Vancouver Rental Market Discussion
 

As you all know, we enjoy a fabulous suite Downtown. We settled in after seeing 15 other properties and we think we have been having a pretty fair rent considering the size of the suite and the building we are in.

Now, unfortunately for us the previous owner had to sell the suite at the end year and the new owners have now taken possession. Fortunately they purchased the suite as an investment and have no plan of using it themselves. So they are planning to keep renting it out and they would love us to stay.

We would of course love to stay as well, however there is a limit to what we are ready to pay even for a suite as wonderful as this is. Now, we don't know how much the new owners will be asking as the new rent, but the rental agency that they have chosen to use has been talking about "going market price" which they think would be 25-40% more than what we are currently paying. :uhh: I realize that the rental agency gets a piece of the rent and so wants to maximize it, but I seriously question this assessment based on what we know of the market and several other factors, but this is what they might be suggesting the new owners to ask.

We will see how that goes, but I am curious to know if there is any tenancy law or act in B.C. that protects from this kind of excessive rent increase? I am aware there being a law preventing increasing the rent year-over-year by only 2% (or so) during an ongoing tenancy, but how about when our current rental agreement is going to end and we need to be signing a brand new one with a new owner? Is there any protection against rent hike of 25-40% or is the rent purely up to what the landlord and tenant happen to agree on?

If nothing will protect us from such a rent hike, it might be that you won't be seeing more Downtown photos from above as we have to move elsewhere at the end of April. That will be a shame, but everyone has their max budget to follow. :(

If your old tenancy was for a predetermined amount of time and did not continute month to month afterwards then you're unfortunately screwed, as you will need to sign a new lease and they can dictate the terms. If the old contract had the box checked that the lease would continue month to month then they can only raise the rent at inflation+2% so ~4%.

Check your RTB-1 Rental Agreement, page 2 section 2 "Length of Tenancy"

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAs...B97CE2EDC11F85

It really depends how you filled this out.

2)a) You selected month-to-month. Then the new landlord can only raise the rates by the standard set out by the government. I think this is between 2-4%/year. The only way to get you out is serve you 2 month notice that a family member is moving in. Get you kicked out and put a new tenant in. If they don't actually put a family member in, then they face some consequences for lying if caught.

2)b)i) When your lease ends at the predetermined date, then there is the option of going month-to-month or another fixed time (I'm not sure which party gets to decide). This is the least certain clause for me (as a landlord), since I do not know if I must re-new the lease if the tenant wants, or what I am allowed to do with the rate. I interpret it as in the lease ends, then we renegotiate either month-to-month or a fixed lease at whatever rate I want. If the tenant agrees, then great. If they don't agree, then they move out.

One can also interpret it that if it converts to month to month, then the same lease terms remain and the landlord must abide by the max raise set out by the government. If it converts to another fixed lease, then the lease remains at the same terms for a repeat of the same time length. I am also not sure if it is the tenant who decides which route (m-t-m or fixed), or the landlord.

I never use this clause because I am not sure which interpretation is correct. If you checked this box, I would recommend checking what it really means with the Residential Tenancy Board

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...274E030254B3DD

2)b)ii) I always use this clause, because it is the most advantageous to me, as a landlord. I verbally tell the tenant at the start of the lease that I have no intention of having them move out at the end of the first lease. I let them know that if I am happy with them, then I will gladly enter a new lease when the first lease is up. But at the end of the day, this clause gives me ultimate power. I have freedom of raising the second lease with the same tenant to what ever rate I want. Also, if I decide to sell or things in my life change and I need them out, I know exactly what day I have the power to get them out. If you checked this box, then the landlord can raise the rate to whatever they want for the second lease. If you don't like it, then you are SOL since you initialed that box.

c) I assume you didn't check this clause.

Option 2)a) is most advantageous to tenants. They can stay as long as they want (assuming they pay on time and aren't destructive) and know that their rent can only change by a 2-4% amount each year.

Option 2)b)ii) is best for landlords. Since I pretty much have no recourse if a tenant leaves, a fixed time length doesn't add value to me anyways. Sure, I can try to sue (if they even have any money at all), but the cost/time of that isn't worth the few months they exit early by. What I like about this clause is that when the lease is up; I either kick them out if I don't like them or renew the lease at my terms. If they don't like it, I put someone else in. It's super clear and they can't argue with me about it.

