The flipper-free building
Local developer Ian Gillespie is experimenting with the idea of building a downtown condo that is affordable to a couple making minimum wage. The tower would be located on Cordova between Gastown and the Downtown Eastside. To keep costs down it will feature simple finishes, no parking, and owners would do their own maintenance instead of paying strata fees to cover repairs. To try to keep out speculators and flippers they will require the units to be owner occupied.
The 108-unit project is a collaboration involving Vancity credit union, Habitat for Humanity and a Downtown Eastside housing group. Habitat will get four condos suitable for families in the building and will choose who gets them. Another eight units, to be managed by the PHS housing society, will go to local community workers.
The remaining 96 condos will go to buyers who will have to prove that they plan to live in the units and who agree to do some maintenance themselves instead of just paying standard condo-maintenance fees. According to the material submitted to the city, nearly three-quarters of the condos will sell for less than $300,000, and more than half will be affordable to people making between $29,000 and $36,000 a year. That’s the income of an individual earning $15-$19 an hour, or a couple in which each partner makes the $8-an-hour minimum wage.
One interesting point: one of the reasons they can build this condo development for cheaper is because the land got cheaper:
The land, previously owned by developer Robert Wilson, was repossessed by Vancity last year. He had purchased it for $7.9-million in July, 2007, shortly before the city’s real-estate market deflated. It’s now assessed at $5.4-million.
Read the full article in the Globe and Mail.
RSS 2.0 comments feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:17 am
“One interesting point: one of the reasons they can build this condo development for cheaper is because the land got cheaper”
Land got cheaper? How can this be? Are we making more of it now?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:27 am
This is just a scheme to keep the bubble going by sucking in people who would otherwise be unable to buy. The value of these units (i.e. price/rent, if they could be rented) appears to be just as bad, if not worse, than in Yaletown.
There is no way low income people should be taking on this kind of debt.
All people have to do to get affordable housing is to rent, and refuse to buy until prices make sense.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:42 am
@Sour Grapes:
Developers are now willing to pay less for land than previously because they can see the bust coming. Land prices are determined by the market price of the finished dwellings, not the other way around.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:18 am
“The remaining 96 condos will go to buyers who will have to prove that they plan to live in the units and who agree to do some maintenance themselves instead of just paying standard condo-maintenance fees.”
What? There will be no “standard maintenance fees”??? Free electricity, hot water, garbage removal? And when the pipes burst, roof leaks, elevator breaks, and after warranty expires in 10 years water starts coming through walls, the owners will just roll up their sleeves and fix all of it by themselves? Right… maybe ony when advertized, yet reality is something else. But FTBs are dumb enough to fall for anything, so this might even work if the Sun and the TV news put a nice little spin to the story.
To me it looks like some sort of frankenstein hybrid between a condo and a co-op, where people still get to pay an obscene price (couple of hundred thousand) for a DTES condo, and will do the cleaning of needles, poop and urin at the building entrance themselves. What a concept! Bravo!
July 27th, 2010 at 6:26 am
“the condos will sell for less than $300,000, and more than half will be affordable to people making between $29,000 and $36,000 a year”
So now 10x income is affordable? When I bought my condo for 3X income (in 2006) I was scared shitless. I suppose at 10x income the one with the problem is the bank, not the buyer.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:33 am
@elvince: “I suppose at 10x income the one with the problem is the bank, not the buyer.”
The problem is with the taxpayer.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:42 am
@Teddy Bear: I thought that at first too, but I dont think this is what is actually going to happen.
” nearly three-quarters of the condos will sell for less than $300,000, and more than half will be affordable to people making between $29,000 and $36,000 a year.”
So the bottom 33% of condos below 300K will be affordable to someone making 29-36K. Now It could be 190K or 280K or anything below 300K. Either way, still more than someone earning minimum wage can afford.
Am I the only one that thinks a couple earning minimum wage has no business owning downtown? I dont think someone earning minimum wage should be owning period, but especially not downtown. (even if it is the crappy area of downtown, to put it lightly.)
July 27th, 2010 at 6:44 am
@davers: opps that should say 66% of condos below 300K will be affordable to someone earning between 29-36K.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:53 am
@davers:
NOBODY should be owning at present prices, period.
If RE is properly priced buying is cheaper than renting, i.e if you can afford to rent a property you can afford to buy it. So there’s no reason in itself why people making minimum wage shouldn’t buy. The problem in Vancouver is inflated prices.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:22 am
The irony is that when the current bubble bursts in full force, many desirable condo units will be below $300K.
At that point, this piece of $hit frankenstein hybrid (nice term Teddy Bear) will be overpriced.
So, one must live in this overpriced $hithole but cannot own a car and must be willing to fix a leaky toilet from the unit above them… where do I sign up?
July 27th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Article says “No parking and no maintenance among the perks…”
The above are perks? So taking away ‘value’ is a way to supposedly lower the ‘cost’. Why don’t they make it even more affordable by taking away the walls between units, have shared bathrooms and don’t put in elevators to promote fitness? To avoid a leaky roof, don’t put one in.
Now, you can be a part owner of Vancouver’s own refugee camp in the sky. Don’t forget to bring marshmellows.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Why not make it purpose built rental? Oh right nobody makes good money by renting anymore.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Vancouver will be next?
http://www.news1130.com/news/l.....s-in-homes
July 27th, 2010 at 8:13 am
If they can afford the mortgage… What about paying the taxes?
July 27th, 2010 at 8:20 am
This is sill WAY UNAFFORDABLE for target income of b/w $29,000 – $36,000 / year. Assume the max. houeshold income earner (i.e. $36k/yr.) takes mortgage of $275,000. Even at 4%, 5 year rate, 25 yr. am., P+I = $1,447. ADD: property taxes ($150), heat/light ($50), insurnace ($50), maintenance costs/materials self-supplied ($100), TOTAL MONTHLY payments = $1,797. This requires gross income of $5,391/month or nearly $65,000/yr. or nearly TWICE the income of the maximum income earner they are targetting!!!!! In reality, gross household income of $36,000 can only afford mortgage of about only $125,000 at TODAY’s (near)record low rates!!!
July 27th, 2010 at 8:22 am
According to the CMHC’s affordability calculator:
if your household income is $36,000 per year (3000 per month),
lock into a 4%, 35 year mortgage,
assume taxes and heat cost $200 per month ($0 for strata)
have the 5% down ($15,000) plus closing costs
and have no other monthly debt obligations,
The largest mortgage you qualify for is… $170,000
So the developers say affordable, but the CMHC says the price is almost twice what they can afford.
A quick check of mls shows there are 301 condos for sale under 300K in Vancouver right now, more than triple this development (and they won’t have to pay HST). It’s clearly not necessary but I bet the developer is hoping to make a windfall.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:34 am
“and who agree to do some maintenance themselves instead of just paying standard condo-maintenance fees.”
This is such an asinine concept I had to read it twice to believe it. It’s well worth these people looking at how most condo strata fees are spent. Most maintenance costs on a building of that size isn’t mowing the lawn and painting fences like it is back on the farm.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Canadian consumer confidence slips in July
http://www.montrealgazette.com.....story.html
“The biggest decline in sentiment was in British Columbia, where the index fell 12.5 points to 78.9 There was also a large drop in the Atlantic provinces, falling fell 7.3 points to 83.5, and in the Prairies, where the index fell 4.8 points to 93.7.”
will this translate to double digit MOI for August?
