Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[GS8]

[hud 91gt]

Originally Posted by Harvey Specter

Spoiler!

Here's a few condo/house stats for Vancouver from last month;

Cool stats. Basically shows the panicky poor (aka us normal people), just able to get into the market are buying up a storm. Better get in now or else. haha. Idiots. Shhhhh

Spoiler!

Although the low'ish number of listings scares the shit out of me. Panic people panic, SELL SELL SELL hahaha.

Interesting times for sure.

[originalhypa]

Buffet says to be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.

[Carl Johnson]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

Buffet says to be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.

homeownership is homeownership. who gives a shit about being fearful or greedy. have your own place beats paying rent every month and dealing bunch of bullshit with landlords.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by Carl Johnson

homeownership is homeownership. who gives a shit about being fearful or greedy.

Oh really, please tell me more.....


The market is changing as we speak. The stats show that, and it's those who are fearful who are paying the exorbitantly high dollars per square foot right now. Hundreds of acres are being bought up by developers so they can build high density, high profit townhouses and condos. You're not actually buying anything of value when you're buying high density. All you are doing is buying a place to live. You, along with hundreds of other people. People you have to share your living space with.

I was taught at a young age that real estate was the only "real" investment. And while there have been times in the past 30 years where it didn't look to be the case, real estate has always won in the end. It is the biggest single purchase that most people will ever make, so you better consider the factors involved. I can't see value in buying in a high density development. There is no "dirt" as my grandmother used to call it. Her portfolio is diverse with residential and commercial holdings. There's even a little waterfront thrown in there. As she also says, "they aren't making anymore waterfront properties".

Bottom line, too many people are getting into huge mortgages for something that I don't see as having the same value as single family homes have. It used to be that you would buy a house with a yard and a place to park your car. You could put up a fence, and enjoy your own little 1/4 acre piece of Canada. That was real estate.

have your own place beats paying rent every month and dealing bunch of bullshit with landlords.

I happen to be a fucking awesome landlord.
Although it cuts into the profit margin.....

[G0rilla]

Peace of mind > profit margin. I agree with hypa that I would rather be getting less every month and have great renters than to maximize my rental income with shit renters.

Renters and landlords both have their own issues.

[Hondaracer]

I think buffet and your grandmother come from a different time and a different way of thinking.

What has shown anyone that if they buy a unit now, at the very least it won't be worth as much if not more in 5/10/15 years.

Imo for a lot of people, even a stagnant investment in a multi family unit is a better way of "saving" than most can do while renting etc.

For me I'll always fall back in the fact people want to live here is that most other places are dumps.

[Timpo]

Vancouver’s housing shortage worsened by rental crackdown
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER — Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Mar. 02, 2017 9:30PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Mar. 02, 2017 9:30PM EST

Vancouver?s housing shortage worsened by rental crackdown - The Globe and Mail


While Vancouver City Hall hunts desperately for ways to create new housing, city staff have been shutting down dozens of illegal rental suites every year because certain kinds of units still aren’t allowed, even though vacancies continue to hover at zero and housing prices remain stratospheric.
(CHRIS HELGREN/REUTERS)

While Vancouver City Hall hunts desperately for ways to create new housing, city staff have been shutting down dozens of illegal rental suites every year because certain kinds of units still aren’t allowed, even though vacancies continue to hover at zero and housing prices remain stratospheric.

Mac Hartfiel and his family know that. He, along with his brother and sister-in-law, bought a house a couple of years ago near Victoria Drive and 27th Avenue that had been built in 2012 with two basement suites and a laneway house. Mr. Hartfiel, who has a company that creates concrete furniture and accessories, planned to live in one suite, with his brother’s family upstairs, while renting out the two other units – a typical Vancouver solution in today’s high-stress real estate market.

But shortly after they moved in, city staff put a notice on their door saying their second basement suite was illegal – likely reported by an irate neighbour, Mr. Hartfiel said.

“There was a tenant with a year lease. She had to be evicted,” Mr. Hartfiel said, noting that, ironically, the tenant was a city employee who was distraught about losing her housing.

