Welcome!
VancouverPeak.com- admin replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- admin posted an update:
- jesse and Makaya are now friends
- jesse replied to the forum topic Sandbox. in the group Housing Data
- jesse posted an update: CMHC starts, completions and under construction in Vancouver […]
- The Ant started the forum topic BC Population Growth in the group Housing Data
- jesse and The Ant are now friends
- jesse and wreckonomics are now friends
- wreckonomics posted an update: New Year, New HPI. ”Selection Broadens and Demand Eases to […]
- Best place on meth and admin are now friends
Wordpress theme by Abhishek Tripathi of Mediawick Digital Solutions
October 20th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Hmmm
Good stuff !
October 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Discovered this information – dated June 2007
reference: http://www.fasken.com/jung-dev.....financing/
Client
Jung Development Inc.
On June 13, 2007, Korean developer, Jung Development Inc. closed a $220 million major construction financing. Jung is among the largest Asian development companies operating in B.C. $170 million of the $220 million financing facility was committed by a syndicate of senior lenders led by CIBC and including RBC, Woori Bank of Korea (the largest financial group in Korea) and BCMP Mortgage Corporation, and $50 million mezzanine financing facility was committed by Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. in U.S. but led by Lehman’s Korean operations.
Fasken Martineau advised Jung Development in this transaction with a team from the Real Estate and Asia Pacific Groups including: Edmond Luke, Ian Cassie, Allison MacInnis, David Martin, Samien Safaei, Don Weaver, Darrell Wickstrom, Kate Seniowski, Jessica Spraggs, Mayne Young and Kwee Downie. The team worked over a period of four months to negotiate and complete this financing.
The Real Estate Group is also advising Jung on the development and construction of the project – five 36-storey highrise residential mixed-use towers in Surrey across from the King George Skytrain Station. Tower 1 with 345 condominium units is scheduled for completion in November 2007 and Towers 2 and 3 with combined 690 units are scheduled for completion in September 2009, with more work required before the Project is completed.
October 18th, 2008 at 11:03 am
thereeldeel – pleeeeassse!!! I’m going to assume that you are an agent and your office is feeding you this bs optimism. We are going into a recession, the economy goes in cycles, this was predicted to happen. My developer friends have told me to wait until the end of 2009 to buy and although I didn’t believe them when they told me 3 years ago, I’m sure glad that I waited. As you know, the only people who are buying are the ones who just sold and need a place to live!!! Once that is done, it’s done. Talk to me next year when you are working part time at the Superstore with a hope and a prayer that you sell that one condo in Chilliwack you have listed. Sorry, but it’s the way the business goes. It’s not rocket science, it’s a cycle and the boom will be back in 7-10 years.
October 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am
“Freako”, you are right – there is no way that Lehman’s demise should be used as Infinity’s excuse. Mr. Millar (spokesman for Fasken et al law firm) is incorrect with his information. He is not equipped with “real facts” or deliberately trying to misinform the public. Mr. Jung (the original deal maker) was taken over by Mr. Yang (and is not a reputable deveoper as Mr. Millar has stated nor does his group have sufficient knowledge or experience to carry out this scale of operation). Mr. Yang gets advice from Byron Lee (another lawyer) and they extensively recruited Korean management people through the local Korean papers believing they knew what they were doing. Secondly, it is not a Korean Company – Jung Development is a Canadian company with Korean owners.
If the papers states they need $100M and also say they are 3/4 completed there is something seriously wrong. A layman may beieve Mr. Mllar but not experienced professionals.
Mr. Jung was recently trying to start another King George project of similar scale and has not been involved with Mr. Yang’s group for many months(nearly 15 months). It is Mr. Yang’s senior management group that has conributed to his problem. The Lehman news was their excuse.
What is very wrong is that these highrises are costing more to build than what the pre-sold values collectively can generate. Maybe their “budget” or “forcasting” number were being constantly revised (every week) without any “controls” in place. A tiger by the tail was too much for them to handle.
October 17th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Since Lehman Brothers collapsed, the financing for Infinity has dried up and they can’t pay the bills.