July 27th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Oh, I just realized anither major error in the developer’s assumptions re: zero strata fees – they must mean zero maintenance portion of the strata fees, becuase under the Strata Property Act, there are certain strata expenses that are mandatory (for which fees must be collected)- i.e. building insurance (fire, earthquake etc…), third party professional management etc…Also, whether you call it “zero” strata maintenance or not, the costs will still be there to maintian the common areas – i.e. electricity, heat, cleaning, repairs, landscaping etc… which will have ot be paid one way or the other – and it is always easier (minimizes endless conflicts and is probably LESS costly) when these expenses are paid by strate fees being charged to each strata lot and managed by a strata council – which is also a requiremtn under the Strata Property Act!! Anyways, CMHC and/or lenders will still impute a monthly cost for this amount (or perhaps more than usual cost if not done in the standard common/pooled strata method).
July 27th, 2010 at 8:51 am
The kind of skill set they’re trying to entice isn’t the kind making under $36K /yr. Now, if fresh coffee and fries were enough…..
July 27th, 2010 at 9:19 am
@cico:
Next? Secondary suites have been legal in almost all Vancouver neighbourhoods for a couple of decades I think.
Surrey is simply responding to the facts on the ground, and making suites legal in an effort to collect more revenue and enforce standards. Many owners never bothered to make suites legal in Vancouver and Surrey probably won’t be any different.
Illegal suites are the market’s way of saying that too much of the city is zoned single-family and too little multi-family. If Surrey council had any interest in doing things right it would have zoned much more new development for non-strata row housing which is a far better way of increasing density than houses with suites. At least Vancouver has the excuse of not wanting to disrupt existing neighbourhoods.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:35 am
Current Inventory?
July 27th, 2010 at 9:46 am
@McLovin: falling. right around 18000 I think
July 27th, 2010 at 9:50 am
@Vanrod: Awesome, falling just like prices!
July 27th, 2010 at 9:55 am
@anonymous:
Regarding the slip in Consumer confidence…
We have real estate here and other huge super competitive industries like…uh….
…well lets just hope that real estate stays strong.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:56 am
What’s earning minimum way say about the stability of your employment?
July 27th, 2010 at 10:13 am
In what world is $300,000 condo affordable for poor people? And why should poor people own downtown? What is wrong with renting and trying to improve one’s employability/qualifications so that one day they could really afford something? Must everything related to real estate in this city be a scam?
July 27th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Theres too many false assumptions to the ‘developers’ argument. The zero strata fee is one, already pointed out is the fact that there is always maintenace costs to every structure, hall and exterior lighting etc. However, many co-ops do there own maintenace and a growing number of strata do their own property management and save big time by dumping the dead weight of a property manager. Second is the idea that intrest rates are going to stay low forever, fallacy……and denial in the face of rising rates from an entirely artificial rate enviornement…rates are rising internationally as per the G20 agreement to manage the burgeoning soverign debt nightmare. It has nothing to do with real estate…ancilliary at best. Third…and yes…the sanctity of a minimum wage job, always temporary in nature, held by people who are the least likely to move up the wage scale or find alternative employment in the event of a redundancy. I’d read this as an attempt tp pimp the real estate industry and dredge for a few suckers who have so far hidden at the very bottom of the barrell….shame of this developer for doing his utmost to scam a poverty stricken couple for his own benefit.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:37 am
An intriguing idea and one that deserves consideration before blindly slamming it. You don’t know the prices, layouts, or designs.
Getting a condo in downtown Vancouver for under $300k is a big deal today. That it doesn’t have parking cuts a big cost away (30-45k is my assumption). If it’s just a 600 sq.ft. 1 bed for that then it’s a failure (There are others in the DTES that have those features for under $300k).
It definitely sounds like a co-op. You cannot impose rules such as “no rentals” under the reformed strata law. Any property disclosure statement filed after January 1, 2010 may not restrict the number of units rented.
Maintenance will have to be shared amongst the owners? Sounds like a co-op. So they have to vacuum and mop their own common hallways? Garden? Fine… but who is going to get on the scaffolding to wash the windows from the outside? A ha! So there will be some strata fees (if not originally planned you better believe they are coming). Maybe it will be a boot-strapped condo. I just hope they don’t self-manage. There is nothing worse than a poorly professionally managed strata than a terribly self-mis-managed strata.
I look forward to seeing some more details.
July 27th, 2010 at 10:42 am
@Anoymous: I would say it’s probably pretty good, fry cooks and baristas are the engine of our local economy after real estate agents.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:07 am
There are currently condos for sale in New West that are somewhat affordable for a couple earning $36K. They are available for $120-170K. Funny thing is, these don’t seem to sell well. Wonder why that it is? Perhaps some poor people are smart enough know they are not in a position to own, while less smart ones get quickly rejected by the bank for abysmal credit scores.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@realpaul (yesterday’s thread)…
Sorry paul, but, that’s simply not true. There are exceptions unfortunately what you are saying is not one of them. An ‘adult only’ complex would only applies to senior living and the age limit can only be 55+. If a bylaw states any other age restriction this is a violation of the human rights code (section 10) and would be easily overthrown if a potential tenant wished to pursue it (as I mentioned previously). Quite simply it doesn’t matter what bylaws were voted in by the strata.
A landlord/strata CAN limit the overall number of occupants, but, can not discriminate any further than that. There are also exceptions if the unit is designated for people with disabilities or the owner will be sharing your kitchen or bathroom. That’s it. If a landlord refuses pets that’s perfectly fine… children not so much.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@Beatbox: Too right. Where to most of highrise condo strata fees go? It’s not trimming the one tree outside the main entrance or sweeping the hallways. It’s in elevator/exterior maintenance, capital funds for common plumbing/electrical/HVAC, and other common building infrastructure repairs requiring hiring decent maintenance people (unless you have one living there). To think strata fees will be drastically reduced by vacuuming the hallways is just silly.
I welcome the advent of a condo complex without stainless steel and granite, but compared to what’s needed to build a well-built highrise of any finish quality (even unfinished) I’m not sure there will be much in the way of savings. Supposed “high finish quality” units I see being built already are, from what I can see, cheap places sexed up to look high quality.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:20 am
And there shall be condos for all,
And they shall be affordable and owner occupied, and the owners shall do their own maintenance and upkeep,
So it is written, so it shall be done.
Matthew 21:13
July 27th, 2010 at 11:44 am
@Best place on meth:
LOL
July 27th, 2010 at 11:49 am
If you can designate a unit for disabled people only, why not expand on that? Have a unit that’s designated for elevator repairmen only, one for plumbers only, one for electricians only, and so on. I’m sure those people would love to pay $300,000 for a 500sqft box with no parking that requires them to work on weekends.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:50 am
@best place on meth
Isn’t that…. Methsview 21:13
July 27th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Why must low-income buy, why MUST anyone buy vs. rent? Everyone in the USA is needing to rethink this. Article below today on renting instead of buying.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38.....al_estate/
July 27th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
@jesse:
Add insurance on your list too.