So far I have picked really good tenants and have been merciful. If I do raise the rate after the first lease, it is usually within the 2-4% anyways just to keep up with strata fee increases.

edit: wow, good answer nds88.

i was curious about rent controls in vancouver, so i look a quick look.

unless i'm missing something related to the definition of tenancy in buildings built after a certain point, it seems pretty straightforward:

1) Length of the tenancy:
Fixed-term - A tenancy set for a specific period of time (e.g. a year, a month or a week). The tenancy cannot be ended earlier than the date fixed unless both parties agree in writing or are ordered by an arbitrator. A “move out” clause can be included requiring the tenant to move out on the date the agreement ends – both parties must have their initials next to this term in order for this to be enforceable. If the agreement doesn’t say what happens at the end of the term, the tenancy continues on a month-to-month basis and the tenant doesn’t have to move out or sign a new fixed-term agreement

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...y%20Agreements

2) Landlords can only increase the rent once a year by an amount permitted by law or an additional amount approved in advance by an arbitrator – they need to use the right form and give the tenant three full months’ notice of the rent increase.
The maximum allowable rent increase changes each year.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page...nt%20Increases

so, at most, it sounds like you got your 3 months notice.

if you want to look at the act directly, your question should be answered by 13(2)(f) here, linked right from that page:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...vision_d2e1270

so basically, look carefully at your tenancy agreement and figure it out from there. if there's no mention of ownership change negating an agreement or the month-to-month transition (which reads that it should take effect with the end of the pre-determined lease period unless explicitly stated), then you should be good to go on the annual increase rather than the "market rate" that the leasing agent is throwing out there.

Thanks Long Weekend.

1) Now its more clear. M-t-M if the tenant chooses at the end of the lease if option 2)b)i) was selected in form RTB-1 (unless an addendum or note explicitly writes that a new lease is the first option)

Its still not Sun Tzu approved for a landlord, so this reinforces not using it.

2) I believe that this only applies to M-t-M agreements. If its signing a brand new second lease, there is freedom to choose the new rate. Bit of a loophole.

Also, it is not legal to have a clause that says new owners negate existing agreements. The new owners take over the tenancy and must honor the contracts in place.

So if Klazu does convert to M-t-M, he should be good with the 2-4% increase (I still recommend checking with a lawyer or the tenancy board)

Thank you for the quality replies, guys! Unfortunately our current rental agreement is type 2)b)ii) which gives the new landlord the power to have us move out or renew the lease under his/her terms.

Our old landlord was very upfront about the fact that he may need to sell the suite at the end of our current lease, which is why he mandated us selecting this option to give him the best position to try sell the suite. So we knew this would leave us hanging by the wire, but we had no option. Fortunately the suite was bought by people that want to rent it out and not live there themselves, so the only question is for what price.

I was looking to hear if there would be any rule about what would be considered "reasonable rent hike" upon new contract being signed, but as I was guessing, it seems to be totally up to the landlord. As mentioned, we don't at this point know whether they will consider hiking the rent 25-40%, but that seems to be what the rental agency is eager to be proposing to them. New owners living oversees, my worry is that they don't really know what the real going price is, as honestly the "market price" the rental agency is dreaming of is at the very top end of the scale.

I searched for similar suites in our building and the going rate seems to be only 0-10% higher than what we are currently paying. Granted, there is one place renting with that 40% premium, but that unit is furnished and based on the photos seems renovated with much more luxurious finishings. Our unit is in the original state (the building is 14 years old) and shows quite a bit of wear and tear when you look around, which we pointed out to the rental agent.

So it all depends on how greedy or reasonable our new landlord wants to be and how well they understand the local market rates being. I hope it will work to our benefit that the new landlord is renting our condos in several countries and has had bad experiences with bad tenants. We are extremely good and stable tenants, which they have been told by many parties, which I hope will make them want to keep us no matter what and be reasonable, but we will see.

If it ends up being a snafu, then we can always try rent one of the other units in the building. Thanks to my photos of the window exchange project and the building most of the residents actually know us and our previous landlord, our neighbors and the concierge love us. So there is the option to find something else in-house. Or then we have to find the next dream home elsewhere Downtown.

