[Burnaby] Concord Metrotown | 230.1m | 65,45,33 fl | U/C

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Buying real estate is like investing in options.

For the small(ish) price of a 20% down payment, you can own 100% of the underlying asset value. The remaining 80% (mortgage) and strata/running fees get paid off through the rent generation. Tax on rental income can be offset by deducting mortgage interest. In 10-20 years, the mortgage is paid off and the investor benefits from the land appreciation which is almost guaranteed since land is scarce, development is struggling to keep up with demand, and property ownership is generally preferred to rentals (if all things are equal) since it inherently provides security.

Yes, the OP thinks that doubling in value over 15 years means everyone turned $1m of their own dollars into $2m of their own dollars.

What really happened is everyone turned $200k of their dollars and $800k of the bank's dollars into $1.6m of their dollars and $200k of the bank's dollars (after paying interest/taxes/upkeep).

[LeftCoaster]

Precisely.

The power of leverage.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Precisely.

The power of leverage.

Though bear in mind that if you have access to financing (and a strong stomach), you'd still be better off investing in the stock market.

[Repthe250]

Am I the only one not delusional to the fact that before the foreign buyer ban and empty home tax, most new condos were marketed overseas to mainland Chinese millionaires and sat empty? HENCE the need for said foreign buyer ban and empty home tax? Am I the only one? Let’s all pretend majority of the condos in Vancouver are owned by the banks.
Let’s all pretend condo prices doubled, if not tripled in the last 15-25 years due to “inflation”. Come on, guys. Condos in Vancouver were built for investments and nothing more. And clearly they’re good investments too.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Am I the only one not delusional to the fact that before the foreign buyer ban and empty home tax, most new condos were marketed overseas to mainland Chinese millionaires and sat empty? HENCE the need for said foreign buyer ban and empty home tax? Am I the only one? Let’s all pretend majority of the condos in Vancouver are owned by the banks.
Let’s all pretend condo prices doubled, if not tripled in the last 15-25 years due to “inflation”. Come on, guys. Condos in Vancouver were built for investments and nothing more. And clearly they’re good investments too.

There's probably a more appropriate thread for your opinions on condo investment. Before the foreign buyer ban was introduced, Statistics Canada carried out a detailed analysis of ownership. In BC most condos were owner occupied, but 36.3% were owned by investors. It was a higher proportion in Ontario, (42%) 36.5% in Nova Scotia, and 29.3% of Manitoba condos were owned by investors.

In BC 18.1% of condos were owned by investors who lived in BC, 8.6% were owned by businesses, 7% were owned by overseas investors and 2.6% by out of province investors.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Repthe250

Am I the only one not delusional to the fact that before the foreign buyer ban and empty home tax, most new condos were marketed overseas to mainland Chinese millionaires and sat empty? HENCE the need for said foreign buyer ban and empty home tax? Am I the only one? Let’s all pretend majority of the condos in Vancouver are owned by the banks.
Let’s all pretend condo prices doubled, if not tripled in the last 15-25 years due to “inflation”. Come on, guys. Condos in Vancouver were built for investments and nothing more. And clearly they’re good investments too.

Do you ever think yourself that it's odd that the foreign buyer ban and empty home tax didn't seem to usher in tens of thousands of new homes onto the market?

No one said that condo prices increased purely due to inflation. It's all supply and demand, and supply is simply not being allowed to keep up with demand. The primary issue in the Canadian real estate market is that we have a command economy for real estate which is lead by the Supreme Soviets municipal councils. There is no consideration of supply concerns, since the only concerns are whether the quotas set by councils are being met and whether the products conform to what the councils feel are "right". No consideration of basic economics.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Do you ever think yourself that it's odd that the foreign buyer ban and empty home tax didn't seem to usher in tens of thousands of new homes onto the market?

No one said that condo prices increased purely due to inflation. It's all supply and demand, and supply is simply not being allowed to keep up with demand. The primary issue in the Canadian real estate market is that we have a command economy for real estate which is lead by the Supreme Soviets municipal councils. There is no consideration of supply concerns, since the only concerns are whether the quotas set by councils are being met and whether the products conform to what the councils feel are "right". No consideration of basic economics.

The development industry determines how much gets built. There's potential for tens of thousands more units to be built in Coquitlam, Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver and here in Burnaby. (Hundreds of thousands in total). There are thousands of approved units that aren't being built - rental and condo - and thousands more that have been rezoned already.

To bring the discussion back to Concord Metrotown, it's a multi phased development that will probably take 20 years to complete. Concord could theoretically build much faster, but for a number of reasons, they don't.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The development industry determines how much gets built. There's potential for tens of thousands more units to be built in Coquitlam, Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver and here in Burnaby. (Hundreds of thousands in total). There are thousands of approved units that aren't being built - rental and condo - and thousands more that have been rezoned already.

And the recurring trend is the approved development is so far below the actual maximum development potential that a developer is better off waiting to get a higher density project approved than build what they're allowed.

Or worse, the approved development is so far below the actual maximum development potential that it's just not a viable project given the current economic conditions even if they were to go ahead.

I'm always going to be here to counter your pro-NIMBY arguments.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

And the recurring trend is the approved development is so far below the actual maximum development potential that a developer is better off waiting to get a higher density project approved than build what they're allowed.

Or worse, the approved development is so far below the actual maximum development potential that it's just not a viable project given the current economic conditions even if they were to go ahead.

