The Metro Vancouver Real Estate Thread

[misher]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Canada is trying to normalize its rates so capital doesn't spill out of the country into our higher-interest paying neighbour. That would cause huge inflation and devaluation of the Canadian dollar.

The only thing that's holding the rate bumps back is the fact that morons binged on debt for grossly overpriced real estate.

Comparing the right to not get left to die in a hospital versus not to own an investment property in Vancouver is a pretty different thing. One is a human right, the other is just business. Nobody dies because they couldn't buy an investment property.

Exactly! That’s why it’s highly unlikely that the Court will allow the province to overturn the charter under section #1. Section #1 is only for large things.

[whatnext]

Great tool for tracking the overwhelming amount of price cuts in Vancouver real estate:
https://www.myrealtycheck.ca/

[Krissy]

is this the change in resale value?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by rofina

That definitely jives with that I'm seeing.

Generally people looking to move money around, but not desperately because they are sitting on so much equity.

Are they willing to go below ask to sell? Yes. Is it fire sale prices and desperation? No - no reason for panic.

Unless something drastically changes globally, I see this as a slow multi year deflation.

Over all, possibly the most positive scenario for the City, as we continue to grow our economy, without the panic of a massive RE crash, but the ability for prices to linger, or trend down for sometime.

All very positive, IMO!

Over the long term a more affordable Vancouver only becomes THAT much more appealing.

There's the recession that's supposed to happen any year now, the only growth period longer than this one in the last 50 years was the one in the '90s. It's a normal process that has yet to happen. Chances are that the current peak is the beginning of the end. How low it'll go?

Depends on how much debt is sloshing around in the markets.

I would be hoping for the best, but preparing for a major correction.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

For baseless speculation, that's a pretty fair point... but then couldn't we get that revenue and/or job creation by any kind of overseas export, not just crude oil?

Crude is one of those things that everyone wants, and everyone is going to pay a premium for. At least until electric cars and trucks start taking over in a few decades; then they could shift to natural gas to get another few decades out of the market.

Honestly, if there's demand, there's no reason, economically, to not satisfy it. Environmentally is more dubious, but it's still worth it in my opinion.

Originally Posted by misher

Sales are down from last year but are up quite a bit since September 2018. And 2017 is hard to compare to as people were rushing to buy before the new mortgage rules came into effect so sales were artificially raised. If you look at the 5 year average we’re not doing bad. Condo sales are over 20% which is supposed to raise prices and house sales are over 10% which may lower prices slightly but not a lot. Condo prices are going up right now. The taxes actually pushed a lot of luxury buyers into competing for affordable housing (condos). And surprisingly the higher end commercial market (condo buildings, office, industrial) is insanely strong right now despite the new rental restrictions. Lower end commercial is slower but still going strong as a lot of business owners want to own their own office for the control/freedom rather than lease.

The Commercial Market was less inflated than the condo market overall. Industrial is pretty much safe for the foreseeable future due to declining land inventories and continued overall economic growth.

Neither are indicative of the overall trend in the market.

Originally Posted by rofina

Except job creation in non RE sectors will continue to be exceptionally strong over the foreseeable future. Film, finance, tech, bio tech, resource, all growing strong. Construction will slow down, but there is big infrastructure spend coming down the line, as well as LNG. I think on a whole the province and region will do well over next couple of years.

A RE correction is bullish for the City - if it ever gets close to anything resembling affordable there is no chance that people don't choose to relocate here.

But it's sort of the same thing with what happened with Alberta with low oil prices; oil is a cost for most industries. We've let the boom go on for too long, and now there's going to be a (relatively) painful correction.

I agree we need it, but I'm a little skeptical on the bullishness. Long term yes, short term, no.

Originally Posted by misher

From arguments I've seen the duplex plan didn't create any additional square footage so it was a formality. The NPA and Green's plan is discussing additional space which may be useful.

Honestly, that half of Vancouver isn't already zoned as medium density is a bit beyond me. Sure, NIMBYs, but Langley is going medium in its greenfield developments.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Krissy

is this the change in resale value?

Change in asking price after listing.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Honestly, that half of Vancouver isn't already zoned as medium density is a bit beyond me. Sure, NIMBYs, but Langley is going mixed in its greenfield developments.

Langley, oddly enough, has quite a good eye for the future.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by scryer

Langley, oddly enough, has quite a good eye for the future.

The suburbs in general are more development-minded than Vancouver itself.

It's like Vancouver got all the attention for so long, it's resting on its laurels with its Queen Elizabeth Park View-cones restrictions- while the suburbs are competing with each other to see get as many people as possible into their borders.

Eventually Vancouver might see that a lot of development was moving away from their city, and loosen restrictions to get more of the action. I'd have guessed it would have happened with the current RE bubble, which is happening- it is, partially, with the regulations loosening over the years; but it's still embarrassing.


It is just that Vancouver is run by NIMBYs?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by fredinno

The suburbs in general are more development-minded than Vancouver itself.

It's like Vancouver got all the attention for so long, it's resting on its laurels with its Queen Elizabeth Park View-cones restrictions- while the suburbs are competing with each other to see get as many people as possible into their borders.

Eventually Vancouver might see that a lot of development was moving away from their city, and loosen restrictions to get more of the action. I'd have guessed it would have happened with the current RE bubble, which is happening- it is, partially, with the regulations loosening over the years; but it's still embarrassing.


