Vancouver Rental Market Discussion

[Homeowner]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Well if they go sitting empty than that should make the landlords open to accepting a lower rent

I bet a lot of those units are purchased with a lot more than just 25% down so the owners can afford to wait it out even if it means having it empty for months. Which does not make sense at all.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

This is why I'm moving from Metrotown to Port Moody.
I'd love to live in the Sovereign but I can't likely afford it anytime soon

Hmm. When I was looking a few years ago, rents at Klahanie seemed pretty nuts. Oh well.

[red-paladin]

Part of the rental conversation from the Sovereign thread moved here.

[Spork]

One bedroom in central Richmond will range between $1300 and $1700 depending on how new it is.

[Spork]

Landlords cannot discriminate against pets in Ontario, and the sky has not fallen there. It's time to stop treating renters as if they are somehow lesser than landlords. In property-crazy BC, this is a bit difficult to understand, but other jurisdictions have figured this out a long time ago. Yes, the landlord owns the property, but there are other restrictions on what they can and cannot do which could also be labeled in a similar fashion to this.

[VarBreStr18]

Not allowing pets is not a discrimination, any more than not allowing smokers to rent your property.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Spork

Landlords cannot discriminate against pets in Ontario, and the sky has not fallen there. It's time to stop treating renters as if they are somehow lesser than landlords. In property-crazy BC, this is a bit difficult to understand, but other jurisdictions have figured this out a long time ago. Yes, the landlord owns the property, but there are other restrictions on what they can and cannot do which could also be labeled in a similar fashion to this.

Owning a pet isn't a right.

I looked at a condo suite in the Westbank built tower at 1565 W. 6th. Through the a/c ducts I could hear a dog barking one floor up (I know as I looked at a suite on that floor right before). I don't have a dog and don't see why I should be forced to listen to someone else's all day, it would drive me nuts.

[BlueVancouver]

The odour, hair/fur, and smells that pets produce.. many would find offensive. I have no issues with pets but I know some people do and would rent places that have no pets nearby.

[cleowin]

All a landlord has to do is ask “do you have a pet?” , and if they do.. they could just say “we’ll get back to you when we made a decision” and rent to the family without a pet. There’s always a loophole.

[a very long weekend]

Vancouver mayor outlines new priorities, measures to address housing affordability

The City of Vancouver has released a 10-year housing target that shifts its housing strategy towards renters, low to moderate-income earners, and families.

On Tuesday, the city announced a plan to add 72,000 new housing units over the next decade with an eye not just towards boosting rental supply but ensuring that supply is the “right supply” affordable for residents.

“One of the really big moves of the housing strategy here is to turn the spigot on for rental housing,” said Gil Kelley, the city’s planning general manager — a recognition from planners and politicians that for many in Vancouver renting is the only affordable option to stay in the city.

About two-thirds of the 72,000 units will be rentals, including 20,000 purpose-built market rental units, which is quadruple the city’s previous target set in 2012.

Seventy per cent of the new homes are aimed at households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 a year.

Nearly 29,000 units, or 40 per cent, will be for families, including about 13 per cent that’ll be “ground-oriented” units, such as townhouses, laneway homes and coach houses.

The new housing targets are part of the city’s housing “reset” launched earlier this spring. The final housing strategy will be presented to council in the fall.

...
According to the report, the city will be unable to meet the projected 54,800 units needed by low- and moderate-income households by 2026 without assistance from the federal or provincial government.

“You can’t build social or supportive housing without funding from the provincial and federal government,” said Robertson, who called on both levels of government to step up.

The city said it is already pursuing new programs and policies to achieve its housing targets, including enabling laneway houses, coach houses, and duplexes in single-family neighbourhoods, the implementation of the empty homes tax and new regulations around short-term rentals.

It said phase 3 of the Cambie Corridor project will create 4,200 homes over the next decade, including 1,000 units slated as social housing or below-market rentals.

It is also proposing a pilot program for all-rental buildings that’ll require a minimum of 20 per cent below-market units for renters earning between $30,000 to $80,000 a year. The program is being tried out in the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre, with the goal of producing 4,000 of these units. It’s in the “testing phase,” said city staff, to see whether there is interest from developers and to make sure it’ll work.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/...easures-to-address-housing-affordability

this is all well and good, but where will these tens and thousands of units go if the single family home neighborhoods are exempt from upzoning?

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by GilmoreStation

Holy smokes! 1bdr units are asking for $2100-$2150 monthly rent these days

That's still much better of a deal than the idiot that is trying to get $5,995 from a "36th" floor (more likely ~30th floor) unit. Sure, it's 1780 sqft (counting some balcony space, I am sure) and comes with some bullshit furniture, but that price is a joke for Burnaby. I pay much less for a ~ same size penthouse suite with five times larger private patio.

