Real Estate discussions

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

Vancouver Civic Theatres is actually a revenue generator for the City, not taxpayer funded…

Are they? budget is around the $15 million mark while revenue is around $9 million. Plus doesn't include the capital no?

Then there is the likely billion buck Cultural Precinct project coming down the pipe.

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Are they? budget is around the $15 million mark while revenue is around $9 million. Plus doesn't include the capital no?

Then there is the likely billion buck Cultural Precinct project coming down the pipe.

I think that $9M figure might just be rental fees, so doesn't include ticketing/bar/concession/merch revenue?

Make no mistake: Vancouver Civic Theatres is a critical component of the City of Vancouver’s arts and cultural portfolio. It’s also an important economic engine that will generate nearly $14 million in programming and ancillary activities this year for city coffers.


“One of the things about the theatres that a lot of people don’t understand is that we’re actually not a tax-based operation,” [Vancouver Civic Theatres director Natalie] Lue says. “We are a revenue-generating entity.”

https://pancouver.ca/vancouver-civic-the...-of-relationships-in-building-audiences/

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Glow Fun City

I think that $9M figure might just be rental fees, so doesn't include ticketing/bar/concession/merch revenue?





https://pancouver.ca/vancouver-civic-the...-of-relationships-in-building-audiences/

Just went into the service lines.
$8.1 rentals
$2.9 concessions
$2 ticket surcharges
$0.2 other
$1 million for parking in 2024.

Revenues: $14.2

Expenditures: $15.5

So yeah, close enough to call it a wash.

Over the 3 year capital plan, there was a $2 million upgrade planned, plus $16 million of regular, everyday maintenance (but that was over all 'culturual facilities' not just civic theatres.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Are they? budget is around the $15 million mark while revenue is around $9 million. Plus doesn't include the capital no?

Then there is the likely billion buck Cultural Precinct project coming down the pipe.

I don't think we'll see the Cultural Precinct project in our lifetime. The province is too overextended and as seen by the VAG project there certainly aren't enough donors (despite all the Rolls Royces, Bentleys and Ferraris plying our streets) to fund it.

[whatnext]

Looks like Poilievre's criticism of this as "a transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have-yachts." is landing some blows as the PM is now in full defensive mode. And for the "but Poilievre" crowd please note that the NDP criticism of this vague program has been just as vociferous.

Carney defends $1.45B plan to convert unbought B.C. condos to affordable rent-to-own
Prime minister suggests plan would include rent-to-buy component
Lauren Vanderdeen · CBC News · Posted: Jun 25, 2026 12:41 PM

Prime Minister Mark Carney says the provincial and federal governments have done a poor job of explaining their plan to buy unsold, vacant condos in British Columbia and turn them into affordable housing.

"I don't think we've done — myself included — a particularly good job of rolling this out," Carney said at a news conference in Ottawa Thursday.

Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby announced the plan last week, saying they would leverage "innovative financing tools" to turn more than 2,200 vacant condo units into affordable homes....

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/...ht-be-a-bailout-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Looks like Poilievre's criticism of this as "a transfer of wealth from the have-nots to the have-yachts." is landing some blows as the PM is now in full defensive mode. And for the "but Poilievre" crowd please note that the NDP criticism of this vague program has been just as vociferous.

Carney defends $1.45B plan to convert unbought B.C. condos to affordable rent-to-own
Prime minister suggests plan would include rent-to-buy component
Lauren Vanderdeen · CBC News · Posted: Jun 25, 2026 12:41 PM

Prime Minister Mark Carney says the provincial and federal governments have done a poor job of explaining their plan to buy unsold, vacant condos in British Columbia and turn them into affordable housing.

"I don't think we've done — myself included — a particularly good job of rolling this out," Carney said at a news conference in Ottawa Thursday.

Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby announced the plan last week, saying they would leverage "innovative financing tools" to turn more than 2,200 vacant condo units into affordable homes....

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/...ht-be-a-bailout-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be

It was clearly a late addition when the province wouldn't play ball on cutting PST on new builds. Added to a provincial program which everyone had assumed was pretty dead due to lack of enthusiasm from everyone involved.

