Vancouver Real Estate 'Bubble' at 30-year Peak

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

WTF are you talking about? Absolutely no market rental housing was built with federal money. Social housing is not market rental, unless your brain is so dense, you can't comprehend simple English, then it might be. Plus why do you keep spewing such shit and lies? Seriously.You don't sound like a patriotic Canadian, what's your problem?

No doubt he is confused again and thinking of the federal government's Multi Unit Rental Building tax credit. However it definitely wasn't money handed out, and even if it were, returning tax money from the feds to the provinces could hardly be called "external forces"!

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

WTF are you talking about? Absolutely no market rental housing was built with federal money. Social housing is not market rental, unless your brain is so dense, you can't comprehend simple English, then it might be. Plus why do you keep spewing such shit and lies? Seriously.You don't sound like a patriotic Canadian, what's your problem?

I totally agree social housing is not market rental. Luckily I never said "market rental" I said "rental". Also I suspect a denser brain is superior to one filled with air. Or Jalapeno Chips.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by misher

I totally agree social housing is not market rental. Luckily I never said "market rental" I said "rental". Also I suspect a denser brain is superior to one filled with air. Or Jalapeno Chips.

The federal government has never given anyone any money for rental in BC. Do you understand? RENTAL is not SOCIAL HOUSING. Do you understand? Why do you continue to spread lies? What's your problem?

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

The federal government has never given anyone any money for rental in BC. Do you understand? RENTAL is not SOCIAL HOUSING. Do you understand? Why do you continue to spread lies? What's your problem?

They have done so many times....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nits-1.4657379

A number of new rental developments will be built in Greater Victoria in the coming years after a $90 million government investment.

Federal, provincial and Capital Regional District politicians made the announcement of 2,010 rental units on Thursday, one of the first announcements to come out of the federal government's National Housing Strategy.

Seriously man calm down. I do make mistakes but you need to google first before making accusations. I found this as one of the first five results for "canada federal government builds rentals"

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by misher

They have done so many times....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...nits-1.4657379


Seriously man calm down. I do make mistakes but you need to google first before making accusations. I found this as one of the first five results for "canada federal government builds rentals"

I'll quote your lie again: "A lot of our rental housing from the 70’s to 90’s was built using federal money which I would say is external money" by Misher.

A lie is not a mistake.

Plus those units in Victoria, ARE NOT BUILT YET!

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

I'll quote your lie again: "A lot of our rental housing from the 70’s to 90’s was built using federal money which I would say is external money" by Misher.

A lie is not a mistake.

Plus those units in Victoria, ARE NOT BUILT YET!

(1978-1988)

There were two short-term home rehabilitation and rental initiative programs which were established as job-creation schemes

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/uhr.../1017825ar.pdf

By 1986 only five federal housing programs remained in existence, beyond the traditional mortgage insurance function, residential rehabilitation, non-profit and cooperative housing, rent supplement, and rural native and urban native housing. During 1986 Ottawa signed agreements with provincial and territorial governments to turn over the delivery of most of these remaining federal housing programs, the scope of which had been reduced significantly (CMHC, 1986b). CMHC would continue to provide subsidies and there would be joint planning, but the only major direct activity of the federal government would be mortgage insurance (CMHC, 1983b; CMHC, 1985b). This marked the virtual withdrawal of the federal government and CMHC from active involvement in the implementation of housing policy, an area which it had dominated for 40 years.

https://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/h...d-the-splashy/

Federal lead in new affordable housing: The National Housing Co-Investment Fund puts the federal government in the driver’s seat for new affordable rental – setting the rules, selecting proposals, entering agreements, flowing funds, and monitoring. Since the 1950s this has normally been a provincial role, except in 1974-1985.

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...le-Housing.pdf

• Major federal programs to build new non-market housing (co-op or social housing) ended in 1993, and provincial programs in 2002. Federal tax incentives for purpose-built private rental construction were eliminated in the 1970s and early 1980s

Note that giving someone an incentive is the same as giving money. whatnext is the one that said waiving development fees=giving money or giving a subsidy.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Originally Posted by misher

(1978-1988)

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/uhr.../1017825ar.pdf



https://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/h...d-the-splashy/




https://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...le-Housing.pdf

Note that giving someone an incentive is the same as giving money. whatnext is the one that said waiving development fees=giving money or giving a subsidy.

