Vancouver Rental Market Discussion

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Both of those are newly renovated and have the best views in the City. But you knew that.

Are you referring to unit renovations? Really no different from most older condos. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a building that has really slid downmarket, can you? If anything Vancouver's inane prices have lifted thousands of mediocre units up to "unaffordable" status.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Are they?

1987 : https://www.rew.ca/properties/5115947/902-1860-robson-street-vancouver-bc?property_click=map

1912: https://www.rew.ca/properties/4666904/24-1386-nicola-street-vancouver-bc?property_click=map

Love the layout of that 1912 place.

You totally missed the point though, as usual.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Are you referring to unit renovations? Really no different from most older condos. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a building that has really slid downmarket, can you? If anything Vancouver's inane prices have lifted thousands of mediocre units up to "unaffordable" status.

It's all relative to what's new. That's why it costs more to rent in Vancouver House than some random walkup in the West End.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Are you referring to unit renovations? Really no different from most older condos. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a building that has really slid downmarket, can you? If anything Vancouver's inane prices have lifted thousands of mediocre units up to "unaffordable" status.

You actually almost convinced me until I took one look at the first property and realised they had completely gutted the place and built a standard 2020s new build unit on the inside. Microwave beneath the counter, fridge in a custom cabinet, and all.

You're such a hack, Jesus Christ.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You actually almost convinced me until I took one look at the first property and realised they had completely gutted the place and built a standard 2020s new build unit on the inside. Microwave beneath the counter, fridge in a custom cabinet, and all.

You're such a hack, Jesus Christ.

No need to go all cov.
Take a look at the previous sales in the building. All comparable.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

No need to go all cov.
Take a look at the previous sales in the building. All comparable.

Take a look at the previous sales of this unit.

Sold last year for 2/3 of what they're asking now. Nice try, guy. Now scram.

EDIT: MAN I didn't even realise how baited I just got. These a fucking property sales, not rental offerings. Fuck me, you got me! Consider me trolled.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

No, they're exactly the same.

I wouldn't say exactly the same. Protesting the construction of a building where there used to be a Denny's aside, I don't think the tenant's union is anti any development. In the case of Metrotown, I am sure those living in wood frame condos don't have a big issue with the re-development of Station Square or Metrotown, since no renters were harmed in those cases.

I would say NIMBYs are irrational (do luxury high rises a few blocks away really depress your home's value???) and self-interested while the renter equivalent is just the later.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Take a look at the previous sales in the building. All comparable.

First, Warren specifically mentioned rentals. I can tell you as someone who has gone apartment hunting in the lower mainland multiple times that yes, price and age are negatively correlated. Exceptions can be made for renovated units, desirable neighbourhoods, etc., but older units usually rent for less.

Second, why would you expect any condo in the West End to be cheap? The West End (yes, I am biased) is one of Canada's (and maybe North America's) most desirable neighbourhoods.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I wouldn't say exactly the same. Protesting the construction of a building where there used to be a Denny's aside, I don't think the tenant's union is anti any development. In the case of Metrotown, I am sure those living in wood frame condos don't have a big issue with the re-development of Station Square or Metrotown, since no renters were harmed in those cases.

I would say NIMBYs are irrational (do luxury high rises a few blocks away really depress your home's value???) and self-interested while the renter equivalent is just the later.



First, Warren specifically mentioned rentals. I can tell you as someone who has gone apartment hunting in the lower mainland multiple times that yes, price and age are negatively correlated. Exceptions can be made for renovated units, desirable neighbourhoods, etc., but older units usually rent for less.

Second, why would you expect any condo in the West End to be cheap? The West End (yes, I am biased) is one of Canada's (and maybe North America's) most desirable neighbourhoods.

Warren said today's luxury condos are affordable rentals in 20 years, I disagree. Any concrete examples?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Warren said today's luxury condos are affordable rentals in 20 years, I disagree. Any concrete examples?

New psf DT is $1400. 20 year old psf DT is $1000.

It's blatantly obvious. You live in complete fantasyland if you think otherwise. It's on you to prove.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You live in complete fantasyland [...]

What else is new.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Devil's advocate: most people can't wait the full two decades for prices to drop. There needs to be an equally strong push for below-market housing and an eviction safety net, which thankfully seems to be happening.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: most people can't wait the full two decades for prices to drop. There needs to be an equally strong push for below-market housing and an eviction safety net, which thankfully seems to be happening.

But there's a waterfall effect when a new building opens, those who can afford it move in, their old units become vacant, and so on.

I'm all for social housing and moderate income rental or whatever other buzzwords are being used. In the end, everything contributes to supply and demand.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: most people can't wait the full two decades for prices to drop. There needs to be an equally strong push for below-market housing and an eviction safety net, which thankfully seems to be happening.

What you just posted here is the most uplifting, hopeful thing I have yet heard. Thank you for that. I hope what you speak of manifests itself ASAP!

