true for other communities in the Terrace area.
Though there is no doubt that the economy declined from 2001-2006 in the area, it is also true that thousands of residents of nearby communities were removed from the population area.
Terrace area in 2001 included:
Terrace area in 2011 included:
and I could find a map for 2011:
But couldn’t find a map for 2001 (the images were broken).
The fact that the Terrace area actually grew slightly from 2006 to 2011 is surprising, though. Especially since a lot of people in Terrace that worked in Kitimat left town when a couple of large employers closed.
So Terrace hasn’t lost population. Surprisingly, it gained a few people. They’ve just shrunk the border of the Terrace CA, so it only includes the immediate area.
Prices for homes in the city are disproportionately higher than our local economy’s status. There’s alot of people out of work, alot of people struggling and all those 20-something’s wanting to buy new homes with decent $20 per hr jobs, that would have been able to in 2004, I doubt can do so now in 2012.
150K in Rupert now gets you what should cost 77K. 300K gets you what should be 150K. It’s all hype - but thankfully for owners who are selling - they’re getting a good return on their rainy city investment.
[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]Prices for homes in the city are disproportionately higher than our local economy’s status. There’s alot of people out of work, alot of people struggling and all those 20-something’s wanting to buy new homes with decent $20 per hr jobs, that would have been able to in 2004, I doubt can do so now in 2012.
150K in Rupert now gets you what should cost 77K. 300K gets you what should be 150K. It’s all hype - but thankfully for owners who are selling - they’re getting a good return on their rainy city investment.[/quote]
I have to disagree a little with you, sorry! I have been keeping an eye out on the MLS listings for the last year and there have been some “gems” as I call them that have not only sold at asking price but quickly also and I am talking of homes in the $100K-$140K. One just sold on my street, a real nice wartime house on 11th. E., renovated beautifully and this is a nice quiet area. Sold for $89K ! My fave, that I fell in love with, was on Summit, the view from the back was incredible, a gorgeous home, 3 B/R, across from the park at the school, for $119K. Believe me, there are some great homes out there. More than you would think but I will agree that there are some in the high $150-180K that you have to wonder what were they thinking? The rents in town though are very high and that is sad. You pay anywhere upwards from $700 monthly for a piece of crap and add on the utilities ! Yikes !
When you are trying to assess whether housing prices are ‘fair’ you might want to consider the ratio between the average house price and average annual wages for two different locales. By way of example, lets assume that in Prince Rupert you can buy a detached house for $150,000 (not a “fixer-upper”) and the average fulltime employed annual wage is $50,000. By dividing the house price by the wages, it would give us a ratio of 3:1. Now, lets consider Vancouver. A detached house in Vancouver will cost, I believe, at least $800,000. If we assume the average wage is $80,000 (probably overestimated) then the ratio is 10:1. So, using this ratio, it would appear that our housing prices are more fair than Vancouver.
I don’t have any evidence, but my gut feeling is that, if the rents are high, the reason might be a combination of the following: a lot of the rental properties in this town are controlled by a small number of companies and the fact that there is quite a number of people here who need to rent as they unable to buy (not full-time employed). These people are, in effect, a captive rental market and cannot, if rents go up, go to the bank and get a house mortgage.
Having postulated the foregoing, and having being a landlord, I know that the costs that can be incurred when a renter damages a place or doesn’t pay their rent can wipeout a year’s rent receipts pretty easily. My experience is that the Landlord Tenant Act is heavily weighted towards the tenant. I doubt that the rents charged here are much higher than other places.
[quote=“Pantagruel”]When you are trying to assess whether housing prices are ‘fair’ you might want to consider the ratio between the average house price and average annual wages for two different locales. By way of example, lets assume that in Prince Rupert you can buy a detached house for $150,000 (not a “fixer-upper”) and the average fulltime employed annual wage is $50,000. By dividing the house price by the wages, it would give us a ratio of 3:1. Now, lets consider Vancouver. A detached house in Vancouver will cost, I believe, at least $800,000. If we assume the average wage is $80,000 (probably overestimated) then the ratio is 10:1. So, using this ratio, it would appear that our housing prices are more fair than Vancouver.
I don’t have any evidence, but my gut feeling is that, if the rents are high, the reason might be a combination of the following: a lot of the rental properties in this town are controlled by a small number of companies and the fact that there is quite a number of people here who need to rent as they unable to buy (not full-time employed). These people are, in effect, a captive rental market and cannot, if rents go up, go to the bank and get a house mortgage.
Having postulated the foregoing, and having being a landlord, I know that the costs that can be incurred when a renter damages a place or doesn’t pay their rent can wipeout a year’s rent receipts pretty easily. My experience is that the Landlord Tenant Act is heavily weighted towards the tenant. I doubt that the rents charged here are much higher than other places.[/quote]
Vancouver is Vancouver, your comparing a place that’s always in the top 3 best place to live in in the world and a hugely desired place to live. Rupert would be compared to Terrace or Campbell River ect not Vancouver that’s one of the most expensive places to live in and offers so much more. I do think home prices here are high, those new homes on 7th are a joke of a price near half a million for them and it’s on freaking 7th east. I barely see a home on the market worth buying.