[GenWhy?]

"Prime Minister Mark Carney says the provincial and federal governments have done a poor job of explaining their plan to buy unsold, vacant condos in British Columbia and turn them into affordable housing."

Probably on the "defensive" because the media was on a lying spree utilizing few to little rolled-out program details - details we only started receiving today it looks like as this mentions rent to own which I don't think was released before

[ecbin]

Eby also did a Q&A today with the press to answer questions:

https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/ep...?id=44cac6a8-4a82-4c18-92e2-711678c207b0

tl;dr:

- Not buying in Vancouver, the numbers don't pencil for units made there. They expect to buy on the island, the valley, the Okanagan, and other cities in the GVRD.
- The GST rebate solution for Ontario wasn't useful here as it would only help 2nd time home buyers, they wanted to help first time home buyers.
- They see an opportunity to buy at or below the cost of construction.
- Their intention is that developers make zero profit on this (not sure how they'd prove this).
- They think that by bulk buying or buying through bankruptcies that they can buy at prices lower than individuals can buy.
- It's for middle class people as there's already 3,000 social housing units being built. This is for people who are stuck renting and can't come up with a downpayment.
- Total program is $1.45m with $145m from the feds. Of that $300m is the money that they'll never see again (eg. the subsidy to the buyers), the rest sounds like money to operate (buy the units to hold or support the rent to own program).

I was cautiously optimistic last week as I could see the potential upside (and the downsides) and the details from Eby and Carney are all pretty positive - I'd say the reasoning is reasonably sound though there are still many variables.

Edit: Based on the learnings today, most of the outrage of the past week has totally been unjustified.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

"Prime Minister Mark Carney says the provincial and federal governments have done a poor job of explaining their plan to buy unsold, vacant condos in British Columbia and turn them into affordable housing."

Probably on the "defensive" because the media was on a lying spree utilizing few to little rolled-out program details - details we only started receiving today it looks like as this mentions rent to own which I don't think was released before

If you don't have the details, don't announce it.

Now it just comes across as they're winging it with a few billion dollars.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by ecbin

- They see an opportunity to buy at or below the cost of construction.
- Their intention is that developers make zero profit on this (not sure how they'd prove this).
- They think that by bulk buying or buying through bankruptcies that they can buy at prices lower than individuals can buy.

Again, the government cannot buy "below market" because if those units were viable at that price, they would have already been sold, so bulk buying just creates an artificial floor that keeps prices higher than they should be.

Second is that bailing out failed projects creates a moral hazard. The market needs to punish bad decisions and investmnts so developers are forced to build what people actually want at a reasonable price. What happens if a developer builds an apartment that was unreasonably expensive to build because of mismanagement or using more expensive materials? Why should the government be covering the cost?

Can the federal government just bully provinces into banning DCCs and ACCs and upzoning land around transit.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by ecbin

- Not buying in Vancouver, the numbers don't pencil for units made there. They expect to buy on the island, the valley, the Okanagan, and other cities in the GVRD.

So Onni, Westbank et al are on their own and have to either sell low or else? That appears to kill 90% of the controversy in Vancouver proper.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Again, the government cannot buy "below market" because if those units were viable at that price, they would have already been sold, so bulk buying just creates an artificial floor that keeps prices higher than they should be.

Second is that bailing out failed projects creates a moral hazard. The market needs to punish bad decisions and investmnts so developers are forced to build what people actually want at a reasonable price. What happens if a developer builds an apartment that was unreasonably expensive to build because of mismanagement or using more expensive materials? Why should the government be covering the cost?

Can the federal government just bully provinces into banning DCCs and ACCs and upzoning land around transit.

If you could be bothered to WATCH the Q&A you'll see Eby never talks about "below market" - he just wants in on what private investors are in on and says so. If these were purchased by private investors they'd just be flipped, instead he intends to subsidise the resale of these homes through some form of rent to own and the federal gov't is providing some of the funds to do that so the impact of raising the price floor a bit on distressed assets is irrelevant to him - he can do more with those assets than what the private sector will do with them.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So Onni, Westbank et al are on their own and have to either sell low or else? That appears to kill 90% of the controversy in Vancouver proper.