But even she had no luck trying to get some lenience from city staff, though it was evident that other houses were being built nearby with the same format.

“They inspect and then they say, ‘Our hands are tied,’ even though I know a lot of spec builders are doing this,” he said.

Mr. Hartfiel’s family had to spend money blowing out the walls in the basement to turn the two suites into one – a move that cost them money and reduced the income they could generate from the house.

Now, Green Party Councillor Adriane Carr is trying to get a start on fixing the problem.

She has a motion going to council Tuesday asking staff to look into ways to legalize suites in two of the zones where they are currently outlawed in older neighbourhoods.

“Here we are trying to create affordable housing and we’re making it less affordable by imposing rules that are prejudicial,” said Ms. Carr. “That’s just not fair.”

She acknowledged that owners in the zones she is targeting can make their suites legal by going through what’s called a “multi-family conversion dwelling” process at the city.

But that is incredibly expensive, since it’s meant to allow owners to stratify units once those kinds of renovations have been done. So the building standards and the requirements for fire separation and other protections are high.

Those kinds of standards aren’t in place for average secondary suites in single-family houses that are now permitted everywhere.

The city received 180 complaints last year about illegal suites and staff are required to act on them, said a spokesperson.

Equally common among the complaints to the city are suites that have been created in older houses in the city’s inner-city neighbourhoods, which have many duplexes and large older houses. Duplexes get basement suites added or a big house may be converted into three suites.

The suites created in those zones, which are called RT or RM zones in city lingo, are also illegal, although the city encouraged that kind of conversion during the housing shortage of the Second World War.

In 2002, the then new COPE council declared that secondary suites were legal, after a couple of decades of battles over them.

Until then, they were permitted in some neighbourhoods but not others, depending on how those residents had voted when asked to approve basement suites.

But the provision only provided for one suite per single-family house. It didn’t cover duplex zones and it didn’t protect more than one suite in a single-family house.

Councillor Geoff Meggs acknowledged there’s a bump in the system.

“It’s complaint driven so it’s really random,” said Mr. Meggs, who once unsuccessfully tried to help an older woman caught in the same situation. She had been renting a second basement suite in a house, one that had been occupied for 20 years.

But a neighbour had complained and so staff were required to order the second suite closed.

Elizabeth Murphy, a frequent advocate on planning issues and a project manager, said she knows of many people who have been caught in that situation, either as tenants or owners.

Ms. Murphy said it is forcing some owners into unfortunate predicaments, as they try to avoid city oversight or get caught.

“People are depending on these mortgage helpers to get them but, but if it turns out they have unauthorized accommodation, it makes it very difficult for them. And it forces people to do renos without permits.”

[Timpo]

Vancouver mayor takes frank tone on housing crisis
MATT ROBINSON
Published on: March 1, 2017 | Last Updated: March 1, 2017 7:23 PM PST

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson takes frank tone on housing crisis | Vancouver Sun


Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson gives a speech at the Urban Land Institute B.C. meeting on Wednesday. MARK VAN MANEN / PNG

Gregor Robertson faces two particularly tough tasks over the next year-and-a-half.

First, in the middle of a housing affordability crisis, the Vancouver mayor will have to sell residents on the wisdom of a reset, rather than an overhaul, of the city’s housing and homelessness strategy.

Second — and this assumes he runs for a fourth term — Robertson will need to ask voters to re-elect him in the belief that he is the right leader to pull the city out of that housing crisis.

Robertson took an early stab at that first task Wednesday during a keynote speech at the Urban Land Institute B.C., which offered an advance look at parts of the now-past-due strategy. Included in his comments was a list of five places where the city wants to see more density, including single-family neighbourhoods.

The mayor’s speech to developers, officials, investors, bankers, planners and other audience members started with a pair of anecdotes. One was of a young family that searched for months for suitable housing. When they found an apartment at last, they discovered it was infested with rodents and insects.

The other was about two seniors facing renoviction from the community where they had lived for three decades. They were “feeling betrayed and let down, really by every level of government in the situation, including ours.”