The article referred to Lehman as the “original investor”. This does not add up. Why would an investment banker on Wall Street make a direct investment in a Surrey condo. More likely, Lehman may have had something to do with underwriting the financing, but if that is the case, Lehman’s demise shouldn’t affect Infinity. Convenient excuse?
October 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Nothing ever stops. Real Estate continues to be bought and sold, albeit at lower prices, people still go to work, take the kids to school, etc etc. 33′ x 115′ building lots in East Vancouver were as high as $520,000. I’ve just witnessed 2 lots (with small homes) sell for $412,000. with multiple offers. I’ve seen homes at $900,000 sell for $750,000. Multiple offers. know of a house in Surrey that was listed and sold in one day with multiple offers because the price was bang on. There’s still a lot of people out there with $$ so don’t kid yourselves about a “crash”. We ain’t even close. This is a healthy, much needed adjustment in price that happens in a market that is governed by Supply, demand, interest rates, net-in migration, and affordability. Vancouver is a beautiful place to live. its expensive in every way, and unfortunately its going to stay that way. those looking to buy should really keep their radar up as number of developments that have been “shelved” in the last year is mind boggling. Know what that means? the supply gets gobbled up, there’s nothing to replace it, and here we go again………. watch and see.
October 17th, 2008 at 6:29 am
poooooooooooo
We’ll, back to the affordability issue.
The real estate auction phenomenon has established itself in BC already. We may see this more and more on this in the near future. Maybe then we will see people jumping in and being able to afford what they couldn’t previously. What is going on now may show too much product , nervous buyers and nervous lenders moreso than ever before in the past.
re DCC’s.
Actually some of the tables I see show DCC’s for higher density are propertionally higher than say more detached units( ie SFH). DCC’s seem to end more a flat rate for SFH,and regardless of the lot size. DCC’s for multi – family tend to nail the purchaser for every sq. ft. as by definition they don’t have any outside yards other than shared via the strata.
DCC costs are just pimping by the City. They don’t seem to realize that they may get the same coin by keeping the DCC’s reasonable and encouraging development, which fits with your affordability issue. What often happens is the City waves the increased DCC “red flag” far enough in advance and hopes a lot of developers will pay off the DCC’s under the old DCC rate, and thus the City coffers get filled up. Its simply a scam.
Epiphany re inflation ? No, that’s obvious…not sure your point. Inflation via added Gov’t costs, speculation due to cheap money and rising building costs.
Time will tell
October 17th, 2008 at 6:07 am
hey Tony Danza ….
No..actually a good on – line cage match debate sometimes lives things up. Simply close your eyes when you are scrolling through stuff you don’t like.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
hehehe, i duno no-lympics, yes oversupply creates lost equity for those that do not know how the market works, but what would you rather do? no create affordable units? infact, you can only start to reduce and hopefully eliminate asset depreciation and equity loss by encouraging an increase in supply which will reduce swings in the market. eh eh eh?
i’m really quite suprised you just enlightened to the whole concept of inflation!!!!! YIPEE
oh, and the city increased DCCs because the market rate for construction labour and materials increased so much so due to developers wanting more and more right?? oh what you ask? single family sprawl, because arnt DCCs disportionally lower for multi-family? incentive much? sadly city halls are still filled with old mentalities, on both sides of the counter.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Is it that bowl of ganj I just pounded or does it seem like NO-LYMPICS and poooooo are a twelve year old arguing with himself?
October 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Thanks poooooo and no-lympics, very entertaining posting!