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

1080 Pacific on the corner next to Thurlow had the assembly sign

1065 Pacific was on sale for $19 million in 2020

https://goodmanreport.com/app/uploads/2020/09/BRO-1065-Pacific-Street-Vancouver_web.pdf

1065 Pacific looks like it sold for $18.95 million in February 2023

https://goodmanreport.com/sold-propertie...ment-site-1065-pacific-street-vancouver/

[SpongeG]

The last few times I've been to Park Royal I've noticed so many of the units are just sitting empty, does anyone know why? bad location? too expensive? for a city with housing issues you'd think people would snap em up.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If I had to guess, a combination of price and traffic. $2,800 for one bed really only works on the other side of the Inlet.

[jollyburger]

Assume this is from the last year or two.

The project includes 138 permanent market rental units, 57 below-market rental units (for 20 years), 92 unsecured rental units (meaning they could be turned into condos in the future), and 11 district-owned supportive rental units.

In answer to questions around ‘vacant’ units Park Royal representative Rick Amantea told West Van council that the units were being released in a phased manner, a standard business strategy in the rental sector, and he expected that they would be fully occupied by the end of the year.

https://www.positivevoiceswv.org/need-to...gnificant%20delays%20between%20the%20two.

[whatnext]

A pretty shocking stat contained in this article: B.C. has lost nearly 100,000 apartment units renting below $1,500 per month between 2016 and 2021. The vast majority of those units – 75 per cent – were located in the Lower Mainland. Another 175,000 units that are rented below $1,500 a month in the Lower Mainland are at risk of being lost.

B.C. begins effort to protect existing rental supply
KERRY GOLD
VANCOUVER
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 17, 2023

British Columbia’s new strategy to acquire existing apartment buildings is well under way, with a handful of buildings on target for possible approvals by the end of the year.

The Rental Protection Fund aims to save thousands of units of housing and is part of a plan to grow the non-profit housing sector, which is nowhere near the size of its European counterparts. The province’s $500-million contribution is the initial injection of cash intended to grow the sector, which will continue to build a portfolio of properties and leverage those assets into more housing.

An independent non-profit society oversees the fund, run by recently hired chief executive officer Katie Maslechko, whose background includes working with Vancouver residential and industrial developer Beedie, as director of development.

The fund addresses the chief threat to affordable housing: for every new rental unit built, several affordable ones are lost, usually due to redevelopment, conversions and rent increases....

....Ms. Maslechko says that disinvestment of buildings is an ongoing concern.

But so far no apartment buildings within the Broadway Plan are being considered for funding because they are too valuable to be economically viable, she says. Instead, others on the shoulder areas are under review.

“Generally, those properties with significant upzoning potential will inherently struggle. … The numbers will not work in terms of being something that is attainable for the organization, even with support from the fund,” she said.

“Because, as with any property, those acquisitions would be valued on their ‘highest and best use,’ and that is a pretty substantial gap to bridge.”

Her office’s report said that B.C. has lost nearly 100,000 apartment units renting below $1,500 per month between 2016 and 2021. The vast majority of those units – 75 per cent – were located in the Lower Mainland. Another 175,000 units that are rented below $1,500 a month in the Lower Mainland are at risk of being lost.

The rate of loss has only accelerated in recent years, said the report, due to redevelopment, disinvestment, such as lack of maintenance, conversion to short-term rentals such as Airbnb, and rapid rent escalation, which has displaced many lower-income renters....

....Ms. Maslechko currently has a staff of four, but said she is just getting started. Demand is strong, with applications from 70 non-profit housing groups and 25 occupied properties – mostly older buildings from the sixties and seventies that already offer below-market rents – under consideration. They plan to start with funding for 2,000 units. Nearly two dozen experienced non-profit housing providers are already in the process of acquiring the properties and securing mortgages, and upon final approval, the fund will help with the equity needed for the purchase and any upgrades. Ms. Maslechko expects to have “at least a handful of them” ready for board consideration by the end of the year, and most of the others over the next few months. Board members include CEOs from the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, BC Non-Profit Housing Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of BC, who’ve all advocated for such a fund....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...ia&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links

[s211]

^ The stat they're claiming is hard to understand. Are they including units that have raised in rent above a certain threshold?

The rate of loss has only accelerated in recent years, said the report, due to redevelopment, disinvestment, such as lack of maintenance, conversion to short-term rentals such as Airbnb, and rapid rent escalation, which has displaced many lower-income renters....

If that's the case, then this supposed statistic isn't worth anything. Tell to me about physical units lost, and then let's have a conversation.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

^ The stat they're claiming is hard to understand. Are they including units that have raised in rent above a certain threshold?

If that's the case, then this supposed statistic isn't worth anything. Tell to me about physical units lost, and then let's have a conversation.

It's reasonably simple to understand what they're saying. In 2016 there were 100,000 more rental units that rented below $1,500 a month than there were in 2021 in BC. Given the dates, it's likely to be census data.

In 2021 there were 390,000 households renting in Greater Vancouver, and 192,000 of those households paid under $1,500 in rent (including those living in subsidized housing).

In 2016 there were 347,000 households renting in Greater Vancouver, and 251,000 of those households paid under $1,500 in rent.

So there were more renting households in 2021 than in 2016, but fewer apartments available to rent under $1,500 a month.