Vancouver Real Estate 'Bubble' at 30-year Peak

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Not really. So many people became realtors in recent years that competition is fierce and each realtor was forced to drop commissions and put more work into selling/advertising. A license is so easy to get that along with more business being available more people joined, the rules of supply and demand apply.

What really boomed our economy and benefited everyone+the government was the # of sales. Transactions back and forth constantly create economic growth and pays huge taxes. What frightens me is not that prices have gone down slightly, its that the # of sales has gone down significantly. Hopefully the last two months are indicative of a resurgence of sales.

And btw you criticize 30% of our economy being the real estate industry or associated industries but this is pretty normal worldwide for a city with a growing population and high amounts of tourism. Just like food will be a significant portion anywhere. California has a very similar division of the economy. When houses stop getting built but our population continues to increase....thats just frightening as to the future consequences.

Yes, too many people became realtors. Perhaps they could retrain as something beneficial to the booming economy.

No, sales have not returned to anything like historic levels, and there's no expectation that they will yet. They're just a bit better than when sales numbers were really, really low. Those realtors still need to retrain.

The reduction in Property Transfer Tax is no big deal. The Province budgeted for it to go down, and stay flat for at least the next two years. Even though it went down, there was still a budget surplus from all the other taxes collected from things like rising wages and more people in the Province. Property Transfer tax income fell by $400m last year. Total Provincial revenue was $57bn - over $5bn more than in the previous year.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Not really. So many people became realtors in recent years that competition is fierce and each realtor was forced to drop commissions and put more work into selling/advertising. A license is so easy to get that along with more business being available more people joined, the rules of supply and demand apply.

What really boomed our economy and benefited everyone+the government was the # of sales. Transactions back and forth constantly create economic growth and pays huge taxes. What frightens me is not that prices have gone down slightly, its that the # of sales has gone down significantly. Hopefully the last two months are indicative of a resurgence of sales.

So what we really need are less realtors selling more units at lower prices. Seems like we're getting that soon.

Originally Posted by misher

And btw you criticize 30% of our economy being the real estate industry or associated industries but this is pretty normal worldwide for a city with a growing population and high amounts of tourism. Just like food will be a significant portion anywhere. California has a very similar division of the economy. When houses stop getting built but our population continues to increase....thats just frightening as to the future consequences.

Criticize what? The point is that the way some people talk about the housing market, one would think it was 50-70% of the city's GDP. It's not. People won't stop working/eating/shopping/playing or anything else just because they aren't buying a home.

As for California, it's actually >22%, as are San Fran and L.A.; ditto BC (18%), because adding resource extraction, agriculture, and all the others dilutes real estate's contribution even further. The rest of the economy will be just fine.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Land and construction costs could / largely still can not compete with many feasible proposed projects. Land assembly was becoming cost prohibitive (still kinda is) and property taxes from speculation is still dangerously high for all forms of renters (commercial, residential, industrial).

To make most of these feasible with the high land and construction costs you have to sell at very high prices or rents... which gets us to where we are. Land prices and construction need to come down, and they are. Slowly. Which helps homebuyers, renters, business owners, and industry.

How can we bring down construction costs? Most materials are imported so you have USD to contend with. And our labour market is very short of skilled labour.
How do we bring value back to this sector considering also how bleak it is to work construction here 8 months of the year.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

How can we bring down construction costs? Most materials are imported so you have USD to contend with. And our labour market is very short of skilled labour.
How do we bring value back to this sector considering also how bleak it is to work construction here 8 months of the year.

Its been suggested that we reduce taxes on construction materials or provide waivers. Its also been suggested that we lower our requirements for construction and not require things like balconies, trees/landscaping on the building, a window to the outside in bedrooms, smoke detectors on every level of the elevator shaft, etc. There's a reason that in most major cities most units in highrises don't have a balcony or trees on the roof, there very expensive and are seen as a luxury. Vancouver is quite unique in that it requires every new apartment building to be built like a hotel at a massively increased cost and the more we complain about prices the more the city does things to increase construction costs. Despite being a city against smoking we seem to have a require every unit to have a balcony. And I believe it costs around 50k to add a 100sqft balcony so we're talking about significant savings that other cities enjoy. Our government and Urban Panel seem focused on the "quality of life" and "experience" of the building rather than the actual "affordability" which is a massive mistake. Reminds me of the saying if they have no bread "let them eat cake".

Note the typical Vancouver condo building:


And how it compares to a building in Portland:

[cairnstone]

The problem is people want balconies and code keeps adding to life safety so that wont change. Landscaping is a big part of the culture here. Have you seen eastern Europe apartment blocks. Very bleak densely packed together and no amenities.

Some of the costs that are effecting developments are the hidden costs such as duties and tariffs. Drywall every day of the week at home depot used to be under 7 bucks well it has doubled do to duties. Steel is another one that has a tariff attached to it.