It was a frank acknowledgement of discontent, even for Robertson, who has never been one to downplay the severity of the crisis and the need for strong government action.

“We need some big moves and we need them now,” Robertson said before listing the types of land his government is considering for more homes.

One is municipal lots. The city estimates private developers could build as many as 3,000 homes on six lots around False Creek.

Another is land surrounding future rapid transit nodes, which is seen as particularly appropriate for rental homes.

Arterial streets and multi-family neighbourhoods are also being considered as sites that could take more density.

And last (or possibly “at last”), the city wants to see “significant new housing” in single-family neighbourhoods through “density without assembly.” More duplexes, infills, townhouses and row houses is what the city has in mind.

Robertson’s keynote address was based on a prepared speech. He strayed at times from what had been written and skipped the odd word or sentence here and there. The following comes directly from the written version:

“The time is right to advance a conversation about how we bring in more affordability and still preserve the essence of those neighbourhoods.

“The choice isn’t between change and no change: Our single-family neighbourhoods are changing now. We’re seeing character homes being razed and replaced with much larger single-family homes.

“And in places like Kerrisdale and Dunbar, as we see from the census, they’re changing simply because less and less people live there at a time when prices are going higher and higher.

“So the question isn’t if our neighbourhoods will change. It’s who they change for. And it’s how we guide that change.

“And we need to stop fixating on density, because that’s not what this is about.”

Robertson is correct. The time is right to open single-family neighbourhoods to more residents. The time has been right for a while, as most tenants living in small, substandard, overpriced and insecure homes in this city will attest.

Yet to be seen is whether enough residents will believe in the government’s reset strategy, or in Robertson as the best-equipped leader to end this crisis.

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by originalhypa

Oh really, please tell me more.....


The market is changing as we speak. The stats show that, and it's those who are fearful who are paying the exorbitantly high dollars per square foot right now. Hundreds of acres are being bought up by developers so they can build high density, high profit townhouses and condos. You're not actually buying anything of value when you're buying high density. All you are doing is buying a place to live. You, along with hundreds of other people. People you have to share your living space with.

I was taught at a young age that real estate was the only "real" investment. And while there have been times in the past 30 years where it didn't look to be the case, real estate has always won in the end. It is the biggest single purchase that most people will ever make, so you better consider the factors involved. I can't see value in buying in a high density development. There is no "dirt" as my grandmother used to call it. Her portfolio is diverse with residential and commercial holdings. There's even a little waterfront thrown in there. As she also says, "they aren't making anymore waterfront properties".

Bottom line, too many people are getting into huge mortgages for something that I don't see as having the same value as single family homes have. It used to be that you would buy a house with a yard and a place to park your car. You could put up a fence, and enjoy your own little 1/4 acre piece of Canada. That was real estate.

Yeah, I guess everybody who owns an apartment or townhouse in Manhattan, London, Tokyo, or Singapore doesn't actually have anything of value since they don't own "dirt".

After all, if your grandmother thought that was the case 30 years ago, who can argue with that?

Bottom line, the real estate market in Vancouver is changing to be more like any of the other major world cities. If you grew up in London, you would think a family of 4 or 5 in an apartment or townhouse would be totally normal - you wouldn't know anything else. This "thought" that you can't have a family unless you have a house with a yard is simply not reality in many of the other most important cities in the world.

As demand for real estate and the required density to support it continue to increase, more and more people are going to need to adjust to the reality that just because your parents and grandparents grew up in a house, doesn't mean that you will. If you are going to, you better make a bunch of money and probably have some help. It's a bitter pill, but the sooner people realize this, the sooner they stop stressing out about barely affording a $1-million fixer-upper detached house in Port Coquitlam.

Mark



Vancouer

[fliptuner]

Yeah, don't move to PoCo. This place is shit. You'll be surrounded by 2 jail's, a mental hospital, the pig farm and countless rednecks.

[frozen]

Yes, because prisoners are breaking out murdering people and pigs are running wild in packs.

Fucking idiot. Logic much?