No matter what the case ends up being, if we have to move out of this unit, it will be a sad day, no matter what. Let's see what happens. Wish us luck! :)

Moving is a pain, but at least you might be able to get a unit in the same building if you need to cross that bridge. Glad to hear you weren't blinded sided and the previous landlord was transparent with you.

Here's a few suggestions.

If you are confident that your current rent is at market level, then you can try calling them out on their mistake. Have them list it at the premium price now (as a test) to see what the market interest level is. Have them realize no one is going to rent it if it actually is over priced. Then swoop in and negotiate a fair renewal price (don't pick option 2)b)ii again).

If it is a hot unit and people are highly interested, then you at least know in advance that it wasn't meant to be for you. Then you have extra time to find a place instead of finding out last minute.

Compile a listing of rentals in the building and their rates. Get a few listings of comparable units near by. Show them their numbers are out of whack. Make it as easy as possible for them by doing the homework and putting a summary page together. Gather a few reference letters, employer letters and keep the unit in tip top shape to show you are the ideal tenant anyways. Perhaps your previous landlord will sign an outstanding reference letter (write it yourself and have them sign it - make it easy for them). Its always impressive when you have your s**t together.

Its a bit of work, but if you think it will tip the scale to your favor, then it may be worth your time.

Its probably not likely or ethical, but can you cut them a "referral" check for the commission they would get with the rent raise instead?

Good luck!

Thank you, nds88. You have been a great help and I highly appreciaty your ideas! :cheers:

The worst indeed ended up happening and our new landlord is looking to increase our rent by ridiculous 31,5%. That is completely out of whack and despite capable of still affording it, we will definitely NOT be paying extra five figures annually for the same walls - no matter how fantastic this apartment has been. There is just so much more that one can do with that money and it is crazy to even think about putting so much money into accommodation.

Being a skyscraper lover to the heart, I am still depressed by the news :( and so I have yet to build a case to show how out of touch with reality they are. I doubt it will change anything, but I will certainly do it. Meanwhile we have already started looking at other apartments.

As it will be very difficult to find anything even remotely similar, our plan is to look for something different instead. I am sure we will have to settle for a lower floor in the future, but having a big balcony or patio would be nice. There are some interesting views some buildings in this city do offer. We have a great budget to be working with, so the biggest problem will be availability of great suites.

Leaving Downtown is a BIG question on our mind, as living in Downtown is fantastic. Even going across the water to Kitsilano feels like a huge mental step to take and for example Granville Bridge is anything but a short walk across.

Other considerations are also places like Metrotown and North Vancouver, but in Metrotown one is tied to the busy Skytrain (which can still be fast, but is crowded). In North Vancouver the prices seem to be much more affordable and there are some great skyline views, but those bridges and the weather... :(

So it seems to be 95% likely that we will be on our way out at the end of April, but on the positive note at least there is some activity on the rental market. Not surprisingly there are also other landlords trying to ask ridiculous rents, like that one person thinking he can still charge $5500 for his tiny Shangri-La apartment that lost all its views because of Trump and 745 Thurlow. :rolleyes: Oh, how delucional some people can be that just the building will sell it... :D

So the search is once again on and I would appreciate any comments on areas and buildings. Rewards from the best tip will be some nice photos in the future. :)

Good luck with the search. Not what I was hoping to hear though.

The Olympic Village area is good and has some nice views. Lots of new stock being added with the completion of Central, Lido, Meccanica, Opsal, West etc

If you have gone past the lease end date and a new lease has not been signed then you are month to month regardless of what you ticked and the move out clause is null and void. In this case they can only increase your rent by the allowed amount and they cant evict you unless a family member is moving in. If your lease is expiring give the tenancy branch a call and ask for clarification and/or arbitration. If your lease is still valid then they cant change it or enforce the move out clause until it expires.

Don't let a property management company trick you, they are notorious for that. Also be careful regarding misinformation. Believe it or not there is nothing illegal about lying to you and getting you to sign a new lease, but it is very profitable and many people fall for it.