I don’t imagine that a lot of minimum wage earners would have the necessary equity cushion to self insure.
LOL, we can do it all ourself…like the engineering reports, and the accounting/legal etc. Oh yeah, and electricity for common areas…No problem, we can generate that with exercise bikes. I’ve owned in strata before…mowing the lawn is one of the least expenses.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF JACKASSES AND DON’T KNOW ANYTHING
July 27th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Don’t feed the troll!
July 27th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
…of which the most blatant example is Yaletown Park, where I just started renting. The complex is less than 5 years old and is already falling apart. At first I was annoyed by the extremely low quality build, but after a while I started to like it. Every time something else goes wrong I just think about how it’s someone else’s responsibility (and cost) to fix it – the same person who’s also subsidizing my rent via their inflated mortgage payments.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
$300,000 for a closet in Vancouver! Check out the new detached houses for sale for under $100,000 in Phoenix or Vages then you’ll realize that we are in a huge bubble.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“Supposed “high finish quality” units I see being built already are, from what I can see, cheap places sexed up to look high quality.”
Exactly the same with that 1 year old Nahanni building in Port Moody.
The cheapest, plainest closet/entry doors/mouldings they could find, and the lowest quality of kitchen cupboards I have ever seen.
The cupboards are VERY THIN, dark laminate glued onto particle board. They are also beginning to sag in spots in my friend’s kitchen.
As I mentioned a few days ago, the whole Nahanni/Sahalee/Klahanie area near Newport Village is full of renters. Mostly 20-somethings who are drawn to the area because of its various amenities.
The other units appear to be owner-occupied, along with a LOT of empty suites. Flips that flopped.
The original co$t for these during the pre-sales was well north of 410K…I see now on my favourite VOW site, they’d be lucky to fetch 340K.
Rents usually range for 1300-16– for 2 bed/bath units. Sq. footage ranges from 750-1150.
So, with a piddly downpayment, maintenance costs and taxes, many of the “investors” are bleeding mighty big bucks.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
“A-Sharp” Accountant Says: Add insurance on your list too.
If the concept doesn’t attract licensed trades what insurance company will cover a building managed by amateur electricians, plumbers ….? Perhaps they’ll rely on Vancouver’s notoriously stringent and intricate building inspection protocols to satisfy code concerns? Sounds like lawsuit central here.
And a big shout out to Cody for once again demonstrating the depth and detail of bull arguments. Spirited rebuttal: oh ya? oh ya?
July 27th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@Jonathon:
The paradox is that people in the US are now starting to regard renting as an attractive alternative to buying AFTER prices have fallen. People are happy to pay ridiculous prices as long as they keep going up, which of course is impossible in the long run.
People have still not gotten the message that what matters is value, i.e. price/rent. They are just interested in the perceived direction of prices – i.e. their outlook remains speculative.
Note that the Cleavers (gotta love it) are now paying MORE to rent than the payments on their former house.
July 27th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I guess the sentiment for the past ten years has been that EVERYONE must own in order to accumulate equity in a place, thus ensuring financial stability for life. But people will get a real shock when they realize that real estate DOES go down sometimes, and sometimes you don’t end up any further ahead than if you had rented. Damn! I can’t wait for the day when “owners” are stunned to realize that they would have saved more by renting than by throwing away all that interest to the bank for 35 years…
July 27th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
@Best place on meth:
Best place on meth Says:
July 27th, 2010 at 11:20 am
And there shall be condos for all,
And they shall be affordable and owner occupied, and the owners shall do their own maintenance and upkeep,
So it is written, so it shall be done.
Matthew 21:13
+++++++++++++++++++
Wrong, that was RUSH 2112
LOL
July 27th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
High five via the internet to this developer.
Of course there are the negative whiners who will put down everything and anything, but this seems like a genuinely good corporate act.
I like it and wish there were more like it. Low income earners can now rent- or they have the chance to buy. Both are good, except being kicked out of the rental for ‘up-grades’ from the landlord who wants to double the rent when you have a child is not fun.
Ian Gillespie- I wish you well in this enterprise.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
@frank:
The issue I have is they are marketing this like it is a feasible option for a couple making minimum wage. It sounds just like another scam where someone will make a lot of money in real estate at the cost of pushing people into a bad financial decision. Even by the CMHC’s own affordability rules, these apartments are more than twice what two people making minimum wage can qualify for. Despite this, people who have no business owning are going to be told that now they can finally be a part of the Canadian dream and own real estate.
As someone who is bearish on the future of Vancouver real estate, all I can say is the more inventory the better, keep building them!
July 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“Of course there are the negative whiners who will put down everything and anything, but this seems like a genuinely good corporate act.”
Anything specific about the points raised here? Pardon me for feeling, after years of hearing the same ‘sunshine’ rejoinder endlessly employed across the spectrum – Nortel, Dot.com, housing – whenever a concern is raised, that the rhetorical device is wearing thin.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
@frank:
Well, if you have ever owned a condo, you’d never written such a nonsense. Therefore, you are either an FTB fool, up to nose in debt (misery loves company), or a troll.
As patriotz said, no one should be buying now at these prices. If the developer had an honest intent, they would build a rental building.
How many rental buildings have been built in the past 10 years in DT area anyways, other than Metropolitan Towers on Seymour St.? I know of a rental building 1265 Barclay that was completely renovated in 2008 for the purpose of sale, and put back into rental pool because the owner realized they could not sell all the suites. With 1212 Howe I am not sure what the case was. They were renovated and put up for sale, however, I am not sure if all of them have been sold. I know some of them are for rent and managed by the same company as 1265 Barclay.
I guess with the today’s (and yesterday’s) notorious low quality of construction, no one would dare build for rental purposes only. What do you do when builders screw you over, as they do with condos? Kill someone? Or just join the winning team, and build for sale only, since the builders are untouchable and can get away with anything over and over again. Leave FTB fools to drown in debt and endless repairs while being “proud homeowners”.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
@Teddybear:
“How many rental buildings have been built in the past 10 years in DT area anyways, other than Metropolitan Towers on Seymour St.?”
“Level” which is also on Seymour St.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
I’m guessing with this development that their primary intent is to cut construction costs and time, so that they’re able to turn a profit no matter which way the wind blows over the coming months.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
#32 G, read the Strata Titles Act. A strata corp is a contract, as such the unit holders can regulate the colour of each other parrots , curtains and everything else they decide to if they so choose. Thank Christ we still have some legal rights in our own homes.
July 27th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Unlike the gluttonous pigs in Coquitlam who have voted themselves all a raise, other jurisdictions are cutting way back on these frivolous salries for civic workers.
http://www.usatoday.com/printe.....st.art.htm
Could it be that the swine in Coq. see the falling revenues coming and want to raise taxes now to ensure their outrageous salaries?