Another bullshit lie? You're on streak today!

Incentive = incentive. Development fees = development fees. All of it which does not equal: "A lot of our rental housing from the 70’s to 90’s was built using federal money which I would say is external money" by Misher.

I'll ask again, what's your problem?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Cool it with the accusations, people. Nothing breaks down a conversation more than assuming the other party is lying on purpose and saying so.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

Another bullshit lie? You're on streak today!

Incentive = incentive. Development fees = development fees. All of it which does not equal: "A lot of our rental housing from the 70’s to 90’s was built using federal money which I would say is external money" by Misher.

I'll ask again, what's your problem?

You're arguing semantics for no real reason.

Without incentives things don't get built. Simple.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The downside is the price per unit was bid up to ridiuclous levels, trades got greedy as did landsellers.

Have people somehow forgot that pre-sales still were built from 1990-2005 without massive help from external money?

They had, but the risks and input costs were vastly lower. There are only a few massive scale global players that would be willing to build high rise in Van on spec. That's not the type of overhead a typical developer can carry.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by rofina

They had, but the risks and input costs were vastly lower. There are only a few massive scale global players that would be willing to build high rise in Van on spec. That's not the type of overhead a typical developer can carry.

The input costs were lower because offshore money hadn't bid them up to stratospheric levels.

As to risk, is it any riskier now for a developer to build 4 towers, as opposed to the 90's when Bosa built Citygate for example? If anything, they went out on more of a limb with an unproven area. Most projects now launch in pretty safe neighbourhoods, saleswise.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

They had, but the risks and input costs were vastly lower. There are only a few massive scale global players that would be willing to build high rise in Van on spec. That's not the type of overhead a typical developer can carry.

I think this article gives a great overview:

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/100b5d..._POLICY_LR.pdf

[GenWhy?]

"Overview" is a bit much.

[whatnext]

It will be interesting to see how mnay pre-sale buyers do choose to walk away from their deposits.

Expert who predicted Vancouver housing price drop now expects condos to flood market

Get ready to see a lot more condominiums for sale across Metro Vancouver. That’s the latest from the real estate analyst who correctly predicted two years ago that local housing prices would fall.

Dane Eitel’s new research suggests buyers will have more breathing room for at least two more years, even though overall sales rose in May.

“We’re firmly in the down trend,” Eitel says. “May, historically is one of the better sales months and this time, we see, basically a $150,000 price decrease based on the last five years of May prices. We’re going lower, longer. By middle of 2020, average sale prices should be right around $1.4 million for the detached market, signalling a 20 to 24 per cent [drop]. There’s some factors that could maybe cause the detached market to go even lower.”..

....“You’re going to see the cannibalization of the condo market where there’s a flood of new, built properties available to move in today and they’re going to be at relatively attractive prices.”

Eitel also says developers will have to get more competitive.

“There’s going to be a flood of inventory that comes up that no one’s really anticipating, which is all those investors that bought five and six properties are just going to walk away, simply walk away from their 15 per cent deposit, 20 per cent deposit. There’s going to be an absolute ton of inventory available.”..(bold mine)
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/06...-flood-market/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It will be interesting to see how mnay pre-sale buyers do choose to walk away from their deposits.

Presumably the developers will be able to drop the prices on any units that don't complete, as they'll have kept the 15% deposits - and even a discounted price will be more than they were initially sold for. That might make the other buyers unhappy - although they're almost bound to still have a unit worth more than they paid, so it's likely to be perception rather than reality (in terms of 'losing money')

It'll be interesting to see if this has any impact on condo resale volume and prices - those have been 'stickier' than for houses, although they have fallen from the peak.