That's what he said - he said this is not for buyouts of luxury condos because the financials don't work for the province. I'm very curious if they work in Burnaby or Richmond where there are a lot of empty units - I'm guessing no but he did specifically focus on Vancouver being a no as a reporter said "Metro Vancouver" and he corrected her.

He really emphasised the notion that whatever they buy has to be homes that would currently cost more to build themselves. "At or below the cost of construction" was his go-to phrase.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by ecbin

If you could be bothered to WATCH the Q&A you'll see Eby never talks about "below market" - he just wants in on what private investors are in on and says so. If these were purchased by private investors they'd just be flipped, instead he intends to subsidise the resale of these homes through some form of rent to own and the federal gov't is providing some of the funds to do that so the impact of raising the price floor a bit on distressed assets is irrelevant to him - he can do more with those assets than what the private sector will do with them.

How can Eby be in on something private investors are in on, if the prospective private investors are not purchasing these units? The apartments are already owned by incumbent private investors, and they are not flipping these units because the apartments are not selling.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by ecbin

That's what he said - he said this is not for buyouts of luxury condos because the financials don't work for the province. I'm very curious if they work in Burnaby or Richmond where there are a lot of empty units - I'm guessing no but he did specifically focus on Vancouver being a no as a reporter said "Metro Vancouver" and he corrected her.

He really emphasised the notion that whatever they buy has to be homes that would currently cost more to build themselves. "At or below the cost of construction" was his go-to phrase.

It's possible there might be an opportunity in Burnaby, as I wonder if Thind's Eclipse would be a good example of a project that bulk purchase of existing units could be negotiated at the cost of construction? Similarly the Surrey Thind project was 90% sold when the lender, KingSett pulled the plug on the financing. I assume those are the sort of opportunities that are being looked at.

Aquilini bought 67 units in the Olympic Village in 2024 to pay off the outstanding debt that the City had taken on. Those were expensive units, so not what this program is intending to replicate, but it's a similar idea.

[kikin]

Originally Posted by ecbin

...and can't come up with a downpayment.....

"can't", or chose not to make the sacrifices to save for one, a couple that worked overtime and saved and penny pinched made their downpayment, and now the couple that had the same salary and chose time off and holidays and frivolous spending are now equalized in rewards in life

and how do people qualify, is there an income cut-off, so that if you got an education in a useful degree and worked your butt off to have a better middle class career you won't qualify whereas someone that made poorer choices does qualify?

I guess if this is just a mortgage guarantee program with no down payment required it is palatable as long as purchase prices are not subsidized to lower than market by the taxpayers in general. The reality though is that with no down payment that means a $650,000 unit is going to have a high "rent to own" monthly payment required, or the government will invent a new 50 year amortization plan perhaps.... but even then, compare a $600,000 25 year mortgage on that unit vs. a no-down payment rent to own 50 year mortgage on that unit, at a low interest rate of 4% the traditional mortgage with down payment would cost about $3100 a month and you would own it clear in 25 years. A rent to own spread out over 50 years with no down payment would still cost $2600 a month and would take you 50 years before you own it clear. And this isn't even taking into account property taxes, strata fees, maintenance, insurance, periods of higher prime interest rate, etc. The government is biting off a lot here and I fear that it will be the taxpayers again paying for an unrealistic program.

That is assuming low interest rates for the next 5 decades. This "rent to own" plan sounds good to some at first hearing but the numbers are formidable and that is a long long time for government to guarantee such a non-traditional type of mortgage as well.

seems the bottom line is those that can't afford to save for a down payment also can't afford to pay the costs of purchasing either, even if the payment plan is dragged out over 50 to 75 years.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So Onni, Westbank et al are on their own and have to either sell low or else? That appears to kill 90% of the controversy in Vancouver proper.