July 27th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
@Anonymous:
Like that isn’t the case for every other development?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
@frank: Frank I concur with your sentiments. Clearly here are private individuals trying to meet a perceived market need. Some of you may not buy into this; that just means you’re not in the target market. Is it not enough that flippers are excluded?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
@Teddybear: This seems absurd. Market transactions happen when both sides of the party maximize their expected benefit. Are you saying this developer’s profits are still too high? Should they sell below cost?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
@realpaul: Slow down dude, take a breath…it was Port Coquitlam.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I am shocked that my post went ‘floreclosure’. I guess it is not acceptable to say anything positive on this forum anymore.
just be negative and cynical about verything and you will get green thumbs.
As to Teddybear saying:
“Well, if you have ever owned a condo, you’d never written such a nonsense. Therefore, you are either an FTB fool, up to nose in debt (misery loves company), or a troll.
How many rental buildings have been built in the past 10 years in DT area anyways, other than Metropolitan Towers on Seymour St.?”
Maybe if you read my previous posts you would know I am not a troll, but have been on this site longer than most. As to your second point: Most of the condos built and sold are now being rented, so they are in the rental pool- except the rents are extortion.
This seeems to be a good idea to let poorer people in at a low price. No mention of CHMC or City or Provincial money being involved. We can argue over the price. But the concept of building lower priced condo is surely a good thing…no?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
@Bob Lucas: The problem I have is they are trying to mask this as some great benevolent, humanitarian undertaking. Cut the BS and build more boxes. Don’t try to fool me, Mr. Developer.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
@Bob Lucas:
What are you talking about, man? How do they advertise a condo, promising “no standard maintenance fees” and no parking as “perks”? That is pure crap – you can’t have a condo building without maintenance fees – you can do vacuuming and shit/urin cleaning yourself, and that is it! If the condo prices are in the range of $200k to $300k, that is still A LOT, actually too much, for DTES. Do whatever you want, just don’t insult my intelligence falsely advertising another crappy overpriced condo as a bargain for low income earners! This is not a bargain and low income earners can not afford it. Once they are hooked into “home ownership” god help them with what come after warranty expires. Those of you who had to pay tens of thousands in assessments know what I am talking about.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@frank:
Lower prices will come on their own as soon as interest rates start going up. I remember May of 2008 very fondly, when the Sun pimps advertised “RE prices going up by 5% this summer”, and we all know what happened that summer and fall. And the interest rate was only 6%!
July 27th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
@Frank,
This isn’t lower priced it’s lower quality. It is still overpriced by a wide margin. You pay less but you get less. How does someone who buys a condo here benefit?
July 27th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Something just occurred to me. Is the developer angling for government help? In other words, our tax dollars? If he can hoodwink charities, I think we have good reason to worry.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Vibe- how can we say it is over-priced? we dont even know the size. maybe the suites are 1000 square foot, just for argument’s sake, that would make it pretty cheap compared to what’s around.
there are some credible local partners in this. “The 108-unit project is a collaboration involving Vancity credit union, Habitat for Humanity and a Downtown Eastside housing group”
A agree that 300K is a lot. But this is a better option that tax-payers picking up yet another photo-op social housing prjoect which our pols love to tout.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
@frank:
do you think someone earning minimum wage, gross 33k or so should be buying a 300k condo? if that’s not sub-prime I don’t know what is! If the developer is marketing that then no one should be praising them. How will someone dealing with those wages and that mortgage afford to eat? You can easily find livable places in Vancouver so much cheaper than that to rent. Suggesting that someone should buy a 300k condo at that wage is insane!
July 27th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
yeah 33K is too low, I agree.
But how about joint 50K, they could probably swing this deal with a smallish D/P. Particularly without strata fees.
anyway it is something, better than nothing and so far developers in this city have been in fleecing mode, this is somewhat better.
July 27th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
“A agree that 300K is a lot. But this is a better option that tax-payers picking up yet another photo-op social housing prjoect which our pols love to tout.”
What makes you think the same won’t happen here? From HfH’s site:
“We accept government funds for infrastructure, utilities, capacity building or training, and house building.”
Or this: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/new.....000754.htm
Van City isn’t likely to be doing this at a loss. And the downtown east side housing group isn’t operating on proceeds from business ventures. Enough of taking money from me to house people in high rent places. Just f’n stop it.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@frank:
Excuse me? The entire Vancouver RE industry is one big social housing project. Without CMHC (i.e. the taxpayers) holding the bag on the mortgages NOTHING could be sold at present prices.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
This is OT but the same Barney Frank who has chaired the US House Financial Services Committee since 2007, and famously declared that the government should “roll the dice” on Fannie/Freddie, has finally come to realize the importance of a dollar.
Unfortunately, it’s his own and not the taxpayers:
“Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank caused a scene when he demanded a $1 senior discount on his ferry fare to Fire Island’s popular gay haunt, The Pines, last Friday. Frank was turned down by ticket clerks at the dock in Sayville because he didn’t have the required Suffolk County Senior Citizens ID. A witness reports, “Frank made such a drama over the senior rate that I contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation.” . . .
July 27th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Patriotz- no arguments from me. SHut down the damned CMHC.
It is a drain on future generations.
First, it helps pump up the market.
Second, it helps people buy what they cannot and should not afford.
Third, when the bubble bursts the bills will be paid by the tax-payers left standing.
All in all, a very bad organism that should be shot asap. How ironic that the Conservatives, who apparently hate creatures like the Wheat Marketting Board, WEDC and CMHC – suddenly pumped up the CMHC in 2008 when all hell (they thought) was breaking loose.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
@frank:
The concept of building lower priced condos depends almost entirely on the land costs. No matter what corners are cut or how many accountants categorize the budget, you cannot escape construction and maintenance costs and the quality/utility of end product. All these guys have their heads so far up their @sses they can’t see the 500 pound gorilla in the room: land prices are unsustainably high and are about to come down to earth quickly. Vancity offering a discount on land costs is just an idea a few years ahead of its time.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
@jesse: So true. The average land price per unit is about $50k. I would assume that there is a lot of room for profit on condos around 600sq/ft.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
A post demanding the CMHC be shut down gets voted up while a post criticizing the guy that oversaw the US’s version of the CMHC gets voted down.
It would be interesting to know if it’s same people voting both up and down on basically the same issue.
July 27th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
http://home.comcast.net/~lcmgr....._Swaps.htm
This is the enemies the bears are facing. Not the arrogant sellers in Van who keep on demanding high prices. Read especially the last sentence. I question those who keep on saying that governments can’t force inflation and deflation is here to bestow on the commons.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
New Listings 180
Price Changes 123
Sold Listings 150
July 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Well that is a matter of opinion, and I happen to disagree. Either way it isn’t addressing the same issue so the comparison doesn’t really make any sense.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Chip,
Frank’s comment was criticizing the policies of the CHMC and the effects they have on real estate. Your comment was a cheap shot at an individual that doesn’t add any substance to a real estate debate. Get it?
July 27th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Pretty good sales numbers.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
@patriotz:
“Like that isn’t the case for every other development?”
Not really, because other developments target as broad a spectrum of the market as possible in order to maximise the pool of potential buyers. Of course they could cut parking in order to drive costs down even more, but then they’d end up with a product which is harder to sell. This development in question is specifically targeting a niche in the market and providing a tailored product to suit. The prices are still ridiculous but I see where they’re coming from.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Gotta love the coverage on the health hazards and warnings of and against eating local seafoods ( oysters. fish, shellfish etc etc) harvesting in the vicinity of Vanshitholes pristine / supernatural waters and beaches. Its roaringly funny how so many shitbrained Vanshittites can’t make the connection between the fact that the waters and beaches are covered in wet feces everyday with 800 million liters a day from the cities sewage outflows.