I’ve been on the sidelines watching for the last 5 years and I can’t wait to buy at rock bottom prices. Have been renting the same place for many years and my landlord has kept my rent low, so there was no reason to buy in this crazy market. I’ve saved a lot and my income has almost doubled, so I’m looking forward to finding something big and new. I’m still going to wait another year and either buy a sweet townhouse downtown or two condos east of Burnaby. Who would have thought??? All these years I have been listening to friends and family tell me that I better get into the market, it’s only going to go up, up, up, you know the Olympics are coming and all….blah, blah, blah. Now I’m the “smart” one they say. No one I know has made any serious money. Most of my friends and family are common folk. Some sold and bought for a bigger house, other first time buyers tried the condo flip or renovated a house and sold it. No one made millions by any means. Real Estate agents/marketers, banks, mortgage brokers, developers and construction companies made a killing. As in the US, it’s all crumbling around them. There will be some buyers, like me, but it won’t nearly be enough to maintain these prices. What is worse, my friends and family who now own million dollar homes and ¾ of a million mortgages will lose all their equity and will be coming to me to rent one of my condos. Yes an exaggeration, but you get my point.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Poooooooooooooooo
Please don’t try to impress me with framed sheepskin backed expertise. That’s a future cage match.
No…this is the era where all the economic formulas are turned upside – down and inside – out. A hot market produces a lot of crap aka leaky condos. Oversupply creates loss in equity ie depreciation for those who don’t speculate but get punished fiscally by those who do.
The current market was based on parties who thought the party would never end. As I posted earlier…the U.S. has homes being auctioned off for the price of a good used import car. Where are all the buyers clammering to buy these “deals” ?
You forget that once the market gets hot, and the builders anticipate a lot of demand, all the cost go up, adding to the sticker price. The builder builds because he thinks he can make THE maximum buck , they are not intersted in affordability. Most buyers appear to be buying on credit, very little down, so as the market crashes… they can’t afford the so-called deals that result over supply anyway, the credit has dried up. Banks and builders will want more of a down payment, which many won’t have in this receding economy. It is simply a fiscal Catch – 22 no win feedback loop. In my view “affordablity” for the average wage earner ended years ago, back in the early 1980′s, before the entire market got perverted by foreign $$$ .
Finally, it is Gov’t that creates a lot of grief and adds to the sticker shock, when I see some of the $$$ gouging BS the builders are obligated to do before they even start a pre-sale program. Our City upped the DCC’s 30 % in one year….Why? ….because they C-A-N, they don’t need a reason. Some poor schmuck has ultimately got to pay that, it’s called “the buyer”.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
alexcanuck – it’s all good.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
btw, please don’t be offended with any particular points that I made, I just get very passionate about this issue while seeing many developers take advantage of the less fortunate. I am only trying to create an equal environment for all.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
no-lympics, i stated that I had experience, not that I am currently working in that capacity. let me guess, you are a developer who rose from the ranks with no formal education and are pissed off that planners are telling you to put some landscaping in your development or do add some glazing to the facade? please, you and I both know that developers still control development by pissing on politicians who are too scared to back away for fear of losing their support and funding.
The real point is, whats wrong with increasing supply? That only leads to affordability through less demand…maybe you should go back to school and take microeconomics 100.
new High-rises are empty at night in d/t vancouver because people like you want to regulate supply therefore creating a speculator mentality that prices will only increase allowing people to hoard units and not sell them to people who will actually live in them.
What do I have to enlighten for you next?
October 16th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Hmmm I’ve travelled and lived quite a few other cities and I think the Skytrain is a great system for a city of our size. It has more frequent service than anywhere I’ve been. My only complaint would be the noise – it seems a lot louder than other systems. I’m even excited for the new line to open.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Hey pooooo
(Now that you have calmed down…)
Sorry, but I have been dealing with City Planners for years.
In my view, they are simply obstructionist bureaucrats with far too much power as they pimp their “vision for the future ” ideas. I am dealing with a “young” planner right now who I can see is getting his strings pulled by their superiors to lie and obstruct us. Please excuse my REAL WORLD cynicism.
You are talking old school , mes ami. Yeah yeah yeah re density = affordability mantra. The reality is your bosses get their ears bent by the big boys to re-zone land and create a lot of displacement so they can pimp the land and the air above it with hi – rises.
I’m not saying City’s should regulate supply, but they should have used little common sense in supply and demand and instructing you planners to bend over for the big boys .
