Seriously, Vancouver needs to deal with housing costs. As the article points out, junior developers are comfortable renting a cheap apartment. But executives want to own a house - and not a house two hours out in the countryside. Vancouver houses are just ludicrously expensive; this keeps good people away.
Vancouver invests a great deal of political time and effort to pretending to create affordable housing. The problem is that the only way to actually reduce prices is to allow for more construction, and there are many and varied obstacles to doing so, including zoning commissions, NIMBY-ism, and developer/council interests (which are all often impossible to disentangle).
2 hours is a pretty big exaggeration.
To put in perspective, ~2 hours drive from downtown Vancouver is Yale BC, or if you went northwest down the 99, that would put you in Pemberton, which both are really in the middle of nowhere. I don't know of any large city where you can buy a detached singe family house cheaply anywhere close to the downtown core.
Google maps says that a typical commute arriving at 9 am would take between 40 minutes to an hour and 5 minutes from Langley to downtown Vancouver. Of course if there is a crazy accident or severe construction it could take way longer, but that is the same as a commute anywhere to anywhere.
Not wanting "ludicrously expensive" housing does not mean expecting "cheap" housing...
Pretty much everyone agrees Vancouver is needlessly expensive. I mean it's not Tokyo, Hong Kong, NYC, SF, etc where there's an inherent justification for paying lots of money to live there. I've heard the nightlife is nothing to look forward to nor is it known for it's culture.
The problem could easily be solved by simply building more. Unlike SF or Manhattan, Vancouver doesn't even have artificial land growth limitations for being on an inlet/island to rationalize the lack of growth.
I'm not sure what you mean by artificial land growth limitations. If you're talking about building height or city size limitations, Vancouver certainly has height restrictions, and it's surrounded on all sides too (UBC, Burrard Inlet, Burnaby, and the Fraser). You could build more outside of Vancouver proper, but then executives wouldn't want to live so far.
The problem could easily be solved by simply building more. Vancouver doesn't even have artificial land growth limitations for being on an inlet/island to rationalize the lack of growth.
You must be kidding. Vancouver has mountains to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west and an international border to the south. Throw in the fact that the city was built entirely on a peninsula + river delta and you have major chokepoint problems.
Eastward expansion is a possibility but that is occupied by some of the best farmland in the country.
I've heard the nightlife is nothing to look forward to nor is it known for it's culture.
If that's your criteria then there's no question Vancouver isn't right for you. But it does have some of the best climate in the country and is one of the premiere meccas for outdoor activities. Different strokes I guess.