I drove past the beach today and laughed to see how many brainless Vanshitters lolled around in the feces and hospital waste soaked sand and water. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Talk about desperation and denial. Assholes….if the water critters are toxic…how did you think that happened???????
PS…The Sewer ( Surrey) has made basement suites legal…way to get ahead of the curve for the time when property values start falling off the cliff guys. Now that all the suites are legal, there will be property taxes to increase and income taxes to track down…never mind the insurance costs. The ‘mortgage helper will turn into an albatross for a lot of unsuspecting FTB’s who thought it would help them defray costs and will now turn into a costly blunder.Bwahahahahahahahahahahah….People are so stupid.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
@vibe:
Frank was perhaps the politician most responsible for the housing meltdown in the US, and he just finished co-sponsoring the sweeping financial reform package that doesn’t even mention the govt-sponsored organizations that kickstarted the whole fiasco and could cost the taxpayer a cool $1 trillion.
But to make a jab at his obvious hypocrisy with regard to money is a cheap shot?
Really? You’re offended on behalf of Barney Frank?
Am I missing something or did Jerry Falwell and his boy’s choir just take over VCI …
July 27th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@chip:
chip Says:
July 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
A post demanding the CMHC be shut down gets voted up while a post criticizing the guy that oversaw the US’s version of the CMHC gets voted down.
It would be interesting to know if it’s same people voting both up and down on basically the same issue.
++++++++++++++++
This isn’t Hollywood Squares and there isn’t a collective thumb on the button.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
@realpaul:
Who wouldn’t want an occasional gun battle under the toddler’s bedroom?
July 27th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
@paulb.: href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsdXmYGFBcU”>what? oh noooo
July 27th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@paulb.: what? oh noooo
July 27th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
chip,
I didn’t find your comment offensive, I found it meaningless. Even if Frank is a hypocrite (and I don’t quite get that) it doesn’t have anything to do with the issue. Posts like that detract from useful discussion. The point is that there was a material difference between the two posts and that is why they got voted in opposite directions.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Vancouver ranks as one of the most unhappy places on Earth
http://www.winnipegfreepress.c.....47359.html
July 27th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
but it’s the best place on Earth LOLOL
July 27th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Vancouver ranks as one of the most unhappy places on Earth”
So what was it’s ranking? The link you gave only has the Top 10. And all those places seem to define “happiness” in terms of where’s a good place to be if you’re a jobless teenage hippy backpacker who need reintroducing to soap.
July 27th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
How to Buy Your Kids a House
I found an article today that speaks so clearly to any debate about inflation/reflation/deflation.
Have a read it was published today on Howestreet.com
http://www.howestreet.com/arti.....e_id=14119
July 27th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Any bear that believe this project bad for Vancouver is just lazy loser renter. Bear have serious jealous rage whenever anyone own house or condo and they can’t. Bear you should have paid more attention in school and got a degree in something useful. Complain all the time of Vancouver low wage but Vancouver have lots of good jobs for smart people. If you want to make big money as waitress bear move to Alberta.
July 27th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
@jesse: Really bear? How much land in downtown Vancouver town core? Not much bear. How many little bear and big bull want to live in downtown core? Many. What is result of this situation bear? Is seller of scarce resource thinking “maybe I give discount to renting bear because of Phoenix housing chart and fundamental value”? No bear they are not.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Tokyo
July 27th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....44178.html
This is almost surreal. Forget the market and the economic realities, everything will work out with just the right “head shot.”
July 27th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
http://vancouver.en.craigslist.....81959.html
I’ll bet she would offer a blow job as well as the grand.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Bear have serious jealous rage?
Sounds like you’re the one in a jealous rage.
July 27th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
@chilled: would you say no. That would seal the deal for me man
July 27th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@redflagreview: Buying houses in ounces of gold? With gold at $1200 an ounce? Run, don’t walk, to the goldsmith before it’s too late.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
@chip:
Obviously you don’t subscribe to the saying “the buck stops here”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8
I don’t see the guy in this video warning Americans about paying too much for houses.
July 27th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Put up posters at Abbott and Expo Blvd and then also at the real estate office on Abbott St. I will check tomorrow to see if they get taken down right away. I’ll put up more as well tonight or tomorrow… we’ll see how quickly they get pulled down.
If anyone has the chance to see them tell me what you think! Right by Stadium Skytrain station just down the stairs at Abbott and Expo.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:08 am
@patriotz 102
Wow! Just when you thought we’d finally tallied up the Bush idiocies. Welfare Republican style. That’s bonkers.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:20 am
A typical day at the desk of Gregory Klump …
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-05-21/
July 28th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Things I have noticed:
1 .There does appear to be a few more “Sold” stickers on signs as I drive around town.
2. The forum is slowly being taken over by crazies who don’t want to talk about real estate.
3. Chilled hates women and has probably never kissed one he didn’t pay.
4. Realpaul is a very bitter nutbar who may also be posting under Chilled or at minimum plays video games with him.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:06 am
We love to blame government and politicians for our problems, whether Frank, Bush, Harper, F, CMHC, etc. But in a capitalist democracy, the ultimate blame lies with the people.
Which of the following statements would result in more votes for a politician:
A. Home prices are getting too high, we need to raise down payment requirements and interest rates to make prices fall.
B. Thanks to our successful policies, more citizens than ever have realized the dream of home ownership.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:27 am
@crabman:
Absolutely. The reason that governments promote bubbles is that the great majority of the people want them, and that’s because they think they can get something for nothing.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Another fantastic post from Rachelle on Million Dollar Journey and I don’t say that for many posts.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Hope this blog doesn’t suffer the same fate as albertabubble.blogspot.com, which succumbed to the nut-cases’ posts.
July 28th, 2010 at 8:50 am
patriotz Says: “…governments promote bubbles is that the great majority of the people want them, and that’s because they think they can get something for nothing.”
Bullshit. Suggestion: go out and meet some of “great unwashed”. They want prosperity, not bubbles. The problem for most is differentiating between the two, a problem cynical and useless sacks like Harper and Bush (and Clinton) are keen to leverage for party political ends.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:04 am
@jesse:
Good article, particularly about declining tenant quality as the home ownership rate increases. This means that landlords need a higher gross rental return – yet another deterioration in fundamentals beyond simple price/rent.
The author appears to be talking about Ontario, in BC rent controls were abolished in 1983 and after that there was something called “rent review” which allowed sitting tenants to appeal huge rent increases – but there were no prescribed limits. That was replaced by Gordo’s rent controls for sitting tenants in this decade.
But the RE industry, having switched over to condos during the 70′s to escape Dave Barrett’s rent controls, never went back to rentals as condos brought them higher return at lower risk, as the article notes. Or in other words because condo buyers were (and are) willing to pay more than rental value.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:08 am
@jesse:
Thanks Jesse, great post indeed.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:09 am
@fixie guy:
My point is that the “great unwashed” think that bubbles are prosperity.