SkyTrain is ackowledged as a bad system most of the world has ignored. It’s truly delusional to think people will choose to locate near Skytrain and go to work, that’s a planners wet dream. We are Car culture..live with the reality. The hi-rises are empty, most of them are dark at night. That = speculation which you planners feed.
Skytrain was used as an excuse to rezone land for hi density…builders were running out of land…don’t you know what happened on Toronto ?
PS Call me in about 10 years when you dry out the wetness behind your ears, …hope you learned something in the meantime. BTW Bob Rennie is fed by you guys and your “visions” you planners are his pushers.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The 25 billion bail out last week didn’t seem to get much press…
More likely is that this was a pre-emptive CMHC bail-out.
But it’s CMHC that is buying the mortgages (that it has already insured), not the government.
Flaherty says the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. will take steps to maintain the availability of longer-term credit by purchasing up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Ca.....36-cp.html
CMHC has been doing this for years. Google “Canada Housing Trust”.
http://www.financialpost.com/s.....mp;k=20957
The idea behind CHT’s issue was to finance the purchase of housing loans by issuing bonds and using the proceeds to acquire mortgage-backed securities.
“Canadian home buyers will benefit because the bonds will provide the mortgage market with an alternative and competitive source of funds which will help lower mortgage financing costs,” said Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister responsible for CMHC at the time. CMHC is involved because it guarantees the timely payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds.
Since CHT’s initial issue, the borrower has developed into the country’s largest single issuer of fixed income securities. Last year, CHT went to the market on four separate occasions and scooped up $19.3-billion of capital — up from $17.25-billion in 2003. Included in the 2004 issuance was an $800-million issue of floating rate Canada Mortgage Bonds.
To put it bluntly, the government was just spinning something that happens all the time in an effort to be seen “doing something”.
October 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Densifying reduces infrastructure costs.”
That’s assuming that stuff is in walking distance,
No it isn’t. For a given number of people, the higher the density, the lower the infrastructure costs per capita. How hard is that to figure out really? The more spread out people are, the more roads, sewers, hydro lines, etc. you are going to need per capita.
Isn’t it obvious that 1000 highrise units in Whalley are going to need less new infrastructure than 1000 SFH or townhouse units in a new development in, say, Fort Langley?
When densifying an existing area the extra use of existing infrastructure is a bonus, but the cost difference remains even for brand new development.
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
October 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
no-lympics, i have no vested interest in real estate at all at the moment. i have saved quite a lot for my young age (young 20s), more so than many people so dont start thinking im some yuppie fool who understands absolutely nothing about the financial sector. I just get upset when people are misinformed about what it takes to create affordability and proper ‘planned’ cities. Planning is my academic background and I have experience working in the planning department at city hall, so I understand what actually takes place.
I am not a fan of beer as much as many canadians are, nor do I smoke, so please enough of the canadian-washing.
Oh, and concerning Rennie, he is the utlimate piece of shit. I don’t know how he can sleep at night in his bed filled with money. I’d rather have some character at the end of the day.
October 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hey poooooooooooooooooooo aka Bob Rennie
( BTW I made sure I got a hard copy of your post before the Pope exorcises it ).
Reading between the lines…I’m sorry to hear you lost a pile speculating on condos. No wonder you are less than diplomatic ….Tut Tut.
You obviously have things figured out…no sense preaching to the perverted.
Now go back and finish your first beer (and stop smoking in church while you were text messaging that intelligent comment).
Bye bye Bob “poooo” Rennie
PS Can I just call you sh*thead for short?
October 16th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
no-lympics, you’re an idiot, wtf, that’s why there are so many NIMBYS because people like you hawk this shit all the time. high-density development must be located along mass transit lines in order to move people around the city. how the fuck do you think people are suppose to get around in a dense urban environment? their cars? stfu. increasing density increases affordability as units become cheaper to create in light of the fact that you have more units on one piece of land rather than everyone building a single family home and then having society at large pay for the lack of economies of scale. please, shut up. i can’t seem to stop saying that, cause well I’ve had enough of stupid people like you making me look bad.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Anonymous, realtor-marketers get paid for selling. It’s a commission business. Rennie makes money when units sell. It’s been reported that his firm charges around $50,000 per unit sold. Nobody’s paying him when the product’s not moving. But don’t think for a minute that he’s hurting. He’s set up for the rest of his life. I mean, he’s Bob Rennie!