I'm assuming many of these soon-to-complete buildings are in the suburbs - Tate, Arc and Vancouver House are just wrapping up Downtown, Pinnacle's close in the Olympic Village, and there are a few smaller projects around Cambie, but I think most other projects in the city are some way off completion.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Presumably the developers will be able to drop the prices on any units that don't complete, as they'll have kept the 15% deposits - and even a discounted price will be more than they were initially sold for. That might make the other buyers unhappy - although they're almost bound to still have a unit worth more than they paid, so it's likely to be perception rather than reality (in terms of 'losing money')

It'll be interesting to see if this has any impact on condo resale volume and prices - those have been 'stickier' than for houses, although they have fallen from the peak.

I'm assuming many of these soon-to-complete buildings are in the suburbs - Tate, Arc and Vancouver House are just wrapping up Downtown, Pinnacle's close in the Olympic Village, and there are a few smaller projects around Cambie, but I think most other projects in the city are some way off completion.

It would be interesting to figure out what month/year of purchase is the tipping point for losing money vs bailing without taking too big of a haircut now.

[Changing City]

So while we're waiting to see how housing markets are doing this summer, CMHC have published Housing Starts data for May. I'm looking at the cumulative numbers for the year so far; as noted before, there can be wild fluctuations from one month to another, but putting several months together allows a better comparison of one year to another.

So far this year housing starts are at 12,234 in Metro Vancouver. That's 1,139 more than in the first 5 months of 2018.

The City of Vancouver had the most starts - 2,945, 108 more than the first 5 months of 2018. Burnaby had 2,601, 1,603 more than last year. Surrey had 1,372, 38 less than in 2018 and Richmond had 1,182, 117 fewer than last year. North Vancouver District saw the greatest fall; just 286 starts, 677 fewer than in 2018. The Tri Cities saw a big increase - 1,516 so far this year compared to 787 last year, but Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows saw only 185 starts, a drop from 512 last year.

[misher]

Well prepare for the 31 year peak as a wave of HK Canadians come flooding back.

[whatnext]

Lots of cleared lots in Richmond now up for sale again. Somebody got burned.

[whatnext]

New study shows almost half of Vancouver condos investor owned


New data show that investors own nearly half of Vancouver city condos. Across British Columbia’s Lower Mainland, investors – people who do not live in their properties – own 37 per cent of condo apartments.

Those are some of the findings that have come out of the data released today by the Canadian Housing Statistics Program on residential property owners in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia for 2018. The report includes the new indicator of “not owner occupied.” A property is classified as “not owner occupied” when none of the owners on title declare the property as their usual residence – it is rented out, used as a secondary property, or left empty.

The CHSP is part of the federal government’s new initiative to provide better data on housing. While a Statistics Canada release offered numbers from the report at a provincial level, Simon Fraser University’s City Program director Andy Yan drilled into the data set to deliver more revealing numbers at the local level.

“They gave the perspective from Ottawa – I’m giving the perspective from the ground,” he said.

Mr. Yan found that 46 per cent of condos in Vancouver are “not owner occupied.” In Richmond, the rate is 37 per cent; Pitt Meadows is 37 per cent; Coquitlam is 36 per cent; Surrey is 35 per cent; Burnaby is 33 per cent, and Port Moody, Maple Ridge, North Vancouver and Langley condos are also at about one-third nonowner occupied. Region wide, the rate is an average of 37 per cent for condo ownership. Investors own 15 per cent of detached homes throughout the region. The rate of investor ownership for all housing types is 23 per cent. But condos are a particular draw for those seeking an investment.

“It shows that you can have a housing system that produces units, but those units aren’t there to house those that are there to build the economy,” says Mr. Yan. “And here is the conflict: if they do rent their condo out, they are providing precarious rental – because you can be a foreign or a local owner, but you’re still an investor.”..

....Mr. Yan sees a problem with investor-owned rental stock because of the understandable motivation to seek the bottom line.

“These units are competing for the same land base [as purpose built rental], but under a different financial situation. Condos pay back within five years, but a purpose built rental generally pays you back in 10 or 20 years.

“If you want to be a profit maximizer, why would you want to provide long-term, stable rental if you can make a heck of a lot of money off short term rental? So it’s precarious rental,” he said.

“We haven’t built purpose built rental on scale. We’ve supplemented it with this precarious rental in this condo environment. It’s not a replacement.”...(bold mine)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real...nvestor-owned/