Tag Archives: condos

Historic accord splits control of properties

They’re not making any more land, but we still seem to be finding some to build on.

The 21 hectare Jericho lands in Point Grey is part of an agreement to split control of three Vancouver properties between a crown corporation and three First Nations – the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

David Eby, MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, said he was heartened to learn that a deal had been made regarding the Jericho Lands.

“There had been a lot of people in the community, myself included, that believed this land would be tied up in negotiations – potentially in court – for many years,” he said. “There’s a very clear and well-established traditional use of this land by First Nations. They were certainly entitled to it and it sounds like they received a fair share of their lands. It was certainly a surprise to hear that it has happened at all, let alone so quickly.”

Mr. Eby said the significance for the community he represents is that development will proceed faster than many anticipated.

“I would not be understating it to say that many members of the community that are neighbours to this property are incredibly concerned about the type of development that could potentially be located at this site,” he said.

“I can tell you everybody from affordable housing advocates to environmental groups … to the West Point Grey Homeowners’ Association has weighed in with different perspectives about what should happen here. That consultation will be challenging, but it’s critically important that it happen.”

Read the full article here.

 

Taxpayers funding condo flippers?

By now everyone knows about the high cost of the Olympic Village project.

Current estimates are that it will cost taxpayers between $400 – $600 million to pay this off.

There are 68 units still left unsold over the last six years, but over at the ‘Canada House’ building it looks like a number of units have been bought and flipped, at least one for more than $400k profit in a month.

Hat tip to Mac who pointed out this article in the Province.

So whats going on here? Should these units have been priced higher or considering the tough sales across this project were they right to unload them quickly even if there were buyers willing to pay more?

Renting: The last, best real estate bargain?

Somebody at the Sun has started looking at rent / buy ratios.  

Many Franks posted this in the comment section yesterday:

Barbara Yaffe discovers renting. Contains a few groaners. Renting a place may be the last, best real estate bargain and a majority of the city’s residents are taking full advantage

Vancouver rents have remained reasonable in part because of a 2.2-per-cent limit on annual increases imposed by the provincial government.

NO! Bad Barbara.

In a recent bulletin, [David and Mark Goodman] report Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation numbers that demonstrate it’s 32.5-per-cent cheaper to rent rather than own a one-bedroom unit in Vancouver.

“The gap increases considerably once strata fees, maintenance costs and taxes are taken into account.”

WTF kind of buy/rent comparison EXCLUDES strata/maintenance and tax?

Apartment building owners in Vancouver since 2007 have faced a municipal moratorium on the demolition of rental housing stock, and are reluctant to evict tenants in order to do needed upgrades.

Renoviction. When a phenomenon is popular enough to coin its own term, “reluctant” might be overstating the case.

The Goodmans are predicting that landlords of these older, minimally upgraded buildings soon may find themselves confronting tough new competition.

They report as many as 49 rental buildings, with 5,849 suites, could come on stream in the region within the next three years.

And the popularity of renting in Metro Vancouver may grow, says the Goodman Report, because of an increasing wariness about Canada’s possibly overvalued real estate.

“We live in a very special place with abundant resources and continuing investment from abroad,” says the newsletter. But with all the housing-bubble talk, “as a B.C. real-estate owner you’re wise to be cautious.”

Where are the 3 bedroom condos?

M- and MarKoz brought up this topic – Vancouver seems to be seriously lacking in affordable family housing.

There are lots of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, but not much available for 3-4 bedrooms until you go to houses.  M- suggest the city requires more large units to be built to provide future homes for Vancouver families:

CoV could require condo developers to include a much larger percentage of 2-bed and 3-bed units in the towers that they’re approving, and require some of those units to have a more family-sized square footage. Maybe in exchange for higher density, to make it less controversial.

It won’t help much of anything today, but it will prevent today’s towers from becoming tomorrow’s ghettos.

My wife and I used to have an 800 sq.ft condo. It was too small for the two of us. Then we got a 1000 sq.ft apartment, and it was enough space for the two of us (we would have liked more, but it was good enough).

Then we had a kid.

The 1000 sq.ft unit slowly became too small for our family, so we’ve upgraded to a house (rental, of course).

We keep an eye on the condo/house markets, and there’s not much selection of 3-bed units out there, until you get into houses.

MarKoz adds:

When I went condo hunting I could find nothing similar. You would have marginal master bedrooms and second bedrooms the size of a closet. The master bathroom was usually huge at the cost of a smaller living room etc. All had fireplaces – a waste of precious wall space in a small unit. Stainless and granite with barely enough counter space to lay a pizza box. Closets were minimal as was out of suite storage.

I moved on to townhouses. 1200 square feet spread over 3 floors is worse than 800 square feet on one floor. So much space given over to stairs and landings.

Who wants these places? Apparently everyone but me. They sure are selling. In the US they have plenty of 3 bedroom units but I guess those don’t attract specuvestors like 565 sq ft one bedrooms.

 

REDMA changes, is this a big deal?

Ex-kitsie pointed out this story:

Justice Minister Susan Anton has introduced Bill 17 (Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 2014) which includes a proposed amendment to Section 23 of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (REDMA).

Ex-kitsie explains:

This is the legislation that governs the marketing of real estate by developers to consumers. The amendment would make a purchase agreement enforceable against a purchaser where the developer’s disclosure agreement included misrepresentation of a material fact and the developer was not aware of the misrepresentation at the time the agreement was entered into. This amendment would remove the ability of the purchaser to terminate or renegotiate the agreement upon discovery of the misrepresentation. So… the developer can include unsubstantiated inaccuracies while still enforcing the purchase agreement against the purchaser who relied upon the misrepresentation. Of course, we all know developers would never lie.

We’re not sure if this is a big deal or not, here’s a link to the amendment, you’ll have to scroll down about half way to find the relevant section.  Any comments on whether this is a dramatic change to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act or just a minor adjustment?