In addition, a $200 move-in fee and $295 move-out/cleaning fee. LOL.

https://rentitfurnished.com/vancouver/pr...furnished-condo-rental-at-solo-district/

[Klazu]

Oh dear, sometimes you just can't help but wonder who is stupid enough to end up renting something like this...

"Luxurious" sub-penthouse 3BR unit in a 1992-built no-name building in South Granville with funky and original 80s-vibe (only 25 years old) interior and appliances. Only $4,995/month.

Did I mention luxurious?

https://rentitfurnished.com/vancouver/pr...d-sub-penthouse-rental-manhattan-west-2/

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Oh dear, sometimes you just can't help but wonder who is stupid enough to end up renting something like this...

"Luxurious" sub-penthouse 3BR unit in a 1992-built no-name building in South Granville with funky and original 80s-vibe (only 25 years old) interior and appliances. Only $4,995/month.

Did I mention luxurious?

https://rentitfurnished.com/vancouver/pr...d-sub-penthouse-rental-manhattan-west-2/

Haha what a spin! Gotta love those appliances with all the yellowed plastic parts and single bare bulb light fixture in the dining area, tres chic! Same with all the black staining around the edges of the carpet. Would she call that airbrushing?

My grandparents had those identical bathroom faucets in their ca.1990 Kits penthouse, gushed like a waterfall. Always got the crotch wet if turned too high. Always.

[whatnext]

B.C. tenants are about to get hit with the largest rent increases allowed in five years
by Travis Lupick on August 24th, 2017 at 1:03 PM

Every year, the B.C. Residential Tenancy Branch sets the maximum allowable percentage by which landlords are legally permitted to increase rents.

Because there is an acute housing shortage in Vancouver, it means that that percentage is the exact amount by which most landlords do raise rents.

Yesterday (August 23), the Residential Tenancy Branch revealed this number for the year ahead, and it’s a big one.

In 2018, landlords are permitted to increase rents in B.C. by four percent.

That’s a five-year high. It’s up from 3.7 percent in 2017, 2.9 percent in 2016, 2.5 percent in 2015, and 2.2 percent in 2014...
https://www.straight.com/news/955601/bc-...argest-rent-increases-allowed-five-years

[GenWhy?]

Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program project submission deadline is Feb. 15th, so we should see selections by late March and some movement on early pre-development by April.
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/moderate-income-rental-housing-pilot-program-bulletin.pdf

We have a couple projects lined up for application and the benifits of this program look really good for all, but only if the City delivers.

[whatnext]

I missed this in the Throne Speech, but it seems the Province is going to give municipalities the power to enact "rental only" zoning.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri...-rental-only-zoning-law/article37987658/

Discouragingly, there seems to be the usual kowtowing to developers, in that areas currently zoned for condos won't be changed to Rental Only! Why are developers interest always sacrosanct in this city. Plenty of residents have their property values affected by what the city zones all the time!

[jlousa]

Usually when the city rezones it's beneficial to property owners. Making an area rental only would have negative effects on values... My suggestion to them years ago was not exclusive zoning but bonus density to the point where the values offset. IE 2.5FSR at 4 floors market condos, or 3.5FSR 6 stories for rental all withing the same zoning, allow the property owner to decide which route to take. CACs and DCLS would still be payable so the rest of the city doesn't get the burden. Those numbers could be tweaked over time to obtain the desired outcome.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Usually when the city rezones it's beneficial to property owners. Making an area rental only would have negative effects on values... My suggestion to them years ago was not exclusive zoning but bonus density to the point where the values offset. IE 2.5FSR at 4 floors market condos, or 3.5FSR 6 stories for rental all withing the same zoning, allow the property owner to decide which route to take. CACs and DCLS would still be payable so the rest of the city doesn't get the burden. Those numbers could be tweaked over time to obtain the desired outcome.

That sounds like a reasonable idea, why don't they do it?

With regards to zoning, in an insane market that always seems to go up perhaps it seems beneficial, but in a balanced market, zoning decisions can drive prices down. For instance, what would happen to those properties in Fairview if the city rezoned all their leasehold properties in South False Creek for view-blocking towers?

[jlousa]

Perhaps my suggestion will get consideration from the next council. I'm not sure I'd trust any council not to muck it up but city staff if left alone from political interference should be able to sort out the details to make it workable.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That sounds like a reasonable idea, why don't they do it?

With regards to zoning, in an insane market that always seems to go up perhaps it seems beneficial, but in a balanced market, zoning decisions can drive prices down. For instance, what would happen to those properties in Fairview if the city rezoned all their leasehold properties in South False Creek for view-blocking towers?

These policies already exist in one way or another, but I can agree that they could be simplified or "streamlined" better through the process. Big issue in permits is a lack of staff and heavy consultative process with public and City Staff on multiple levels.