Apparently someone forgot to tell Gregor..

...Addressing criticism over the use of public funds, Robertson asserted that the governments cannot ignore vacant newly-built housing while affordability and homelessness continue worsening.

“In a time like this, where we have record levels of homelessness, we have people that can’t access affordable rental apartments, and we have empty homes in Vancouver, in Toronto, we need to take action on this and make the most responsible decisions with it,” he continued.

Robertson said additional information on how the program will operate will be released in the near future...

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-canada-condo-acquisition-rent-to-own-homes

But have no fear details coming in the "near future"...

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

How can Eby be in on something private investors are in on, if the prospective private investors are not purchasing these units? The apartments are already owned by incumbent private investors, and they are not flipping these units because the apartments are not selling.

But they ARE being bought up by private investors (at least they are doing it in Ontario and it happened here in 2008 in Olympic Village):

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/real-estate-500-million-toronto-condo-stock-9.7199507

https://www.deeded.ca/blog/a-1-3-billion...ondos-heres-what-developers-need-to-know

https://torontorealtyblog.com/blog/investment-funds-bulk-buying-unsold-condos-is-this-good-or-bad/

In fact the Ontario gov't is part of the buying:

On March 10, an investment firm called High Art Capital announced it's raising $1.3 billion to buy newly completed, unsold condo units across the Greater Toronto Area and turn them into long-term rentals. The province's Building Ontario Fund, a Crown agency sitting on an $8-billion mandate, is anchoring the deal with up to $300 million in mezzanine debt.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by kikin

"can't", or chose not to make the sacrifices to save for one, a couple that worked overtime and saved and penny pinched made their downpayment, and now the couple that had the same salary and chose time off and holidays and frivolous spending are now equalized in rewards in life

Is this the good old, "If you stopped eating avocado toast you'd be able to buy a home?" lecture

Originally Posted by kikin

and how do people qualify, is there an income cut-off, so that if you got an education in a useful degree and worked your butt off to have a better middle class career you won't qualify whereas someone that made poorer choices does qualify?

How about just people with worse luck?

Originally Posted by kikin

I guess if this is just a mortgage guarantee program with no down payment required it is palatable as long as purchase prices are not subsidized to lower than market by the taxpayers in general. The reality though is that with no down payment that means a $650,000 unit is going to have a high "rent to own" monthly payment required, or the government will invent a new 50 year amortization plan perhaps.... but even then, compare a $600,000 25 year mortgage on that unit vs. a no-down payment rent to own 50 year mortgage on that unit, at a low interest rate of 4% the traditional mortgage with down payment would cost about $3100 a month and you would own it clear in 25 years. A rent to own spread out over 50 years with no down payment would still cost $2600 a month and would take you 50 years before you own it clear. And this isn't even taking into account property taxes, strata fees, maintenance, insurance, periods of higher prime interest rate, etc. The government is biting off a lot here and I fear that it will be the taxpayers again paying for an unrealistic program.

I would imagine the plan will steal most of its ideas from the Attainable Housing Initiative: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housi...ainable-housing-initiative-heather-lands

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by ecbin

But they ARE being bought up by private investors (at least they are doing it in Ontario and it happened here in 2008 in Olympic Village):

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/real-estate-500-million-toronto-condo-stock-9.7199507

https://www.deeded.ca/blog/a-1-3-billion...ondos-heres-what-developers-need-to-know

https://torontorealtyblog.com/blog/investment-funds-bulk-buying-unsold-condos-is-this-good-or-bad/

In fact the Ontario gov't is part of the buying:

If the government is buying these apartments, it artificially increases the prices of the housing as there is now more demand for the housing than there otherwise would have been. It makes the housing more expensive for everyone else, even if marginally. This is 'crowding out' the market.

There's also the opportunity cost. This is a billion or so dollars that the government taxed its people, who could have spent it better on themselves than the government could have.

Condos are also a depreciating asset. Unless we want the government to now have an incentive to keep the rents on these condo high to eek out a profit, which again is not good for affordability.

It's a lose-lose.