Real Estate in your city

[suburbanite]

Having the context of the rest of the neighbourhood helps put things in perspective.



If it sells for slightly below list, and you add back in some demolition costs, you could estimate the raw land itself is worth a clean $5 million.

This house is listed on an adjacent street for $6.65 million.



As long as it costs you less than $1.65 to build your new house this could be a steal!

[Crawford]

Oh. So the "no big trees" is bc it's a teardown and lack of mature trees lowers construction costs.

Vancouver is insane. Salaries are pretty modest, even for Canada.

[lio45]

The one diagonally across is for sale too:

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/2...enue-vancouver

Same price!

(This one also brags about "no big trees" )

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Oh. So the "no big trees" is bc it's a teardown and lack of mature trees lowers construction costs.

I'm still pretty sure Chinese buyers don't like mature trees for various reasons. See the house posted above - nice landscaping, but the facade is very visible and it seems deliberate (the only "tree" is a medium-sized one and placed on the side).

[Crawford]

Who buys in such a neighborhood? Is it mostly longtime locals riding the RE wave? The prices are comical.

[mrnyc]

my sis in law and her husband basically got out of debt because their home price value has risen so dramatically in seattle. its crazy.

[lio45]

Another Riverwalk listing:

https://www.loopnet.ca/Listing/211-L...o-TX/26287404/

There's a CVS as the commercial tenant, and one really nice residential unit. LOVE the balcony

[lio45]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

my sis in law and her husband basically got out of debt because their home price value has risen so dramatically in seattle. its crazy.

Not a special story. Plenty of ordinary people have made millions with rising real estate. (Or with bitcoin.)

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Who buys in such a neighborhood? Is it mostly longtime locals riding the RE wave? The prices are comical.

Very hard for a local to make upward moves in a comical market like Vancouver. since you can't really realize your gains without moving further and further away. I guess you could sell your bungalow for $5 million and take out a new mortgage for your $6.65 million dream home if you're still of working age. I get the sense most of these types of sales are by retirees who have been there since at least the early 90s though.

I don't want to speak for Vancouver, but I imagine the person who ends up purchasing this will be doing so almost entirely with cash...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

I don't want to speak for Vancouver, but I imagine the person who ends up purchasing this will be doing so almost entirely with cash...

I'd bet on that as well, and I'd add, cash not earned in Vancouver, nor in Canada.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not a special story. Plenty of ordinary people have made millions with rising real estate. (Or with bitcoin.)

Right, but Seattle has a shit-ton of high paying jobs. Amazon, Microsoft, and the like. Its price rise seems somewhat rational/sustainable. And Seattle appears cheap compared to Vancouver. $1 million still gets you something.

Vancouver is mindblowing. My brother recently bought a very nice SFH, in an affluent Midwestern suburb, walking distance to GM CEO Mary Barra's house, at about 2x household income. That ratio has to be unheard of in Vancouver.

[Innsertnamehere]

I mean comparing Vancouver, probably the most expensive housing market on the continent, with Detroit, probably the most affordable, isn't really a fair comparison, but generally, yes, Vancouver's pricing is insane.

It has a lot to do with non-locally generated capital (take a look at Miami for similar occurrences), and huge shortages of certain housing types. *Especially* detached.

The Vancouver CMA has only 27% of dwellings being single-detached. This is compared to the Canadian average of about 53%. It's half as many houses per capita than the rest of the country. I believe the US average is around 60%.

Basically, any detached property in Vancouver is automatically reserved for the uppermost income levels regardless of lot size, dwelling quality, etc.

It shouldn't be surprising that massive development regulations which control Vancouver housing production have destroyed housing affordability.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean comparing Vancouver, probably the most expensive housing market on the continent, with Detroit, probably the most affordable, isn't really a fair comparison, but generally, yes, Vancouver's pricing is insane.

It has a lot to do with non-locally generated capital (take a look at Miami for similar occurrences), and huge shortages of certain housing types. *Especially* detached.

The Vancouver CMA has only 27% of dwellings being single-detached. This is compared to the Canadian average of about 53%. It's half as many houses per capita than the rest of the country. I believe the US average is around 60%.

Basically, any detached property in Vancouver is automatically reserved for the uppermost income levels regardless of lot size, dwelling quality, etc.

It shouldn't be surprising that massive development regulations which control Vancouver housing production have destroyed housing affordability.

