Vancouver Land Development Guide

The Vancouver Sun has an interesting series of articles starting up on the myths of real estate which so far falls a little short of the promised “2 million reasons for the high price of Vancouver real estate” but has some interesting stats courtesy of the groundbreaking research out of the UBC Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate.

“Depending where you draw the circle,” Somerville says, “70 per cent of the land isn’t developable. It’s mountains or water or the United States.”

Now I caution you all that this is preliminary data fleshed out with our best guess-work, but it’s ground breaking stuff to be sure. This new paradigm may be the difference we need to make the ‘running out of land’ meme have the holding strength that is hasn’t had in so many global real estate bubble markets before.

We suspect that this data may also come as a surprise to many of you who live on the north shore mountains, or who were under the impression that the “United States” was an entirely different country rather than a chunk of land to be considered in the development of the city of Vancouver. Some newcomers may also be surprised to see water mentioned as “undevelopable land” but most people who’ve been to Granville Island or Coal Harbor know it’s important to differentiate between water that is developable and water that is undevelopable.

In the end those are all just details. The important thing is the math:

“The higher the population of a city, the higher the house prices,” he says. “If we lose 70 per cent of the land, our metropolitan area of two million will have the same house prices as a seven-million metropolitan area. Because people have to commute the same distance.”

This simple equation makes determining the true value of a Vancouver house simple. Because of Mountain/Water/USA land, our prices should be much higher than a metropolitan area with a population of only 2 million and equal that of a population of 7 million. Chicago has close to 8 million people and a median listing price of $229,900.

*Graph neither endorsed nor condoned by the REBGV, UBC, The Mayors Office, The Illuminati or the wookie-busker. Please take with a giant grain of salt. If rash develops, discontinue use. See a physician before taking any expired prescription medications you may find in second-hand stores.
102 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Inventory
Inventory
10 years ago

UPDATE!!!

August Van. West – NEW units sales (house+townhouse+condo)

1994 = 53

1995 = 72

1996 = 148

1997 = 220

1998 = 72

1999 = 144

2000 = 57

2001 = 90

2002 = 56

2003 = 89

2004 = 85

2005 = 138

2006 = 99

2007 = 96

2008 = 30

2009 = 94

2010 = 16 ***Aug 24

Uni
Uni
10 years ago
anon
anon
10 years ago

ok, and on another note…I visited a friends new condo today. Looked out the window directly overlooking the backyard of the neighbouring townhome complex. I said they must be pissed about the development because they just lost all privacy in their yards…(I was thinking to myself I would imagine that might lower prices on the townhomes)…my friend says that they are starting construction across the road on another tower which will only add value to their place…

How exactly does that work? Doesn't more supply, not to mention newer supply, generally mean lower prices on existing/aging structures? unless you own land that is…???

anon
anon
10 years ago

Hey…I heard today that Vancouver might get the next winter olympics…2014…because the Russian economy is in the crapper, and if they cannot afford to host then it defaults to the last host…any truth?

Anonymous
Anonymous
10 years ago

@jesse:

"Good so they won’t care one iota if prices fall 40%."

They'll possibly care – psychologicaly they'll feel as if they've lost something – but it's unlikely to have ever affected them anyway unless they'd been planning to sell up and rent or relocate.

bogi
bogi
10 years ago

Hmmm… interesting liknks below: suing journalists and newspapers for shamelessly midleading and influencing readers by pumping real estate values in exchange for full page ads, what a concept. Can't wait for it to happen here. It could pretty easily be proven that the Sun/Province rags were guilty of this given that reporter Wyng Chow was fired for essentially taking kickbacks in exchange for positive press involving a developer. How is that different from what is taking place now and in the last 5 years with the current "experts"? Remember the front page story in April 2008 "15 myths of Vancouver Real Estate" that was pretty much to the day of the last peak followed by a 15-30% correction. So much for the "myths". Now we have "2 million reasons Vancouver real estate won't go down". If thats not a sell… Read more »

paulb.
paulb.
10 years ago

@crashcow: Wow, that was hard to watch. I'm gonna go wash my eyes.

jesse
10 years ago

@Anonymous: "Many, if not most, look at their houses as a place to live, not as an investment."

Good so they won't care one iota if prices fall 40%.

VHB
VHB
10 years ago

Ian Watt says 40 sales last week in his area, with 1444 active listings.

With 21 working days in a month, this gives us an MoI of 1444/(40*(21/5))=8.595.