I have been in many units where the oven still has the manual ziptied to rack. Some of these units are 5 plus years old. As a lot of people do not use the oven. Or they have come from a country where cooking is done via countertop convection.

THe city has a big influence on the price of the unit per square foot. They request fees for community improvements secondary inspections, so they can rubber stamp a Certified Professional.

They wont approve a basic square box building with basic finishes and a micro kitchen. And having a common laundry down the hall.

[misher]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

The problem is people want balconies and code keeps adding to life safety so that wont change. Landscaping is a big part of the culture here. Have you seen eastern Europe apartment blocks. Very bleak densely packed together and no amenities.

Some of the costs that are effecting developments are the hidden costs such as duties and tariffs. Drywall every day of the week at home depot used to be under 7 bucks well it has doubled do to duties. Steel is another one that has a tariff attached to it.

I have been in many units where the oven still has the manual ziptied to rack. Some of these units are 5 plus years old. As a lot of people do not use the oven. Or they have come from a country where cooking is done via countertop convection.

THe city has a big influence on the price of the unit per square foot. They request fees for community improvements secondary inspections, so they can rubber stamp a Certified Professional.

They wont approve a basic square box building with basic finishes and a micro kitchen. And having a common laundry down the hall.

Thats why I say Vancouverites are responsible for the problem. They insist on a bunch of luxuries over and above what other cities have yet complain that our housing is more expensive than other cities. If we want cheap housing then build the same housing every other city has thats cheap. But you can't ask for a Cadillac at a Chevrolet's price. We've been excessive in our requirements for design, beauty, quality of life, safety, etc. and we pay the price for it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by rofina

How can we bring down construction costs? Most materials are imported so you have USD to contend with. And our labour market is very short of skilled labour.
How do we bring value back to this sector considering also how bleak it is to work construction here 8 months of the year.

Trades are stretched too thin. Market is too hot, for the most part.

[GenWhy?]

We do market rentals without balconies, ovens, trees on roofs, and shared laundry... condos without trees on roofs, but try selling a condo even without a parking spot and developers and marketors freak out. Hence balconies and ovens. Plus, for the land costs folks sell higher-end units to make up for the cost or for rental put in-suite laundry in because it's now a "standard" that developers choose.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Its been suggested that we reduce taxes on construction materials or provide waivers. Its also been suggested that we lower our requirements for construction and not require things like balconies, trees/landscaping on the building, a window to the outside in bedrooms, smoke detectors on every level of the elevator shaft, etc. There's a reason that in most major cities most units in highrises don't have a balcony or trees on the roof, there very expensive and are seen as a luxury. Vancouver is quite unique in that it requires every new apartment building to be built like a hotel at a massively increased cost and the more we complain about prices the more the city does things to increase construction costs. Despite being a city against smoking we seem to have a require every unit to have a balcony. And I believe it costs around 50k to add a 100sqft balcony so we're talking about significant savings that other cities enjoy. Our government and Urban Panel seem focused on the "quality of life" and "experience" of the building rather than the actual "affordability" which is a massive mistake. Reminds me of the saying if they have no bread "let them eat cake".

As usual you don't understand the housing market, or where requirements come from. There is no requirement that every unit has a balcony; as others have commented, the development industry thinks they can't sell buildings that don't have balconies. There are plenty of second bedrooms that don't have a window, even more so in those big floorplate towers in Burnaby and elsewhere. There's no requirement Downtown to have parking - which adds a lot to the cost of construction - but few if any developers are willing to build car-free residential buildings for sale. At least, so far. And you cherry picked a heritage building in Portland that has no balconies - mostly you can't tell them from Vancouver buildings. I fixed that for you.

Note the typical Portland condo building:


And how it compares to a building in Vancouver:

[cairnstone]

In most if not all Municipalities you have to have a parking ratio. Developers have gone head to head with city hall over this. Bosa tried to build in Burquitlam with lower amount of parking and it was refused by the city of Coquitlam. Bosa's was using the point we are 100 feet from skytrain and have stats saying that the current requirements cause them to buid a parking lots that are not used.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Trades are stretched too thin. Market is too hot, for the most part.

I think they are stretched too thin also because of the lack of skilled workers. The market is hot, but its been running at over capacity for years. Even a correction brings it back to understaffed from "I'm going to pay my apprentices bonus' to not go back to school because I need bodies on site" levels.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As usual you don't understand the housing market, or where requirements come from. There is no requirement that every unit has a balcony; as others have commented, the development industry thinks they can't sell buildings that don't have balconies. There are plenty of second bedrooms that don't have a window, even more so in those big floorplate towers in Burnaby and elsewhere. There's no requirement Downtown to have parking - which adds a lot to the cost of construction - but few if any developers are willing to build car-free residential buildings for sale. At least, so far. And you cherry picked a heritage building in Portland that has no balconies - mostly you can't tell them from Vancouver buildings. I fixed that for you

http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/building/code_questions/index.htm

Question: Bedroom Window - Is it required by the BC Building Code?