[jing]

Originally Posted by frozen

Yes, because prisoners are breaking out murdering people and pigs are running wild in packs.

Fucking idiot. Logic much?

Pickton farm nearly forgotten as new development emerges - The Globe and Mail

[Timpo]

Should Vancouverites embrace the death of the single family home?
Stakeholders in Vancouver's real estate market say growing long-term rental stock should be a top priority
By Jon Hernandez, CBC News Posted: Mar 03, 2017 6:00 AM PT Last Updated: Mar 03, 2017 6:00 AM PT

Should Vancouverites embrace the death of the single family home? - British Columbia - CBC News


Demonstrators gather protesting against high housing prices for single family homes in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia, May 23, 2015. (Jim Jeong/Reuters)


It's no secret millennials with a modest income in Vancouver may never fulfil the dream of owning a single family detached home in the city.

The benchmark price for a detached home is hovering around $1.4 million, a figure long out of reach for the bulk of Vancouverites who are just beginning to carve their careers in the city.

Some have responded to the soaring costs through protests, while others wait quietly for the "bubble to burst." But according to property developer Beau Jarvis, millennials might be better off managing their expectations.

"We are in a transition here in the Lower Mainland of B.C. ... where we're seeing the death of the single family home," said the senior vice-president for Wesgroup Real Estate, the agency behind some of Vancouver's largest upcoming property developments.

Jarvis was one of many real estate stakeholders who helped craft a list of common ground principles that could help solve Vancouver's affordability crisis. He was joined by tenants, landlords, realtors, academics and more.

A key theme that emerged: embrace long-term renting — because it might be the best option.

Easing the squeeze

The Vancouver-based lobby group Generation Squeeze led the collaboration and has since released 10 principles that stakeholders believe would ease some of the stress on younger generations facing an uphill battle against affordability.

"The reality is that more and more young people will not be able to save enough money to become a homeowner in the Metro Vancouver region and increasingly this is a problem throughout B.C." said the group's founder, Paul Kershaw.

"Things are breaking down as home prices leave earnings behind."

Kershaw says part of the solution is to come to terms with the fact that long-term renting is the only housing option for many millennials and for communities to make a concerted effort to increase rental accommodation.


UBC professor and founder of Generation Squeeze, Paul Kershaw, calls into question the generational inequality for housing in Canada. (Genevieve Milord/CBC)

"We need our cities more and more to be planning around building rental housing," he said. "Some of the most stable rental [housing] that we can create is when we build purpose-built rental."

Kershaw applauds policies like the foreign buyers tax and says it could be taken a step further by giving tax breaks to investors looking to increase the rental housing supply.

"If we could increasingly incentivize people who want to make a return in our real estate market by investing in housing to invest what would result in purpose build rental, that could turn what's currently a problem into part of our solution," he said.

Kershaw added that Vancouver is starting to make strides towards creating a more stable rental market through policies like the empty homes tax.

"We do need to increasingly revise our vision of tax policy to make sure we're committed to homes first and investing second."

[hud 91gt]

Originally Posted by fliptuner

Yeah, don't move to PoCo. This place is shit. You'll be surrounded by 2 jail's, a mental hospital, the pig farm and countless rednecks.

Spoiler!

Save me a lot, pretty please

[rymack]

For those that are considering the commute vs location: Big idea to cut long commutes rolls out next week | The Province

[donk.]

Another garbage article by the province.
And a great idea that will not be executed.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by fliptuner

Yeah, don't move to PoCo. This place is shit. You'll be surrounded by 2 jail's, a mental hospital, the pig farm and countless rednecks.

Originally Posted by frozen

Yes, because prisoners are breaking out murdering people and pigs are running wild in packs.

Fucking idiot. Logic much?

Spoiler!

[Tapioca]

So, I see that the City of Vancouver is considering the stratification of laneway houses.

Considering that non-conforming strata duplexes are proving to be quite popular in the City of Vancouver, I can see this proposal becoming quite popular to typical multigenerational immigrant households still living in Vancouver. A laneway house is better than an apartment any day of the week, IMHO. Thoughts?