Sorry to hear about that Klaus. I think you'd find Metrotown a bit of a culture shock if you are worried about Kits!

I have a question to those who seem knowledgable about leases, isn't Klaus' signed contract with the original owner, and not any new owner?

The weather on Lonsdale, especially Lower Lonsdale, is not any different than downtown. It's the higher up areas, in the valleys to the sides (Capilano and Lynn/Seymour) that get huge dumpings of rain when the rest of Vancouver doesn't. I absolutely hated living near upper Mosquito Creek as a kid for this reason, whereas I am pleasantly surprised by LoLo's weather.

Although I won't defend the bridges and will say it is a bit of a different culture. People on the north shore generally wouldn't live downtown even if they could afford it, which of course they often can.

Thanks for these, but it is pretty clear case with our current rental agreement. It was knowingly set to end this April under our previous landlord. When the new owners took possession of the suite, we had papers moved to them under the same conditions (still ending in April). They did notify us exactly three months ahead of this that the lease is ending, but it can be renewed if agreeing to rent increase of 31,5%. So it has been done according to the book and unfortunately there is no way out of that. :(

But you are completely correct that these rental agencies are not to be trusted one bit. I have been inquiring other units in this building and I had one rental agency telling me how this one unit in this building has been tremendously successfully rented out almost constantly during the past 8 years they have been managing it. I asked about it from the concierge and their records show the unit having been empty for at least half of the time. In my latest email to them I called their BS, but I do not expect them to be admitting it or feeling one bit sorry for it.

It's actually a pretty funny unit. It is located around the same level in the building, but faces the least-desirable direction and has carpet :yuck: in all rooms. Even then they are asking 54% more than we have been paying for a much more desirable one. :koko:

With that it is no wonder why the unit has sat empty half of the time. It's just pretty interesting think how stupid the landlord needs to be to continue making a loss years after year just because being so damn greedy. I suppose they pray on tenants utilizing the "Fool them once, shame on them..." philosophy... :rolleyes:

We have spent so much time watching the market that we know the reasonable rent level. That's why I am still to make my case to our new landlord which I think has been BS'ed by the new rental agency to think their unit is worth much more than it really is. I don't know if a voice of reason will be of any help, but I will still do it when I just get the chance and have all these details. ;)

Are you sure?

It the agreement just says that the lease ends in April then the landlord can NOT increase the rent by that amount.

The only way that they can increase the rent by that amount if the lease explicity states that you MUST MOVE OUT in April. You and the landlord must initial extra boxes on the rental agreement to show that it is a fix term tenancy that ends and that you are moving out.

It doesn't sound like this is the type of agreement you signed. So the rental increase is illegal. I don't think you should let them get away with it.

Thanks b5baxter, but unfortunately this was already concluded back in January and the "must move out" clause is there. :(

You should still call the tenancy branch. You may be surprised. Don't assume anything. You can not circumnavigate the act. You may be able to have the move out clause invalidated if they intend to continue renting out the unit but for more money then is allowable. The act specifically is meant to prevent these sorts of scenarios. Move out clauses are not meant to be a way to be able to force illegal rent increases. Also make sure you very clearly articulate all the facts, especially that they told you that you can stay at a 40% rent increase and that they will continue to rent the unit.

Ultimately all that matters is what the RTB tells you.

Residential Tenancy Branch General Information:
Public Information Lines:
604-660-1020
250-387-1602
1-800-665-8779 (Toll free from anywhere in BC)

Their office is on Kings Way in Burnaby just east of Metrotown.

Good luck. Act fast.

Thanks cornholio for giving some faint hope, but I did call the RTB and they are saying the case is clear when the move out clause is there. The current lease will end at the said date and a new one needs to be signed. At that point the landlord is not constrained by the old lease in any way and may set whatever price he wants and thinks he can get. Having the landlord change during the ongoing lease does not change the situation in any way.

I also asked if there is anything protecting BC tenants against overseas investors coming in purchasing rental properties and hiking up rents when a lease is up. Unfortunately there is nothing protecting the current tenant (or the future tenant) if the move out clause is there. :(

I think the only option left is to try to reason with our new landlord, but I think his greedy expectations are just way off with the reality to reach any kind of conclusion. He will have to learn the reality the hard way after having his unit maybe 30-50% of the time empty instead of 100% steady income. Unfortunately this won't help us.