Answer: The BC Building Code generally requires every bedroom in a house and every bedroom in a small multi-family residential building to have an outside window that can be used as an emergency exit. The window opening must be 0.35M2 with no dimension less than 380mm.

https://vancouversun.com/homes/buying-selling/making-better-use-of-the-balcony

Prior to the 1960s, few Vancouver buildings included balconies since they were generally included in the building area calculation, also known as floor space ratio or FSR. However, to encourage developers to construct balconies, Vancouver City Council in 1964 introduced an FSR exemption for residential open balconies to a maximum of eight per cent of the gross floor area. As a result, new apartment building designs throughout British Columbia began to incorporate balconies...Today, Vancouver allows balconies up to 12 per cent of the building area to be excluded from the FSR, but new enclosed balconies are generally included in the FSR. Other municipalities continue to allow open balconies up to eight per cent of the total building area, without counting in the FSR area calculation.

Vancouver could easily allow for enclosed balconies to be exempt from the FSR to allow everyone to get an additional room in new condos. Also the design panels like balconies.

[WarrenC12]

I would not consider a condo without a balcony. Outside space is already limited.

As for bedrooms without windows, ya, those are potential death traps.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Bullshit. Your arrogance is astounding. No wonder so many residents have gone off foreign investors.

Arrogant, eh? Now look who's talking. Oh yes, the one who is wishing for the Vancouver real estate to crash, as affirmed by Migrant_Coconut. I'm sure you want the property you just purchase to devalue. Any growth is just bull shit. Stocks that you buy should all tank right away.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

Thats why I say Vancouverites are responsible for the problem. They insist on a bunch of luxuries over and above what other cities have yet complain that our housing is more expensive than other cities. If we want cheap housing then build the same housing every other city has thats cheap. But you can't ask for a Cadillac at a Chevrolet's price. We've been excessive in our requirements for design, beauty, quality of life, safety, etc. and we pay the price for it.

Exactly. People want a Roll Royce and expect the price of a Pinto.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As usual you don't understand the housing market, or where requirements come from. There is no requirement that every unit has a balcony; as others have commented, the development industry thinks they can't sell buildings that don't have balconies. There are plenty of second bedrooms that don't have a window, even more so in those big floorplate towers in Burnaby and elsewhere. There's no requirement Downtown to have parking - which adds a lot to the cost of construction - but few if any developers are willing to build car-free residential buildings for sale. At least, so far. And you cherry picked a heritage building in Portland that has no balconies - mostly you can't tell them from Vancouver buildings. I fixed that for you.

Note the typical Portland condo building:


And how it compares to a building in Vancouver:

I don't think Misher is cherry-picking. It is true that many of Portland's newer condos do not have excessive number of balconies like we have here. Many of them are elegantly designed without the balconies. I can't say if they are significantly cheaper to build, but as far as luxuries are concerned, Portland seems to be able to do away with balconies.

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I would not consider a condo without a balcony. Outside space is already limited.

As for bedrooms without windows, ya, those are potential death traps.

New buildings currently have windowless bedrooms. I believe there was a thread on here about it when Brentwood floor plans came out. Also older buildings just called them a Den.

If the building is in Vancouver then it would not follow the BC building code.


And there are several condos in Vancouver that do not have balconies. So not that unusual

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Answer: The BC Building Code generally requires every bedroom in a house and every bedroom in a small multi-family residential building to have an outside window that can be used as an emergency exit. The window opening must be 0.35M2 with no dimension less than 380mm.

As usual, you don't quote your sources, so there's no way of telling if it's up to date.

Here's the floorplan for a Brentwood 2-bed. See a window on the second bedroom?

[source: BC Condos]

Here's a 1-bed in Park Place in Surrey - any window? [source]



The City of Vancouver has its own Building Code, different from the BC code.

[GenWhy?]

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/H004.pdf
4.3 Private Open Space
4.3.1 Objective: Ensure that each household has a private outdoor open space adjacent to its unit for its exclusive use.
4.3.2 Criteria: Each family unit should have a private open space which is a minimum of 1.8 m deep by 2.7 m wide.
The private open space should be designed to maximize sunlight access, safety, adaptability for a variety of family activities.
4.3.3 Discussion: The private open space should be able to accommodate a range of activities including sitting out, tending plants, barbecuing, outdoor eating, quiet children's play, and minor household maintenance. Provision of storage for this equipment is desirable.
Use of and satisfaction with private open space is dependent on its size, orientation, availability of sunlight, ease of access from the unit, ease of supervision, privacy, and safety.
Special design consideration should be given to the private outdoor areas of north facing units to maximize exposure to sunlight. Avoid recessed north facing private outdoor areas

[GenWhy?]

But, Changing, that's not "technically" a bedroom. You're looking at the marketing material not the approved drawings seen by Staff.