How many people in this province agree with us (on this board) that the “golden decade” was simply an unsustainable RE bubble? Not even the opposition parties have claimed this. How many people do you know who think we are headed for a US-style bust?
Politicians don’t have to deceive people about RE, because the people are deceiving themselves.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Sorry, a confusion on my part caused by the fact that “My point is that the “great unwashed” think that bubbles are prosperity…” and “…governments promote bubbles is that the great majority of the people want them, and that’s because they think they can get something for nothing” have different and contradictory meanings in normal English usage.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:32 am
@patriotz: From the article:
Strata councils are actually a relatively new phenomenon. Without some good management and due-diligence on construction quality BEFORE purchasing a condo, owner-occupied multi-unit buildings will deteriorate faster than the purpose-built rental stock.
July 28th, 2010 at 9:53 am
‘Golden Decade ‘ my ass. Inflation is not prosperity, its delusional, like cocaine. The current wave of inflation has served only the greed of the public service ghouls who have sought to increase their wealth through the insidious piling on of massive benefits to themselves. The higher inflation has meant higher government revenues, none which have filtered back to the people. Where are all the school books and equipment for the childrens hospitals etc? Why is the public asked to raise funds for ‘charity’ when they pay outrageous taxes? People die because of the unionist greed. Why are the public service parasites the only ones who have these diamond studded benefits while children die of cancer?
http://www.vancouversun.com/he.....story.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/bu.....story.html
July 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am
@realpaul:
“The higher inflation has meant higher government revenues, none which have filtered back to the people. Where are all the school books and equipment for the childrens hospitals etc?”
Think about it.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Apparently, we are paying 38% more on gas price than those in Edmonton, No.1 again! Why?
VANCOUVER(News1130) – It’s official, Vancouver currently has the highest gas prices in the country.
Petroluem marketing company MJ Ervin finds the average price across Canada is roughly 1.04 a litre as of July 27th.
Here in Vancouver the average price is 1.19.
60 markets were sampled in the survey.
We top traditional number ones, including Whitehorse and Yellowknife – the latter being at just over a 1.18.
The lowest price at the pump belongs to Edmonton at around 86 cents a litre.
Toronto is just below the national average at 1.03 a litre.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:22 am
@apple: This is a socialist paradise where the wealthy polluting suburbanite car drivers transfer their hard earned cash to the green suburbanite transit users?
July 28th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Way to go Vancouver, just keep paying 1.20/litre and never complain. Your Provinicial and Muncicipal Gov’t thanks you.
Look forward to 1.50/litre in a years time.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Aaargh, no way to edit typo’s here.
I’ll be more careful next time.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:52 am
$1.20/liter is still CHEAP in comparison to other countries, e.g. UK, Sweden.
July 28th, 2010 at 10:53 am
3 more sales day to go. Looking like 40+% down in sales for July.
July = UNITS = %Sales to listings
1995 = 1978 = 42%
1996 = 2100 = 39%
1997 = 2303 = 46%
1998 = 1816 = 44%
1999 = 2181 = 58%
2000 = 1710 = 48%
2001 = 2737 = 73%
2002 = 2759 = 67%
2003 = 4140 = 88%
2004 = 3114 = 62%
2005 = 3825 = 88%
2006 = 2802 = 61%
2007 = 3955 = 76%
2008 = 2215 = 34%
2009 = 4197 = 80%
2010 = 2024 = 52% *** July 27
July 28th, 2010 at 10:55 am
The boom is over. Sales for NEW homes, townhomes & condos are at the 16+ year low.
July
“NEW” unit sales
YEAR= UNITS = %Sales to listings
1995 = 296 = 37%
1996 = 442 = 45%
1997 = 350 = 38%
1998 = 311 = 61%
1999 = 298 = 76%
2000 = 205 = 52%
2001 = 288 = 87%
2002 = 221 = 69%
2003 = 488 = 110%
2004 = 343 = 79%
2005 = 724 = 134%
2006 = 445 = 80%
2007 = 503 = 70%
2008 = 215 = 36%
2009 = 441 = 74%
2010 = 115 = 27% *** July 27
July 28th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Yes, very cheap. We should be much higher than the socialist paradise that is Sweden.
All progressive socialist Vancouverites should demand to tax it up to 1.50/litre immediately! Think of the children! Bwahahaaaaaa.
Disclaimer: I live in Abbotsford and gas up in Sumas, WA as often as possible.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:05 am
“3 more sales day to go. Looking like 40+% down in sales for July.”
Thanks for the info…however, your list says 52% for July and you think sales will be off 40%. Not sure what to make of it.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:06 am
if the government wants more tax revenue, they should just tax the cyclists too – they share the road don’t they?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:13 am
@Jonathon: The shocking part is the way it has become a truism in Vancouver that spending 9 to 10 times you annual income on real estate is the standard.
According to that standard, it’s well within their means!
If that doesn’t show Vancouver has officially lost it’s mind…
July 28th, 2010 at 11:14 am
1.20 a littre? Can some one explain how it is possible that we sell our petrol to the states so they can sell it to their citizens 80cents a littre but when it come to our citizens we charge 1.20 a littre?
July 28th, 2010 at 11:17 am
@Anoymous: ahm…yeah, they also make a bit more money on the job than the folks in BC.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@paradox
It’s pretty simple, dude.
A little concept called TAX!
We are the ones saving the planet.
More carbon tax for us, please!
More cheap tar sands oil for our American brothers.
{In case it isn’t obvious my last few posts are completely sarcastic.}
July 28th, 2010 at 11:23 am
@paradox:
It’s not a Canadian thing, it’s a BC thing. Ontario is about 12-15 cents a litre cheaper than here. Go figure that one. The provincial governments here keep taking and taking and taking. I think 5 cents a litre is the stupid carbon tax as well ( which I am still trying to figure out what it is supposed to do for the environment)
July 28th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Bloody hell, make that 25 cents a litre cheaper!!!!!!!!!!!!! 94 cents a litre today in Ontario. BC continues to get raped by the provincial and municiple govs. What a bloody joke this place is.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@paradox:
“Can some one explain how it is possible that we sell our petrol to the states so they can sell it to their citizens 80cents a littre but when it come to our citizens we charge 1.20 a littre?”
Tax.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Gas taxes: http://www.bcgasprices.com/Can_Tax_Info.aspx
July 28th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Ooops, for 2008.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Hey Grampy, you’re full of shit.
You already said you’re a believer in survival of the fittest. Considering the vulgar nature of your posts your “concern” for children and the elderly is disingenuous at best.
I think it’s much more likely you’re using fake concern for others an an excuse to complain about taxes and unions .
So… you know…. quit pretending you care about anyone other then yourself.
July 28th, 2010 at 11:52 am
@fixie guy: No, there’s no contradiction there. The “great unwashed” want prosperity with no work/effort/risk. Witness how everyone feels like a genius when their house doubles in value, or their .com stocks explode exponentially. That’s the kind of prosperity most want. That’s what feel they deserve, what is owed them. The good life. They too deserve to live like the rich and famous. Sadly, people do really believe prosperity should be easy, and that it should be the natural state of things, a result of simply being born.