Anyone wanna buy a condo?

Vanrod
Vanrod
10 years ago

@crashcow: It looks like he is trolling for hookers

Anonymous
Anonymous
10 years ago

@Dude:

"It’s funny how some bulls claim that owners don’t have to sell. "

Many, if not most, look at their houses as a place to live, not as an investment.

crashcow
10 years ago

“we got the crap kicked outta us“ – Ian Watt, Aug 23, 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IY5qN6ubk8&fe

acefupn
acefupn
10 years ago

V845257, "BRAND NEW AND NEVER BEEN OCCUPIED SINCE BUILT IN 2006."

Dude
Dude
10 years ago

It's funny how some bulls claim that owners don't have to sell. The shareholders of Nortel networks don't have to sell (unless they are on margain and can't fill). Where are the they now? Smart owners will sell for less then average because the average is moving downwards. You always need to be ahead of the curve. In a downward trend, its best to sell lower then what other people are asking. Of course you don't have to sell, if you like losing money.

Jimmy
Jimmy
10 years ago

Government-imposed costs are just the tip of the iceberg in home ownership

http://www.vancouversun.com/Government+imposed+co

VHB
VHB
10 years ago

from paulb's daily numbers:

Sell list for June 56.1%

Sell list for July 56.3%

Sell list for August so far 56.2%.

VHB
VHB
10 years ago

Days elapsed so far 15

Days remaining 6

Average Sales this month 107

Average Listings this month 190

Projected Sales 2243

Projected New Listings 3990

Projected sell/list 56.2%

paulb.
paulb.
10 years ago

@crashcow:

If we are going to get a rally in listing inventory (fingers crossed) I would expect action asap. Most people know that the Dec-Feb market is crap, so in a cooling market I would imagine vendors would want as much exposure to the fall market as possible. This would mean getting ones home listed right away

The potential rush could also be influenced by coming month end stat reports, each month that rolls by with gloomy housing stats eats away at investor optimism.

paulb.
paulb.
10 years ago

New Listings 186

Price Changes 106

Sold Listings 145

crashcow
10 years ago

paulb, if one is keenly watching for a listings surge this fall, roughly when would your numbers begin showing this? (given your knowledge of the lag times in your data and the typical start time of the fall real estate season).

SD92129
SD92129
10 years ago

@Chris:

UBC 2 (current faculty), UofC 87 (which includes anyone ever affiliated with the university at some level ie. graduates, faculty, attendees or researchers). Not an apples to apples comparison. A more accurate count would be 2 to 8 (6 in economics and 2 in physics) In any case, I still agree with your point that UofC is as good if not better than UBC.

The reference of webometrics was just to point out that someone out there thinks that UBC is in the same ballpark as UofC. There are numerous ranking paradigms and each has their own criteria for scoring, but yes, generally, UofC ranks higher (often much higher) than UBC.

nonREgirl
nonREgirl
10 years ago

@metalhead: Whistler…I know someone who owns there. She's a fool. Bought the place about 8 years ago for about $249k. I see similar units are now selling there for $270k or so. So…what's the point? She loses $10k a year from this damn property (interest, strata, insurance, whenever the strata says they need new carpets etc). Waste of money! Of course, she thinks it's a "great investment" and once told me "Ya know, just between us girls, I really think you should buy a place!" And I just looked at her blankly, though I really wanted to say "Why? So I can lose $10k a year like you? Over 10 years that's $100k you know! Ya, I'll rush right in, sounds GREAT!" But I just said "Uh, oh ya." Because if I said all that I'm sure she'd stare at… Read more »

jesse
10 years ago

@The Pope: Vancouver is running out of vacant land, just not fast enough to make as big a difference to prices as we witnessed in the past 10 years. Sommerville's point that constrained land in a desirable locale will inflate prices is somewhat valid but the implied magnitude of its effect is grossly overstated. This is obvious when looking at condo rents compared to prices, as many posters here have correctly pointed out ad nauseum.

Anoymous
Anoymous
10 years ago

@The Pope:

"a huge swath of empty train tracks just to the east of the core"

I heard that some of this land is owned by a group who want to construct a larger hospital to replace St Paul's downtown – anybody know if there's any truth in this?

Anoymous
Anoymous
10 years ago

@fixie guy:

"Running around hair on fire yelling Asians! land! BPoE! just doesn’t work."

But running around hair on fire yelling "downsizing boomers!" does, apparently.