We have already started seeing other units, but boy it is hard to find anything similar! Layouts in most of the new buildings are just horrible. Even 1200 sqf is not much and does not equal to spacious rooms. It seems to be that only 1400 sqf and above will begin to feel spacious and those suites are not many in Downtown. :(

I realize that we are moving out of an almost 1600 sqf suite, so it will be challenging to fit a large king size bed, 8-seat dining table and two large couches in many tower condos and still have room to move around... :uhh:

Interesting. Well if you are the type send Global / CBC etc. a email with your story. They absolutely love stuff like this. By shining the public eye on such a horrible loophole hopefully it will be quickly closed. There is nothing wrong with a move out clause, there is a shit load wrong with using it as a way to circumnavigate the maximum legal rent increases and only hurts the livability of the city. There is a reason we have tenancy laws, housings costs represent a large share of peoples income and moving causes huge disruptions to peoples lives.

To get you started:

http://www.vancouversun.com/about-va...editorial.html

Global BC
[email protected]
604-420-2288

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/about/contact/

http://www.bbc.com/news/contact-us/h.../news/10725415

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/contact-us

Also make sure you fire off the same email to your MLA (Mary McNeil?) and MP (Hedy Fry).

Go big or go home. You will do everyone a favor. Just write up a email template and fire it off to all the news outlets. The various journalists/reporters will contact you and certainly do a story. Do this before you move out. Maybe you will have a higher up from RTB contact you again. Dont forget to throw the management company under the bus as well, along with the abuse of this loophole. Don't sleep before any interview so you look stressed and tired. But dress smart to gain sympathy. Good luck. Have fun. *If its a foreign buyer make sure you include this information, this is perfect bait for everyone to jump on.

Well c'mon let's get serious, the public doesn't feel much sympathy for someone who can afford a 1,600sq foot unit at Wall Centre. Klazu is an awesome poster (and most likely awesome person) and deserves sympathy but news channels would rather have a story about some schmuck from a middle class area getting kicked out by a 1%er.

Yeah, it's an unfortunate situation for Klazu, but this case doesn't really represent the type of tenancy hardship that the media would care to pick up on.

I hear you guys and you are right. The only thing a news story would accomplish would be us getting the "landlords, avoid at all cost!!" stigma, so perhaps not a good idea. We like our "your dream tenants" stigma better. And I always have you guys as my support group, so that's enough "skyscraper living" empathy one can ever need! :D

Anyways, going to see another suite across a water this evening. Looking forward to the view that we have been promised. ;)

I get annoyed at Global for some of their "fight for the little man" stories. Half the time, we never hear the other side of the story, but those guys get vilified anyway. Anyway, enjoy your million dollar apartment while it lasts :rolleyes:

If the rent is below market, the landlord CAN apply for a special rent increase by showing lots of documentation.
.

Okay, now it is final: we will be leaving our suite on May 1st. During the last month we really tried to reason with the new landlord and were ready to meet them halfway by accepting to pay 15% more for the suite. Unfortunately that was not enough for them, as they were fixated on their ask price of 32% more, which is well above the market price.

We did make a very compelling and well-argumented case for our best price and presented several similar or identical units in the same and other buildings. We also made it very clear that the building is 14 years old, which shows as the suite is in original condition with lots of wear and tear. Unfortunately this was to no avail, as the new landlord views this as an equivalent to Shangri-La (which of course it not the case).

We even had our previous landlord and our neighbours make a strong reference for our stay, describing how great tenants we have been and how there has in the past been tenants that did not upkeep the unit and were not good neighbours (at least one needed to be evicted). Also that was no help to our case and it seems that there was no words of reason that could have helped us reach a conclusion in here. It was all about maximizing the investment.

Although it will be sad to leave and annoying to be moving again, at least we are happy that we don't have to be paying inflated price for something that is clearly not worth it. That money will be much better spent somewhere else. I also have to say that even though a compromise could have been reached, we would have not been happy to continue living here after having an aggressive phone call with the rental agency. Their unprofessionalism came very clear from their argumentation throughout our conversation and I would never trust my money or property with them.