Bubble conditions hit all those points. Which is why people love bubbles, and why they feel like the real thing: all their requirements for their ideal of prosperity are satisfied.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Back to Real Estate, I know a lot of sellers still expects big bucks for their tear downs around my area but what the hell is this owner & realtor thinking? Seriously they believe people will pay $3M+ for this one just because it is on the west side of Oak, inside Shaughnessy boundary? I mean for a million less I could get a lot better house within a 5 block radius!
http://www.realtor.ca/property.....=421599380
PS, I noticed that some houses for sale now have 2 realtor signs on their front lawns from different agencies. Is this a case where the owner goes whoever sells my house gets the full commission??
July 28th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@Anoymous:
Vancouver is NOT a country yet, we are comparing cities in Canada.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Devore, your thoughts miss a critical component. Bubbles pop. To say ‘people want bubbles’ as opposed to ‘mistake bubbles for prosperity’ means the general population understands the distinction, are cynically opportunistic and plan to bail. That’s a hard case to make.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
If governments have to tax, and they do, I would rather they tax things like gas rather than my earnings.
Nobody HAS to drive but we all have to make a living.
So double the fucking gas tax and cut my income tax you bastards!
July 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@space889: LMAO! For the same price, look what you could get in Beverly Hills instead of that POS Vancouver teardown.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@Inventory: Thanks!
What is the total inventory at? I’m curious to see how quickly it’ll bounce back next month compared to other cities (Edmonton).
July 28th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@Best place on meth:
Once they got away with taxing working people on their income, they will eventually tax us on how much oxygen we use. The government will not stop on its own. They are greedy and their greed knows no limits. Look at the Translink extortion: we are paying levy thorough hydro, and then 12% tax on the levy, at work we pay parking fee with translink levy and 12% on top of the levy, we pay gas with translink levy and pay 12% tax on top of the levy… and this is just the tip of an iceberg.
Nobody knows any more how much tax we are paying in various extortionist forms.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Wow, crabman.
If that doesn’t clearly demonstrate the lunacy of the Vancouver bubble I don’t know what does.
A teardown barely in W. Van. or a recently refurbished mansion in Beverly Hills for the same money? Insanity.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
@Boombust: The reason the sell/list is higher than expected (though still lower than most previous years) is that new listings have dropped off considerably. Fortunately, we’re still sitting on 18K inventory, with plummeting sales, leaving a very high MOI, with a good likelihood for ongoing price declines.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
@space889: Well it doesn’t seem too ridiculous when you consider that “the underground oil tank has been removed”. I mean that’s worth at least a mil right there.
Not to mention you can walk to Safeway, Subway and the local elementary school quite easily saving you another mil on transportation costs.
All in all not a bad deal when you put on your bubble goggles.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
@fixie guy: according to the link (Canada Gasoline Tax), I see about a 10 cent difference between Vancouver and Alberta. That doesn’t fully account for the 35 cent difference in actual gas prices between Vancouver and Edmonton. What gives?
July 28th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
@Tony Danza:
You’re bang on Tony regarding the $2M value for the oil tank removal and close proximity to Safeway.
But that still leaves 1.2M for that POS property.
July 28th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
@fixie guy: Eventually they realize some bubbles are in fact bubbles, but usually only once they stop inflating. Even if they DO realize it’s a bubble, like Van RE, they believe it will keep growing forever. The term “bubble” is meaningless to them. It’s just a word for high prices. Bubble mechanics, boom/bust cycle, credit, deflation, price discovery, none of that plays into their consciousness. Bubble means “buy, and ride the wave, and cash out to a greater fool!”
July 28th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Anonymous, it’s a 2008 table. I didn’t notice before pulling the trigger. Something a little fresher though I’m not sure it reflects HST changes, if any:
http://retail.petro-canada.ca/...../2139.aspx
July 28th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Any clue why bubble still exists in Seattle???
http://www.zillow.com/homedeta.....3635_zpid/
1.3M just sold for a 33 lot????
July 28th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
From last sold price at 700k in 2002 to the recent 1.3M even in the midst of the so-called worst housing disaster in the US, this house still managed to almost double?
I recall the bear were already saying housing was in a bubble 2002. Now, the bubble has burst and this house still managed to fetch 1.3M? Any clue, bears?
July 28th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
@Whitebear:
Same reason as anywhere else – they haven’t run out of fools yet. Seattle prices are only back to 2005 levels.
http://seattlebubble.com/blog/
As for this particular house, the current listing says it’s been remodeled. That probably accounts for much of the increase over the 2002 price.
What do you think a house like this would sell for in Vancouver?
July 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
@Whitebear: What’s the history of the house? Was it a complete reno? East Queen Anne is a pretty desirable area, kind of like Fairview here, except it’s quite close to Lake Union if you have a boat. Seattle didn’t get run up nearly as much as other parts of the USA and let’s remember they have major business there, Microsoft, Amazon, Adobe, biotech & startups galore, etc etc. Anyway, a sample size of 1 doesn’t tell you squat. Are you trying to imply this one house disproves “the so-called worst housing disaster in the US”? LOL
July 28th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
@ ‘Whitebear’
Yep, “so-called disaster”. You funny. This month’s Case Shiller:
http://img844.imageshack.us/im.....7csusa.gif
Seattle is fortunate in that its late start means gains are only wiped out to ~2005.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Not only that but it was listed at 1.5 in February.
Seems it took a hefty drop in asking to get someone to finally bite.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Prices are up, say the pimps, in spite of sales off over 40% and inventory spiking. What will they think of next? We haven’t heard from the media much lately on the real benefits of real estate ownership….is this announcement a shot in the dark? Are we in for another barrage of bullshit?
http://www.vancouversun.com/bu.....story.html
July 28th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@Whitebear: Most of the US still has inflated prices even after a 30%+ decline. Remember that when you’re thinking of buying a house in Vancouver in a couple of years at 20% off current prices.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I was just trying to say that it may be wiser to invest in Seattle now than Vancovuer if you have a chunk of money.
July 28th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
@Whitebear: I can
a) stab myself with a large knife
b) stab myself with a small knife
c) not stab myself at all
I choose (c).
July 28th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Does this ever put the U.S government debt into perspective.
$13 trillion debt.
80 million houses in the country.
$13T would buy 72 million of them or 90%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banki.....ional-debt
Think they’re ever planning on paying it back?
July 28th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
@realpaul:
Those stats were from May.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
@crabman: I say the same thing until my sister counter with “yes but if you are a rich guy and owns a house in US, you have to declare your worldwide income to the IRS and pay taxes on it. The IRS is a lot tougher and meaner than CRA. Plus US extradite criminals back to home country.”
So that does kind of puts a big dampner on corruption money from China going to US.
Well there are also some other annoying restrictions for foreigner/non-PR to own a house in US too.
But for a million bucks difference, I would probably put up with that hassles. Or hell, buy in those coutries where US people love to retire too at even cheaper price.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Here is another piece of bubble news, from Hong Kong this time.
http://news.mingpao.com/20100729/gab1.htm
The land auction concluded yesterday with a transaction price of 10.4B $HKD, resulting in a price of $32000HKD ($4200 CAD)/sq feet.