October 16th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Big droppers out there:
v736015 23.4% overall drop now at assessed value after 153 days on market
v724337 12.5% overall drop now at 2.2% below assessed value after 216 days on market
v7712572 17.7% overall drop now at 4.6% below assessed value after 139 days on market
v724211 13.8% overall drop now at 1% below assessed value after 216 days on market
v726308 5.9% overall drop now at 3% below assessed value after 76 days on market
v733279 17.7% overall drop now at 1% below assessed value after 126 days on market
My favourite as posted earlier is still:
v731607 14.9% overall drop now at 9% below assessed value after 140 days on the market
BTW, I will only post those that are below assessed value as there is no point putting v726098 on even though after 280 days on the market the price is reduced 25% as they started too high (still 10% over assessed).
October 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I need to go out to Bear Mountain one of these days and have a look around. I won’t be at all surprised if it has a really depressing busted boomtown look in a couple years.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Vansanity: Mea culpa. I owned up to the name-jacking in the next post. My browser occasionally auto-fills the previous poster’s name instead of mine. If it was every-time I’d remember to check, but it’s just once in a while. Life is full of little mysteries.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I don’t believe there a still a bit of people buying real estate right now. It should be zero. Why would anyone buy right now is beyond me. Just wait and it will be on sale for 50% off.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
re: the Langford Capella project is from Robert Quigg…. he does high end stuff on Van Westside
i’d consider them high profile.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“High density requires less infrastructure per capita than low density, because people can walk to places instead of having to drive everywhere as noted above. It also makes more use of existing infrastructure such as hydro, water, etc.
Densifying reduces infrastructure costs.”
That’s assuming that stuff is in walking distance, which isn’t always the case. Just because people live in high density, doesn’t mean they give up cars. Rezoning from low density to high density does require better streets and parking (developers often don’t allow for enough parking).
Existing hydro and water may be used more, but you have to make sure old systems can handle it. Also, existing schools, parks etc. need to be improved.
Yes everything will be more efficient in the end, and its preferable to building out into the valley, but we are still talking about many times more people in a given ara.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
the 25 billion bailout is another government measure designed to get interest rates down. expect more action on that front. interest rates in canada are about two percentage points higher than they should be due to the credit crunch. cmhc cannot go bankrupt, it is tied directly to the central bank of canada.
October 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Yes, the music stopped for Capella….
October 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Check out V736959, just had their 5th price drop, down now to $285K (from $329K at the start). It has the lowest price of 4 units for sale in the building and it’s still not moving. All of these units have been languishing for months without any price reductions. Seems like a good location and I haven’t seen any one bedrooms in Van West for less than $300K, wonder what they’ll end up selling at?
October 16th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The 25 billion bail out last week didn’t seem to get much press. It is odd that the government would buy troubled assets from the banks in an attempt to increase liquid capital since they have already increased liquidity through lowered rates.
More likely is that this was a pre-emptive CMHC bail-out. The toxic paper (consisting of the 40 year 0 down bubble paper) will bankrupt CMHC and will cause a publicity nightmare when they have to go back to the treasury for $$$. I read somewhere they’re expecting to have only 8 billion in reserves in 2009. If the treasury buys 25 billion of questionable MBS’s, they will likely just sit on the non-performing assets rathering than triggerring the insurance and sinking CMHC.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Beta, the site location is shown under the ‘contact us’ link.
I wonder why the city would rezone that part of Edmonds to include high density residential. It does seem out of place unless it is part of a longer term plan for the entire block.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
To add fuel to the bear fire…
“Construction and sales have stopped at the $1.4-billion Capella luxury housing development in Langford in the latest fallout from the global financial crisis.”
http://www.canada.com/victoria.....e81f3203bd
On the positive side, that creates up a lot new buyers.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Here’s another condo development guaranteed to fail. They’re just putting in the foundations right now.
http://www.bellaliving.ca/
If you click on the “Location” link, they don’t even give you a map, just a ludicrous description of the area.