Anyways, I hope something nice can be found in the next 50 days. We will be going to see places again tonight.

Too bad Klazu, I feel for you.

Sadly, the landlord will probably lose a few months rent learning that they are asking too much, and wish they had you back in the summer.

again, the new owners probably overpaid and couldn't afford not to seek top dollar.

Thanks, Warren. This is also something we highlighted to them as a very valid risk not necessarily worth taking when the difference between what we were ready to pay and what they were asking was around just one month's rent. Other units renting for those high prices in this building are also mostly aiming for just 2-3 month short-term leases, meaning that there is a lot of downtime between tenants and tenants keep changing a lot.

That is a very different situation vs. having someone live in the unit around the year and bring in a steady and completely worry-free income of close to $50k (!!!) annually.

We don't know what the case is, but they seem to be approaching this from a buyer's perspective. We were given arguments like "the building was so properly built" which is not relevant to a tenant. All a tenant cares is in what condition the unit is in today and doesn't care about how sound the structure might be or how big status symbol the building was when built 14 years ago. It's pain and simply old when there no renovation has been done.

Anyways, I am not that unhappy about the result when knowing that this may end up saving us as much as our car lease and insurance is. The point being, the money potentially saved with moving out can be used in a much better way elsewhere. :rolleyes:

It really sucks to hear that it didn't work out.

I suppose if you were able to work out a compromise and stayed there, there was a risk of a bad relationship with the owner/rental management, and possibly a passive aggressive attitude from them, or another massive dispute whenever they had the opportunity to to raise the rent again.

So maybe given their behaviour and attitude, it's better not to be there at all.

Good luck with your search. Sometimes owners and rental agencies are too greedy and want max $ even if it means losing out on an A+ tenant. When the asking rent is too high, it may get rented but to a tenant with a lot more issues (missed rent, unstable jobs et)

Sorry to hear about the rental issues, most likely a blessing in disguise as the LLs will likely be nothing but an issue in the future.

One silver lining to us here is we are party to dozens of great photos as you apartment hunt. I selfishly want you to have to keep looking right to the bitter end!

Haha, I guess that's a positive indeed. :D

We can see the unit being listed online as of today. Just to play it safe, they bumped the ask price with another hundred bucks. Only +34,5% higher than what we have been paying. Jeez... Stay away from that rip-off... :koko:

I am bummed after looking (just for fun) at Toronto rentals on Craigslist. With our budget we could get a 1300sqf brand new condo on the 67th floor of Aura!! That's...that's...crazy! And you don't have to tell us how salaries would be higher in Toronto as well.

Why do Vancouver have to be the most expensive of them all?? If only Toronto would have some mountains nearby, but no... :(

Money isn't everything. Sure there's a higher salary in Toronto but would you want to live there?

That's the thing - I would never trade Vancouver for Toronto's bigger salaries. I love Vancouver for what it is and in my mind other cities don't compare to it.

It is so unfortunate that Vancouver is the only major city with this mild climate. For me the climate is not the reason to live specifically in here and I wouldn't mind a tougher winter, but I do realieze it is The Reason for many to live here. For me it's the mountains and the closeness to nature that is the number one reason to live here and nowhere else.

But I can help to think how life in that 67th floor condo would be like. Pretty damn sweet, I bet. :rolleyes:

An English Bay sunset is always nice!

If you'd stop taking such fantastic photos broadcasting the beauty of our city to the world, maybe the Chinese billionaires and Arabian royalty that buy 75% of all condos in the city would stop pricing you out of the penthouses! :uhh:

Toronto's a fantastic place to live. Much better city vibe for a Skyscraper enthusiast. All that being said, Vancouver is overpriced and has been for a while. Prices, despite what the media reports, have been falling or stagnant for over a year now. Puff pieces in the paper make it seem like Chinese investors are buying up the whole city.

The amount of debt we're racking up is epic.

I mean besides going to work what can you get to by transit?

Haha, I know! I am half guilty for my own dilemma. :P

Well except for the freezing winters and the sweltering sticky summers. Other than that it's OK. ;)

Prices have been stagnating on the properties that working locals can afford (condos, SFH in Langley, Maple Ridge). The brakes are still off in markets being sold to offshore interests: SFH in Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby.