Of particular interest is that the sq.ft price $4200 CAD/sq is 30-50% higher than all the home sales transactions nearby. My enquiring mind would like to know why a builder is willing to pay $4200 for just the raw land and somewhere nearby there are apartments avaiable for sale at 30-50% lower than the raw land price?
According to the news, the developer is betting that once the apartments are completed, there will be Mainland Chinese flocking to buy everything up. LOL.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
@space889:
That simply isn’t true. I mean that should be common knowledge in Vancouver, as people here have owned vacation properties in Pt. Roberts, etc. for decades.
You are liable for US income taxes if (A) you are a legal resident of the US, or (B), you spend more than 181 days a year in the US, or (C) you are a US citizen (but the first $75K is exempt if you are non-resident). (A) and (B) are the same as Canada.
Anyone who owns any property in the US (RE, stocks, etc) is also liable for US estate taxes (on the US property), but I think that only applies to value > $2 million or so.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
@patriotz: well a lot of mainland Chinese people still rely on business in China to generate income so A and/or B does matter to them. Also I think Canada and US have a tax treaty which make things easier while I don’t think China have a tax treaty with US. How much it mattesr I don’t know since I’m not familiar with owning property in US and their income tax codes, just heard some horror stories.
Regardless I think dirty money probably just don’t like US when Canada offers so much more safety and way more social benefits.
July 28th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
@space889: Plus, IRS agents carry guns.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
New Listings 141
Price Changes 132
Sold Listings 70
July 28th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
@paulb.:
Those SOLDs are killer. RE agents must be feeling the pinch this summer.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Reviewing Paul B & Larry’s numbers (and VHB’s tallys), it seems to me that there have been around 2097 sales so far in July, with 2 days left. If that number is roughly correct, it is almost certain that this month’s sales numbers will be lower than those in 2008, but equally certain that it will be the 2nd lowest July sales in 10 years (and only marginally higher than that 2008 low).
July 28th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
@Recently Bearish
There is an important NOT missing from my last post – almost certain that the numbers will NOT be lower than those of 2008.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Maybe some blowback from the escalating tax regime that has been insidiously imposed on BC taxpayers under the guise of ‘rates and fee creep’. At 6:00 on Global Vaughn Palmer will supposedly list the hikes in direct and indirect taxation that has been foisted on the BC taxpayer. I hope they do a forensic analysis on where the money is going, but that might ignite a political conflagration so I won’t hold my breath for too much truth from a Global news cast. Still I would hope that even the bozo’s out there have to finally be picking up on how the fund flow to public service entities is draining the public coffers to the extent that services can no longer be delivered because of outrageous salaries and perks.
Remember this….everytime its announced that more money is going into healthcare ( for ex) the unions immediately go on strike and claw back any money that has been allocated for services and equipment. This results on moneies only servicing the unions and nothing of the additional tax dollars going into the schools , hospitals etc etc….net zer for the taxpayer. The unions then go right back on attack mode and cry that services are underfunded….after having stolen all the money…..outrageous…..like the kid who kills his parents asking for clemancy from the judge because he’s an orphan. Over 90% of the healthcare budget gets sucked away for wages and outrageous pensions….how is the kids hospital ever going to modernize if the union pigs keep their cash from going to the equipment they so desperatley need?
July 28th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
@space889:
Ever here of Miami? That was in the US last time I checked. It has also seen a 45% drop in RE prices.
July 28th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
@Recently Bearish:
Whew, that’s good, wouldn’t want to trigger another 400 bps rate cut (particularly from .75) and god knows what the CMHC would do with another $250 billion of taxpayer guarantees.
Oh wait, are these cheap shots in violation of the Morality of Government Spending Criticism Act?
July 28th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Watched the Global report…. 600% ….800%……1000% higher than the stated rate of national inflation in fee hikes ( taxes disguised as anything but) across the board. Gas taxes and prices the highest in North America…..does this have anything to do with the 21% annual increase in civil servants making more than $100,000 per annum? Tell me it ain’t so Ma!!!!!!!!
Global says no to a tax revolt…I say ‘where do I sign up’!!!!
July 28th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
@Recently Bearish:
2300 sales this month would be 44% lower than last July and 5% higher than 2008.
MOI should increase from 5.9 to 7.3 after expired listings are factored in at the end of the month.
Let’s hope that August brings 1500 sales.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
McLovin Says:
July 28th, 2010 at 8:01 am
Things I have noticed:
2. The forum is slowly being taken over by crazies who don’t want to talk about real estate.
3. Chilled hates women and has probably never kissed one he didn’t pay.
4. Realpaul is a very bitter nutbar who may also be posting under Chilled or at minimum plays video games with him.
===================================
Count me in. Realpaul and Chilled are pretty much the only reason I still read this blog.
The only thing I don’t like is the constant references to “realwhores”. It is degrading for hard working sex workers to be associated with realtors.
I pay half of my salary into taxes, why the fuck is everyone bothering me to donate to “charities”? What is the government doing with my money? What is a charity anyways? Cushy retirement fund for useless cancer researchers? After 100 years of “research” could you please produce a cure?
July 28th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
what’s the average income in vancouver ?
average family income ?
I wanted to look around the world to see what that could get you elsewhere
what is the approved rational ratio
a house should cost 4 times annual income ? 3 times ?
let’s say 5 times ?
thoughts?
July 28th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
@patriotz: uhm…aren’t those dirty money generated in the US and through illegal activities that doesn’t report taxes anyways?
I’m talking about money that are generated through registered corporations in China. So it’s legal income but dirty in the sense that it only comes about because of the bribes, etc to be paid to gov’t officials. A lot of business immigrants require that money to live but don’t want to pay both US and Chinese income tax on it. It’s a lot easier to get away in Canada of not paying Canadian income tax on it. In fact it’s common knowledge that a lot of Chinese here (HK, Taiwan, Mainland, etc) using various schemes to receive social benefits (eg. welfare, GIS, housing/childcare subsidies, etc) in Canada while not reporting assets and incomes to CRA in Canada.
That’s very different from drug money where it’s always outside the system until laundered into legit business at which time taxes are often paid.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@Hovering: You can find the answers to your questions here.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Regarding gas prices here, in Metro Vancouver we’ve got the “regional gas tax”, which funds TransLink, at 15 cents/litre. That goes a long way towards explaining the discrepancies between gas prices here and elsewhere.
Also don’t forget Campbell’s carbon tax, which started at 2 cents/liter, and is now 4.45 cents/litre.
July 28th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Here are the projections for July with only two days left. I hair better than 2008 for sales seems likely. YAY better than the worst year ever. That’s a boom, right?
item sales listings sell/list
days elapsed 19 19
average 110 200
days left 2 2
projection 2306 4203 54.9%
July 28th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
The ‘Translink Tax’ is actually 32.5 cents per litre.
July 29th, 2010 at 4:42 am
@space889:
Miami is a long time haven for dirty money from Latin America, especially Colombia (drugs) and Venezuela and Ecuador (oil). And of course Cuba pre-Castro.
Go rent the Godfather Part II some time.
Mr. Market doesn’t care where money comes from. Economic fundamentals always prevail.