The biggest factor are the strong controls on land development in Vancouver and the complete lack of them in Detroit. Many tout Detroit's cheap property as a plus, but it is actually a burden since it makes redevelopment of brownfields financially infeasible. That's why a major metro area like Detroit is held hostage by the whims of a couple of super rich benefactors instead of market fundamentals guiding reuse of land in the core.

[jmecklenborg]

I watched a COPS rerun two weeks ago for the first time in 15+ years, and couldn't help but be struck by how all of the action in that episode (set in Kansas City and Nashville) was in now-gentrified neighborhoods.

For those who know Seattle well, I'm sure that it would be amazing to look at the old Seattle/Tacoma COPS episodes:
https://www.metacritic.com/tv/cops-1...seattle-tacoma

[Crawford]

I think the lack of land controls are a factor, but in Vancouver's case it appears the endless Chinese cash is the biggest factor.

Metro Detroit has higher apples-apples home prices than most of its peers. Generally more expensive than Cleveland, Columbus, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Indy, St. Louis, KC. None of these areas have growth controls, and excepting Columbus none are growing much. SFHs in upper middle class Detroit suburbs aren't that cheap, especially factoring in sky-high property taxes.

In Northville, where my brother bought, 700k is probably now the floor for a nice (not fancy or huge) SFH. That's a discount from the coastal markets, but still way, way over U.S. national medians (I think like 300k for SFH?)

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The biggest factor are the strong controls on land development in Vancouver and the complete lack of them in Detroit. Many tout Detroit's cheap property as a plus, but it is actually a burden since it makes redevelopment of brownfields financially infeasible. That's why a major metro area like Detroit is held hostage by the whims of a couple of super rich benefactors instead of market fundamentals guiding reuse of land in the core.

Detroit area real estate is not that cheap anymore, this isn't the 2000's. Values are comparable to similar sized Midwest metros. It's had the highest price increases in the country for like the last ten years now.

Renovations and construction have picked up pace in the city precisely because of market fundamentals. Suburbs have gotten expensive and inventory is very low. And it's not held hostage by any, "benefactor" whims either, what a strange take.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by The North One

Detroit area real estate is not that cheap anymore, this isn't the 2000's. Values are comparable to similar sized Midwest metros. It's had the highest price increases in the country for like the last ten years now.

Renovations and construction have picked up pace in the city precisely because of market fundamentals. Suburbs have gotten expensive and inventory is very low. And it's not held hostage by any, "benefactor" whims either, what a strange take.

Is it mostly being carried out by smaller independent players buying and renovating/building on underutilized lots as opposed to big block-sized developments? I actually think the former is probably a healthier way to go about revitalizing formerly downtrodden areas even if it means less shiny renderings to post on a skyscraper forum.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The North One

Detroit area real estate is not that cheap anymore, this isn't the 2000's. Values are comparable to similar sized Midwest metros. It's had the highest price increases in the country for like the last ten years now.

Renovations and construction have picked up pace in the city precisely because of market fundamentals. Suburbs have gotten expensive and inventory is very low. And it's not held hostage by any, "benefactor" whims either, what a strange take.

Yes, it is still cheap lol. Comparing Detroit to other places with the exact same market dynamics as Detroit (Cleveland, St. Louis, Toledo, etc) isn't an honest comparison.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Is it mostly being carried out by smaller independent players buying and renovating/building on underutilized lots as opposed to big block-sized developments? I actually think the former is probably a healthier way to go about revitalizing formerly downtrodden areas even if it means less shiny renderings to post on a skyscraper forum.

No it is not. Dan Gilbert owns nearly half of downtown Detroit. The Ilitch family owns the other half. If Detroit's market were healthier then so much downtown territory could never have been accumulated by just two people/families.

[Crawford]

Keep in mind that Detroit gentrification stuff is almost irrelevant to a metro housing market of 5 million. Detroit proper is like 600k, optimistically 10% in zones of gentrification, and even there, it isn't exactly Vancouver or SF. Likely 95%+ of high(er) earners in metro area live outside of city proper. For HNWI it's likely closer to 99%.

Sprawl, not gentrification, is still mostly driving growth. Here's an example of over 1,000 upscale housing units going up on former farmland in a stagnant metro, in an area with basically no existing infrastructure:
https://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/a...-developments/