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

So, I see that the City of Vancouver is considering the stratification of laneway houses.

A laneway house is better than an apartment any day of the week, IMHO. Thoughts?

A duplex technically operates as an equal partnership. Since they are usually similar in size and entitlement of space, this makes good sense.

On the other hand, there is a clear balance of power issue of a 2-unit strata comprised of a main house and a laneway house. The laneway house cannot reasonably expect to have an equal say in communal management as it is highly unlikely that they will be asked to pay an equal share of the combined cost.

How that is going to be resolved when there is a failure in the common driveway, retaining walls, landscaping, etc. is going to be a huge pain.

Mark

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by lowside67

A duplex technically operates as an equal partnership. Since they are usually similar in size and entitlement of space, this makes good sense.

On the other hand, there is a clear balance of power issue of a 2-unit strata comprised of a main house and a laneway house. The laneway house cannot reasonably expect to have an equal say in communal management as it is highly unlikely that they will be asked to pay an equal share of the combined cost.

How that is going to be resolved when there is a failure in the common driveway, retaining walls, landscaping, etc. is going to be a huge pain.

Mark

You make a good point about the power imblance. In order to make it work, I can see these strata units becoming conforming stratas with minutes, bylaws, budgets, etc. This would make them no different than a townhouse, except that these would be freestanding strata units which may still appeal to certain buyers.

[Hondaracer]

They do this a lot in and around township of Langley and fort Langley, we actually built two custom houses which fell under a similar situation.

The lot was quite big probably 1.5 acres but in order to buid multiple houses on he property as opposed to subdividing (which would not have been allowed in this case for whatever zoning reasons) they had to be in a strata situation.

So the owner of the property fit the bill for the construction of 2 massive houses, one 6000 sq ft the other 4800, very nice houses and then he moved into the larger one, they then wrote up the strata agreement and found a buyer who agreed upon the terms and ended up buying the second house for basically market value, somthing like 1.6

The strata terms are quite loose in this situation but sounds similar to what Vancouver may be proposing here

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

They do this a lot in and around township of Langley and fort Langley, we actually built two custom houses which fell under a similar situation.

The lot was quite big probably 1.5 acres but in order to buid multiple houses on he property as opposed to subdividing (which would not have been allowed in this case for whatever zoning reasons) they had to be in a strata situation.

So the owner of the property fit the bill for the construction of 2 massive houses, one 6000 sq ft the other 4800, very nice houses and then he moved into the larger one, they then wrote up the strata agreement and found a buyer who agreed upon the terms and ended up buying the second house for basically market value, somthing like 1.6

The strata terms are quite loose in this situation but sounds similar to what Vancouver may be proposing here

Well, this is what a non-confirming strata is - the title to both lots is strata, but it doesn't conform to the strata property act because the owners probably won't take minutes, discuss bylaws, or pay fees into a strata corporation for maintenance.

I personally would prefer if cities incentivized attached non-strata development as they have in Willoughby, Queensborough, and Burke Mountain.

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by lowside67

A duplex technically operates as an equal partnership. Since they are usually similar in size and entitlement of space, this makes good sense.

On the other hand, there is a clear balance of power issue of a 2-unit strata comprised of a main house and a laneway house. The laneway house cannot reasonably expect to have an equal say in communal management as it is highly unlikely that they will be asked to pay an equal share of the combined cost.

How that is going to be resolved when there is a failure in the common driveway, retaining walls, landscaping, etc. is going to be a huge pain.

Mark

instead of building a laneway, or a duplex, maybe a tri or quadplex?

actually when i first started house hunting they were a great looking triplex in east van by knight. all 3 units were pretty much same sq-footage. but the 2 in front were more narrow as they were side by side, but rear had a better layout but was in the back and there was the driveway/garage they had to deal with. i think 1 unit only got a driveway. it was on a larger than normal lot that's forsure.

[frozen]

Originally Posted by GLOW

Spoiler!

Umm.. yea... the sarcasm doesn't work well on a forum frequented by countless retards. The comments in this very thread exemplify it.