We have been seeing 15 different suites and just when we started feeling hopeless with the offering and prices in this city, a surprise contender appeared in Coal Harbour. What are your thoughts on the Denia building that is part of the Waterfront Place complex? It is right by the water along West Hastings Street. Very quiet location right by the Seawall with nice landscaping and water features. The suite we saw is only on the 14th floor, but offers great water and mountain views from two balconies.

It is quite different from 45th floor of One Wall Center, but the suite is large with great layout and a very appealing price. There is carpet in all rooms which is a deal-breaker, but we have inquired owner's interest in replacing it with laminate or hardwood for a higher rent.

The building was designed by my "favorite" architect James Cheng and was developed by Aspac Developments Ltd. Denia was built in 2003.

Well that was a bummer. We just heard that the owner is not interested to replace carpet floors, even though we would be ready to pay $200/month more. :(

One would think hardwood floors are a no-brainer when you are renting out, as most people wooden floors over carpet (at least outside of bedrooms).

I think the building (or its sister next door) would otherwise be a nice place to live. I justlearned that Aspac Developments built also the three Harbour Green towers, which are pretty high-end.

Should be a no brainer in concrete buildings but in wooden buildings not so much. Sometimes I think people just get lazy and people are still used to wood out here. Single family homes, townhouses, most low level apartments etc are still crappy wood with crappy sound insulation and carpets are a better choice. But yeah, real concrete (not the fake stuff developers seem to be getting away with now a days) go with hardwood or tile or what ever and throw a rug over it if you want.

Prices for condos yes. Prices for single family homes just seemed to have a had a shot of adrenalin over the past 6 months.

There is nature and mountains all around Seattle and Portland and Eugene and Fresno and LA etc. and in between. The west coast has plenty to offer. The only difference between Vancouver and the rest of the west coast is immigration policies, banking practices and lower paying jobs. As for me I enjoy the nature here, I am out most weekends in the bush at the very least, but I can tell you I don't see anyone that is buying around me enjoying the nature as well. Actually I have no idea what they do or where they work. My point is there are plenty of nice places on the west coast, and around the world.

No denying that, but USA and Canada are quite different countries. Although I like many cities in the States, I would never want to live there due to several reasons. I wish Canada would have more large cities on west coast for snow refugees to retire to. :(

That's a good point about sound insulation. Didn't think about it, but isn't it more a factor to people living below you than oneself?

Fresno? Not even in the same league, and Eugene isn't really either.

What is considered a good ROI for a rental apartment in Vancouver? One rental agent told us that 3% return would be considered good or even very good.

If one assumes that the new owners didn't seriously overpay for our current unit, they should have paid around 1.5 million for it. There are and have recently been several similar units on market for 1.5-1.65 million and I am pretty sure haggling would get you this place for around 1.5 million.

With that price our current rent should yield 2,86% ROI. That is of course on the cheap side, but our highest offer would mean 3,28% return for their investment. Their ask price would mean a ROI of 3,84%. This is all of course excluding Strata fees, property taxes, etc. but what do you guys think about those numbers?

The suite has now been on market for 4.5 weeks for the +35% markup price and there has been very little interest towards it. Soon after they listed it for the first time there was supposed to have been "lots of interested viewers", but surprisingly every single one of them cancelled just 15 minutes before the scheduled viewing. We called their BS on that case, but after that there has actually been three couples to see the place. I don't think two of the couples were serious at all and the third viewer made a pass on it.

I can imagine their desperation growing every day and we have already heard comments like "we would love to keep you if you just change your mind" from the rental agent. It is definitely a different tone than earlier, but we are not budging with our best offer. I think both we and them will run out of time and we have to schedule a move-out crew next week (already quite late!). We have not found anything nice enough or worth the prices people are asking, so we are now considering moving to a furnished suite for few months. It is double the hassle, but will allow us keep looking without being against an immovable deadline like we currently are.

Don't budge. They will either come to their senses, or regret it later.

Higher than normal rent probly means higher turnover, consequently you end up losing money. Plus all the headache of finding good new tenants. Not worth it in my view. Shortsighted greedy landlords. (Sorry landlords).