Vancouver's Real Estate Market

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

The majority of duplexes and triplexes built today are strata-titled. I think that there are more hoops to jump through for the builder to get a non-strata titled duplex. This means that in theory, they are supposed to be managed in accordance with the Strata Property Act including the creation of budgets, depreciation reports, and the application of dispute management provisions. You and your neighbour(s) are the strata corporation in these situations.

In reality, small strata corporations like duplexes and triplexes are non-conforming which means they are managed informally amongst neighbours. This is a problem when you have a bad neighbour because the strata corporation is you and your neighbour(s). If you can't agree on vital maintenance, such as a roof or foundation repair, then you'll have to go to the courts to determine an outcome.

Yep, 2-4 unit housing are non conforming strata and the provincial gov't is the one that makes it really hard to do freehold multi-unit housing. This is why we don't see row houses in BC (unlike Toronto where they are everywhere) as it's pretty much not worth the effort.

I live in a triplex and my two neighbours don't care as much about the appearance of their homes so it can be a bit challenging to keep up on maintenance. For example to get our gutters cleaned both sides of the main building needed to be done and our neighbour didn't really want to do it at first. When we painted our fence we only painted to the part of the fence that was on our side of the building. Stuff like garbage and water fees are sent to us by the city as we were the first unit occupied so we then have to split the bill with the others and follow up. Same with building insurance - we get the quote and then get them to pay their part.

[twitchyzero]

sounds like less hassle to share with inlaws/siblings/parents instead of buying into a half/third/quarter of a multiplex

[EvoFire]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Yep, 2-4 unit housing are non conforming strata and the provincial gov't is the one that makes it really hard to do freehold multi-unit housing. This is why we don't see row houses in BC (unlike Toronto where they are everywhere) as it's pretty much not worth the effort.

I live in a triplex and my two neighbours don't care as much about the appearance of their homes so it can be a bit challenging to keep up on maintenance. For example to get our gutters cleaned both sides of the main building needed to be done and our neighbour didn't really want to do it at first. When we painted our fence we only painted to the part of the fence that was on our side of the building. Stuff like garbage and water fees are sent to us by the city as we were the first unit occupied so we then have to split the bill with the others and follow up. Same with building insurance - we get the quote and then get them to pay their part.

Is it the same with a duplex in terms of utilities and insurance? If I own 1/2 of a duplex I can't just buy my own insurance but the other unit needs to be part of it too?

[ssjGoku69]

Yeah, you're gonna have to work with your duplex neighbour to buy the strata insurance to cover the building (both units).

Then you can buy individual insurance to cover personal possessions within your side.

[supafamous]

So if the idea of living in a duplex/triplex/fourplex is not appealing enough and you really want to live in a detached home but can't swing the $2m cost in Vancouver/Burnaby then the only solution is to push the our local governments to change their zoning for single family lots.

Right now the RS-1 standard in Vancouver requires SFH lots to be no smaller than 3600sf and no narrower than 24'. You'll notice that there are lots of lots that are less than 3600sf that are RS-1 and those are grandfathered lots which require the approval of the Director of Planning in order to build a new house. RS-1 zoning: https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applic...ctSchedule.pdf

A 3600sf lot runs about $1.5m today (about $400/sf) in East Van and if you want just a house with no laneway you're looking at $600-700k to build 2500sf of house on it (a laneway will add another $150-250k). No developer builds without a laneway as they want to maximise profit so these lots end up going for $2.5m with no yard and possibly no garage (a dealbreaker for us car enthusiasts).

What to do?

Get the city to allow smaller lots - as narrow as 20' that are a minimum of 100' deep (2000sf). Let people build up to .86 FSR (what you can build now with a laneway) in a single building. in the smallest case you get a 1700sf house with a single garage. More likely you get a developer who buys two 33x122 lots and they build 3 separate houses rather than 2 which lands you three 2300sf houses with a big single garage and a legal suite. That's 6 families over two lots which is what we get today with the laneway so no extra density, just more affordability.

in that scenario land costs for each house is about $1m plus about $550-600k of building costs - tack on some profit and you've got yourself a $1.8m detached house (22x122 lot) which is only few hundred K more than a duplex and bigger as well.

Who says no to that other than old white people (every person who opposes density at city council is an old white person) who say it'll ruin the character of their neighbourhood?

[cafe22]

^ old people "buT ThEse Tall NaRRow HouSes wiLl casT ToO MuCH ShaDOw anD bLoCK mY MOunTAin VieWS!"

[sonick]

Originally Posted by cafe22

^ old people "buT ThEse Tall NaRRow HouSes wiLl casT ToO MuCH ShaDOw anD bLoCK mY MOunTAin VieWS!"

Speaking of: Man wants $1 million from Burnaby for allowing house to block his view

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...r-view-3540892

[GLOW]

i think the work architects and urban planners do to preserve the city scape is important. i just think they need to relax and take a pragmatic approach to heritage status. i can only imagine we just let developers do what they want to the city (any more they already have)

[Traum]

Originally Posted by sonick

Speaking of: Man wants $1 million from Burnaby for allowing house to block his view

https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...r-view-3540892

IMO, the validity of the case hinges entirely on whether Burnaby has any view corridor protection legislations in place. If there are, the guy could quite likely win.

Then again, the chances of those legislations being in place seems unlikely. Even CoV only has a very limited number of view corridor protection bylaws, and those are quite specific in what they protect. (I seem to vaguely remember the Mount Pleasant area or Cambie Street has those for protecting the Burrard Inlet + North Shore mountains view. I'd be surprised if Burnaby has bylaws like that in place.

[donk.]