The development is in Burnaby on Edmonds, very close to Canada Way. It’s sandwiched in between an auto parts store on one side, and a vet, martial arts gym, tattoo parlour, and a 7-11 on the other. The 7-11 attracts all kinds of indigent types at all hours.
I can’t imagine anyone buying there; it’s a slumish area with no redeeming features. They’re going to tank hard.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Not clear on situation?
“clamchowder” is correct that Mr. Jung (original developer) was taken over many months ago by Mr. Yang (Young-In). Under Mr. Yang – Jung Development continued with phase II (towers 2 and 3) from their original 5 tower proposal. Mr. Yang also started SkyTowers (across the street) and presold these units in Oct. 2007.
Mr.Yang’s group (Young-In) had no “developer’s experience”/construction which does not agree with what Millar stated as “reputable developer”. Mr. Yang is in the chicken franchise business and Mr. Lee (VP)is a lawyer.
Confusion?? Lehman brothers may have only provided “concession financing”? on budget and on time issue? One news release stated the 2 towers cost 170M (or 85M per tower). If there is $100M (shortfall + new funds) required to complete these 2 towers, it doesn’t make sense. There must be more to information to sort out. Maybe Tower 1 (phase 1)did cost more to build than what it was presold for and maybe reflected in phase II with these towers.
Millar’s firm assisted Jung Development’s group to secure the project financing (including concession financing)in July 2007 (Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP).
October 16th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Quote from article – “the company is approaching local developers who have better knowledge of the region and dealing with the Lower Mainland’s currently uncertain real estate market.”
Better knowledge indeed. You can’t just jump into a market that you don’t understand and expect to come out with a profit.
I have seen this before with Korean money. For some reason, very little is spent on carrying out proper due diligence. It’s catches up to you.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Check out v712572, just dropped over 10% from 650,000 to 574,990 with the headline:
The maintenance fees aren’t helping at $430 a month. I have seen similar aged and sized townhomes have fees of $160 per month. I’m not sure why they would be so high.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
The two women selling YLTNBoomerang’s 1200 sq ft 3 floor townhouse have a depressing (to me) track record of selling $ million+ homes in the recent past (August/September). They have a 500 sq ft condo listed for $449,000. The insanity has to end soon. It just has to.
October 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“BMO Projects Canadian Recession”
http://www.bnn.ca/news/4133.html
Should be plenty of articles for tomorrow’s free for all, eh Pope?
October 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
For the record – I never wrote this:
Vansanity Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Gold getting hammered out there, flirting with $800. Randallbard: You know all about gold, what is going on? Is this just to scare off the non-true believers before it rockets to $2000?
Bottom line is all markets are extremely volatile right now. I got blogger-name jacked!
October 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
High density is OK if we make sure we have the infrastructure and amenities support it.
High density requires less infrastructure per capita than low density, because people can walk to places instead of having to drive everywhere as noted above. It also makes more use of existing infrastructure such as hydro, water, etc.
Densifying reduces infrastructure costs.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Allowing more units to be built doesn’t reduce prices
Don’t think so? It sure worked wonders in places like Stockton, Phoenix, Miami, etc.
And you will see the same effect within a year here.
October 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Seeing some serious price drops in the downtown townhouse market recently, six are currently listed under assessed value; one of them v731607 just dropped 10% and is now 9% under assessed value!
Check out v712572, just dropped over 10% from 650,000 to 574,990 with the headline:
“HUGE PRICE REDUCTION!! Best Buy Downtown at the “Nova” for this fabulous three level townhouse… Offers will be presented on Saturday October 25th by 5 PM. Don’t miss out on this great opportunity.”