I'm always going to be here to counter your pro-NIMBY arguments.

So you think there's some mythic maximum development potential that would somehow see more housing built here, and if only Burnaby would let Concord build it they would be selling all 4 phases at once?

My arguments aren't even vaguely pro NIMBY, because there are already approvals in place for many buildings that aren't proceeding.(yet). Any NIMBYs already lost the argument on those buildings. It's the realities of development financing, labour shortages, interest rates and things like that which determine how much gets built in the immediate market. That's why federal funding has helped get more rental projects be built.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So you think there's some mythic maximum development potential that would somehow see more housing built here

Yes. Obviously.

Surely you don't actually believe that developers in Metro Vancouver are only proposing the highest density they could ever possibly want and municipal councils are just meekly rubber stamping the evil developers who are intentionally building slowly to try to limit supply (while not selling and getting their returns), right?

Surely you don't actually believe that development financing isn't affected by the economic viability of projects which is directly decided by what municipal councils allow to be built?

Surely you don't actually think there's a construction labour shortage while we have fewer people working in construction now than we did in 2017 even as the population has grown significantly since then?

Surely you don't actually believe that the big multinational development companies wouldn't be able to factor interest rates in if the economic viability of the projects was high enough, which again is directly limited by municipal councils?

No, the evil developers are just conspiring amongst themselves and intentionally choosing to limit the economic viability of developments to keep a stranglehold on the supply in the province, it has nothing to do with the stranglehold that municipal councils have of course...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Yes. Obviously.

Surely you don't actually believe that developers in Metro Vancouver are only proposing the highest density they could ever possibly want and municipal councils are just meekly rubber stamping the evil developers who are intentionally building slowly to try to limit supply (while not selling and getting their returns), right?

Surely you don't actually believe that development financing isn't affected by the economic viability of projects which is directly decided by what municipal councils allow to be built?

Surely you don't actually think there's a construction labour shortage while we have fewer people working in construction now than we did in 2017 even as the population has grown significantly since then?

Surely you don't actually believe that the big multinational development companies wouldn't be able to factor interest rates in if the economic viability of the projects was high enough, which again is directly limited by municipal councils?

No, the evil developers are just conspiring amongst themselves and intentionally choosing to limit the economic viability of developments to keep a stranglehold on the supply in the province, it has nothing to do with the stranglehold that municipal councils have of course...

Your alternative reality has so little to do with this thread that I'm giving up here. The number of people working in construction being less than in 2017, while there's more development activity than then, suggests there's a labour shortage. The BC Construction Industry says there is too, but what do they know?

The government made financing available for rental housing because 90% of Canada's developers say regular loans for rental housing projects are no longer feasible.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your alternative reality has so little to do with this thread that I'm giving up here. The number of people working in construction being less than in 2017, while there's more development activity than then, suggests there's a labour shortage. The BC Construction Industry says there is too, but what do they know?

The government made financing available for rental housing because 90% of Canada's developers say regular loans for rental housing projects are no longer feasible.

Market economics are orthodox economics whether you accept that or not. No one should be subscribing to your bizarro alternative world of heterodox economics where deregulation of the municipal stranglehold on supply would have zero effect on the amount of housing built in Canada. Were developments to no longer be stifled and kindly allowed by municipal councils to have increased economic viability, financial projections would improve to justify lending rates, and wages would continue to increase to entice more workers into the workforce. Thank you for not arguing this point further. I have no time for people that argue in defense of the institutions causing our housing supply crisis.

[Lexus]

2024, June 30

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

[Spr0ckets]

It's been fascinating watching this one finally get to grade and now onto the podium level.

It's especially intruiging seeing the impact that the podium side facing Kingsway will have on that side of the street and how it potentially will completely change the character of Kingsway.
(.....the south side at least.)

[urbanight93]

Does anyone know why strategically Phase 1 was the lot furthest away from the mall?

Seems odd to me that they picked to start with that site. Also interesting that this is the site of the tallest tower then working their way closer but shorter.

Not sure what considerations they make in the decision-making.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by urbanight93

Does anyone know why strategically Phase 1 was the lot furthest away from the mall?

Seems odd to me that they picked to start with that site. Also interesting that this is the site of the tallest tower then working their way closer but shorter.

Not sure what considerations they make in the decision-making.

Probably because it's much easier to develop the phase(s) that are effectively surface parking lots (....while using the other lot as staging for the first phase), than it is the phase that involves demolishing the existing old Sears store at the mall (And still connected to the mall) which would disrupt mall activity and traffic, for the better part of several years, while being a logistical nightmare to manage with the mall that still has to operate irrespective of that.

I imagine they came to some sort of agreement with Ivanhoe that landed on this as the preferred option and which worked best for both parties (after their long dispute in the courts about it).

As to why that's the site with the tallest tower, it has more to do with their overall planning concept which you have to see from their DP application package and their design concept rationle, involving the towers rising at the edges and going down to the shortest in the middle creating some kind of U-shaped framing.

[jollyburger]

Might have had to do with getting the road network phased in a way with the underground access off of McMurray

The phasing is sort of discussed in the Master Plan document

https://search.heritageburnaby.ca/viewer...2F2017%2F30-Oct-2017%2F101644.pdf#page=1

[Lexus]

2024, Aug 20

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

[Lexus]

2024, Aug 21

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

[vanman]

The podium on this alone is going to do so much to improve the character of Kingsway. Great to see it finally taking shape.