Killer view - I had a serious laugh from that

Dont some cities on planet earth have "air rights" i recall watching or reading something about NYC having some zones on this.
Can you imagine spending 10 mil on a highrise condo with open central park views, and then having a neighbor condo built blocking 50% of your view

[supafamous]

Jesus, standard lots that are just above tear down quality are going for $1.8m now:




One weekend ago they were going for $1.6m

[GLOW]

i can see the E27th one gutted to the studs and made a nice home...but ya, madness

[Hondaracer]

Yea the 27th one looks ok

The Charles one I actually walked by and have been monitoring, it’s pretty much a tear down

[pastarocket]

A pretty high profile sale of a house in Vancouver.

Former Canuck Daniel Sedin sells his home for 9.7 million bucks.

https://theprovince.com/homes/buying...5-c47d7fcd5332

from the article dated March 13th:

Type: Five-bedroom, six-bathroom detached

Size: 4,535 square feet

B.C. Assessment: $6,673,000

Listed for: $9,875,000

Sold for: $9,700,000

Sold on: November 4

Days on market in this listing: Two

Listing agent: Matt Pozer at Oakwyn Realty

Buyers agent: Roy Robertson at Sutton Group – West Coast Realty

The big sell: This five-year-old-home blends West Coast architecture with Swedish influences thanks to the owner being none other than Daniel Sedin.

Built to complement the family’s active lifestyle, there is an outdoor swimming pool and hot tub surrounded by an entertainment-sized terrace and low-maintenance grounds bordered by privacy hedging. The three-level air-conditioned interior features sleek lines with bespoke flat-panel cabinetry and black hardware in the kitchen, contemporary light fixtures, a neutral colour palette and wood ceiling accents. There are four bedrooms upstairs including the principal suite with a private rooftop patio, and a lower level that accommodates a gym, family room, fifth bedroom, and a 260-square-foot media room. An expansive double garage and a dog spa complete the picture.

[JDMDreams]

I don't think splitting lots into mini lots will work. Just drove though East Van today and the residential streets are already packed with tenant parking. Add double the amount of people living on the street you are fucked. Our streets just aren't designed to have that much traffic.

[Alpine]

Originally Posted by supafamous

Jesus, standard lots that are just above tear down quality are going for $1.8m now:

One weekend ago they were going for $1.6m

Even here in southwest Coquitlam, teardowns are now ~1.5m+. These were 1.2 less than a year ago. Land is king. Always has been, and likely always will.

[jing]

I would think that teardowns are $1.5M+ in SW Coquitlam because of the BLNP, not because people are buying these lots to build SFH's.

[JDMDreams]

What's blnp? How's the condo market these days? I see a whole lot of detach houses listed up some have sold signs already

[carsncars]

Originally Posted by JDMDreams

What's blnp?

Burquitlam-Lougheed Neighbourhood Plan.

Drove through Lougheed on the way to my parents' the other day for the first time in a couple years - shocking how much it's transformed. Very Brentwood vibes to the development.

[Alpine]

Originally Posted by jing

I would think that teardowns are $1.5M+ in SW Coquitlam because of the BLNP, not because people are buying these lots to build SFH's.

Actually these are outside of BLNP and single family lots only.

[Alpine]

Originally Posted by JDMDreams

I don't think splitting lots into mini lots will work. Just drove though East Van today and the residential streets are already packed with tenant parking. Add double the amount of people living on the street you are fucked. Our streets just aren't designed to have that much traffic.

Exactly. I think this type of density will wreck havoc on actual liveability. Some of the top reasons to buy a sfh is for more space (for yourself and away from neighbours). But that will all disappear when these lots get split. Great if you have great neighbours, but we all know there will be that one neighbour that will ruin it for everyone. We need more planned developments around urban centres or major streets lined with commercial, not this unfettered development where each lot has 3-4 independent families living on it.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Alpine

Exactly. I think this type of density will wreck havoc on actual liveability. Some of the top reasons to buy a sfh is for more space (for yourself and away from neighbours). But that will all disappear when these lots get split. Great if you have great neighbours, but we all know there will be that one neighbour that will ruin it for everyone. We need more planned developments around urban centres or major streets lined with commercial, not this unfettered development where each lot has 3-4 independent families living on it.

The story that SFH offers more privacy is a bit of a lie - virtually every SFH in East Van (see my previous posts on this topic) has at least a single suite and all the new ones have 3-4 families living in it (main house, 2 basement suites, and a laneway). Even on the west side of Vancouver all new builds have a separate suite. Of course you can choose not to rent out any of it but who can afford the house otherwise?

So splitting lots up into smaller lots doesn't add any more families to the area - the smaller lots would be too small to have more than 1 suite - so you still get the same density but you repackage it so it's more affordable.

[JDMDreams]

Yea but there's no money to be made with affordable so that's not gonna happen. Why would anyone go through the hassle of splitting their lot without any benefits.

[underscore]

Can anything even be done to bring down the price per sqft of land when there's only so much in the area? It's still crazy expensive and you need to have the infrastructure to actually support it.

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by JDMDreams

Yea but there's no money to be made with affordable so that's not gonna happen. Why would anyone go through the hassle of splitting their lot without any benefits.

I don't think you've actually read what I've written. It's more affordable not because the land costs less but that we're making it more affordable b/c they don't have to buy as much land to get a house. It's the same principle as building townhouses instead of SFH - you spread the land costs out differently.

As for why anyone would do this - it's the developers who do this and it's profitable for them to do it b/c they can charge slightly more for what they build. Right now a 2800sf duplex ($2.8-3m) on a standard lot is more expensive to buy than an equivalent 3600sf SFH on that same lot ($2.5-2.7m). My idea is to build something in between a duplex and a full SFH which bridges the price gap today of $1.5m vs $2.5m, build something that can be bought for $1.8-2m. It's a win win for both parties - developer make more money while "regular" people can now afford a detached home on a smaller lot.