They’re looking to get a bidding war on this bad-boy thats been on the market for 139 days; if it doesn’t go and sits at this price (467/sqft, the lowest of downtown townhouses), every other unit is pooched and will have to lower to this new norm! I’m crossing my fingers it goes nowhere as this is the beginning of the landslide
October 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“High density is OK if we make sure we have the infrastructure and amenities support it. Places like Whalley and New West probably don’t have it and can’t charge developers enough to get it. I see slums. ”
I disagree! I lived in that neighbourhood of Whalley for years. Sure, there was a fair share of drug dealers, homeless etc but I can’t think of anywhere else in the lower mainland that has the following within walking distance: mall, rec centre with pool and skating rink, library, 3 grocery stores including T&T, banks, skytrain, big box stores (best buy, futureshop, toys r us, canadian tire, london drugs, staples), gym (fitness world), medical clinics….-need I go on?? It was great living there, being able to walk to any of those places within 10 minutes. Sure, I’d meet the odd weirdo along the way but the key thing was I could WALK to all these places. So convenient!
October 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
That’s the same arguement that the anti-Eco-Density people used. Allowing more units to be built doesn’t reduce prices, it’s true but the opposite is more true, by limiting supply prices will rise even faster.
The solution is let the market do it’s thing, it isn’t pretty but it sure is effective in the long term.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Vancouver Banker and patriotz
Re SkyTrain fathers this condo glut.
Sorry boys..sometimes ya gottsa throw out a comment to see who may disagree,just to liven it up a bit.
However, I will stand by my comment.
A few year ago a Sun columnist pointed this out when RAV line would go down Cambie St in Vancouver. Vancouver was running out of land and in a chicken and egg argument…one reason RAV went down Cambie was that it didn’t have the Arbutus corridor MIMBY’s. The Sun article Cambie was full of ESL immigrants, and the City would use the area as a land bank for High Density and RAV as an excuse to go high density, or high densities excuse was RAV,whatever.
I agree not all these condos are along SkyTrain…but more and more are. SkyTrain is located through many non residential areas…hence less voter backlash. You limit suppply of condos by creating LESS density …you don’t create affordability by allowing more product via allowing hi density , that is a joke(…unless your aim is to oversupply to create a price crash). It is clear that the condo market was catering to speculation, which drive the price up, not down.
Cities are allowing more and more land along SkyTrain routes to be zoned Hi-Density residential , and once that happens, it fathers the potential for oversupply . Most City planners and Councils have bought into this, have a look at Richmond’s OCP. Acres of land has been re-zoned in one fell swoop to hi density , which is telling developers to go for it.
Affordibility is created from Big Brother Gov’t creating such things as Co-ops etc. ,but it cannot rely on market forces, that has been shown over and over.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
hd –
Ooh you picked up on the irony — that’s quite the gotcha moment! Obviously I’ve been sucked into this morass too, and have spent too much time and mental energy fussing about it, and I hate it. I’m bored of lurking on these blogs, checking the numbers, awaiting another REBGV report. In a normal town, we would have bought years ago, owned happily, and not had to obsess about this BS.
And can we dispense with the crocodile tear “don’t wish for a crash because people will get hurt” meme? Playing the “folks will get hurt” card is just a way of saying shut up. I have absolutely no impact on the market, I have had no impact on people’s decision to overextend themselves to buy. Lower prices are better for me. I should be allowed to hope for things that are better for me. That declining prices might expose the downside of other people’s bad decisions is not my problem. Just as the downside of my waiting the market out is my problem. It hurt for people shut out on the way up, yet the gains were generally met with cheering and joy. How many watercooler conversations have I had to endure about, say, the hallowed day when the new BC Assessment values came out, what somebody’s neighbour sold for etc? I have had people make a point of rubbing their property paper gains in my face. Hah-ha, all in good fun. This blog has been full of the neener-neener yer-just-jealous-renters trolls. Now I’m supposed to hope other people aren’t hurt? F*ck that.
Let’s get this crash overwith so we can all just move on and obsess about something else.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
The real estate disaster is fathered by the SkyTrain.
Preposterous. What does the SkyTrain have to do with, for example, West Vancouver, which is experiencing among the fastest price drops in the region?
I don’t think it goes anywhere near Kelowna either.