It is just that Vancouver is run by NIMBYs?

More likely that Vancouver contains the homes of more wealthy people who have the clout to preserve their neighbourhoods. Vancouver is also unusual in that the
Central city contains many of the best natural attractions such as beaches so there’s not much incentive for the wealthy to decamp for the burbs.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

More likely that Vancouver contains the homes of more wealthy people who have the clout to preserve their neighbourhoods. Vancouver is also unusual in that the
Central city contains many of the best natural attractions such as beaches so there’s not much incentive for the wealthy to decamp for the burbs.

Vancouver has a huge bureaucracy with an average age of 70. Suburbs have smaller bureaucracies with less rules and younger people behind it. In 30 more years things will get faster just because the senior bureaucrats will retire or die off.


When you talk about why building in Vancouver is harder it’s clearly more difficult to get a permit or comply with the building codes.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by whatnext

More likely that Vancouver contains the homes of more wealthy people who have the clout to preserve their neighbourhoods. Vancouver is also unusual in that the
Central city contains many of the best natural attractions such as beaches so there’s not much incentive for the wealthy to decamp for the burbs.

I mean, the NIMBYs managed to fight off development in Grandview-Woodlands, so...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

Vancouver has a huge bureaucracy with an average age of 70. Suburbs have smaller bureaucracies with less rules and younger people behind it. In 30 more years things will get faster just because the senior bureaucrats will retire or die off.


When you talk about why building in Vancouver is harder it’s clearly more difficult to get a permit or comply with the building codes.

Since we all know this is just silly, why even bother to post it?

I also didn't realize bureaucrats in the suburbs are ageless and will remain eternally young.

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Since we all know this is just silly, why even bother to post it?

I also didn't realize bureaucrats in the suburbs are ageless and will remain eternally young.

You have no idea what your talking about but you love to insult.

To explain Vancouver has a few senior bureaucrats who haven’t taken retirement. They have juniors under them but the juniors have little to no independence and all decisions are made by the seniors. The processes freeze when the seniors take their vacations. You don’t have an old senior bureaucrat with total control over a department or area in most municipalities.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

You have no idea what your talking about but you love to insult.

To explain Vancouver has a few senior bureaucrats who haven’t taken retirement.

Really? Who fits that description here? It's seems clear somebody doesn't know what they're talking about - and it's not whatnext.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Really? Who fits that description here? It's seems clear somebody doesn't know what they're talking about - and it's not whatnext.

I think that page proves my point considering the average age of the people in real estate portions is 60-70....also having met a few of those people they look much older than those photos.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

I think that page proves my point considering the average age of the people in real estate portions is 60-70....also having met a few of those people they look much older than those photos.

I think it proves you're not too good at telling how old people are. You wouldn't expect senior staff of a major city to be in their 30s. Only one person in that list is no longer working for the City - Bill Ajula is no longer head of real estate as he recently moved to take up a position with Aquilini Developments.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by misher

I think that page proves my point considering the average age of the people in real estate portions is 60-70....also having met a few of those people they look much older than those photos.

Good lord, do you just type whatever nonsense pops into your head without even thinking about it?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

I think that page proves my point considering the average age of the people in real estate portions is 60-70....also having met a few of those people they look much older than those photos.

Are you drinking during the week again?

Yes, Vancouver is run by a bunch of old fogeys. What we need are sharp new ideas from the likes of youngsters like Doug McCallum and Derek Corrigan.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you drinking during the week again?

Yes, Vancouver is run by a bunch of old fogeys. What we need are sharp new ideas from the likes of youngsters like Doug McCallum and Derek Corrigan.

I've done the same kind of painstaking, in-depth research as misher and found that actually city hall management is a spry young bunch, as evidenced in this staff photo:

[IMG]Planning Staff by whatnextyvr, on Flickr[/IMG]

[fredinno]

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-va...-november-2018

The provincial government’s new policies that enact restrictive vacancy controls could put nearly 13,000 planned rental homes across BC at significant risk of delay or cancellation, according to the Urban Development Institute (UDI).
The introduction of new vacancy controls would allow the provincial government to strictly regulate rent to a unit instead of the tenant. It would remove the current ability of rental owners to flexibly adjust rents between tenants to account for building and unit upgrades and any increased property taxes and insurance and utilities costs.

The RHTF’s earlier recommendations in September reversed the provincial government’s policy on increasing the maximum allowable rent increase, removing an automatic additional 2% annual increase. The 2019 maximum allowable rent increase will be 2.5%, instead of the previously announced 4.5%.

...Why? This is just going to cripple supply. Ask the Venezuelans how well price controls on basic goods went.

The NDP should just wait for the real estate market to cool down, and let the free market do the work of cooling down rentals. Rentals can only decrease in price when house prices fall as well.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by fredinno

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-va...-november-2018



...Why? This is just going to cripple supply. Ask the Venezuelans how well price controls on basic goods went.

The NDP should just wait for the real estate market to cool down, and let the free market do the work of cooling down rentals. Rentals can only decrease in price when house prices fall as well.

What, the real estate cartel mouthpiece objecting to rental controls? Colour me surprised. With the right incentives to build there's no reason this would effect newbuilds. They will set new rents to account for it. And flip the example around. You own a 10 unit building. Each year two of the units turn over as tenants vacate. Currently you can jack up the rent 100% for the new tenant even though your costs may have only increased minimally.