Vancouver Real Estate 'Bubble' at 30-year Peak

[misher]

Vancouver's Development Policies:



Trees and Signs get their own volume

[nds88]

Originally Posted by misher

Trees and Signs get their own volume

I'm sure some of these policies and regulations help everyone as a whole....but I also question if certain, non-sensible policies will ever be reversed. I'm pretty sure a lot of these regulations are just because people need to keep their job. They gotta keep making stuff up to add to the book, otherwise their job is obsolete. Also, deregulating certain policies is like the city admitting something doesn't work...hard pill for them to swallow

[Migrant_Coconut]

Wouldn't the upcoming citywide plan supersede the bylaw? AFAIK most of those binders are the Bartholomew Plan plus every spot rezoning after it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by nds88

I'm sure some of these policies and regulations help everyone as a whole....but I also question if certain, non-sensible policies will ever be reversed. I'm pretty sure a lot of these regulations are just because people need to keep their job. They gotta keep making stuff up to add to the book, otherwise their job is obsolete. Also, deregulating certain policies is like the city admitting something doesn't work...hard pill for them to swallow

Non-sensible policies like? Making "stuff" (policies and guidelines) like?

I don't think Planner's jobs will become obsolete with a slight review and clean-up of all the amendments.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Wouldn't the upcoming citywide plan supersede the bylaw? AFAIK most of those binders are the Bartholomew Plan plus every spot rezoning after it.

Not exactly.

[Changing City]

Big changes proposed in Burnaby - reported in Burnaby Now.

"The plan would require developers to replace every rental apartment they demolish in a redevelopment on a one-to-one basis.


And those replacement apartments would have to be rented out at affordable rates, defined as 20-per-cent below the rental market average determined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In 2018, CMHC found the average rents for one-bedroom apartments were $1,253 in Burnaby’s Central Park/Metrotown neighbourhood, $1,094 in southeast Burnaby and $1,329 in North Burnaby."

and

"City staff are also recommending council endorse a plan that would require 20 per cent of units in all new multi-family developments to be purpose-built rentals. The city would be able to protect those units as rentals in perpetuity by applying rental-zoning to specific units, while the rest of the building would fall under different zoning for stratified units.


The rentals would remain under the ownership of each building’s strata."

"Developers building in commercial zones could add rental units to their buildings, as long as the overall building conforms to community plans for the area, Schumann said.


For example, if a developer plans to build a 10-storey office tower in an area where city plans call for a maximum of 20 storeys, they could add 10 storeys of rental housing, Schumann said. Only 51 per cent of the total floor area would have to be for commercial use."

And finally (for here - although the article has more detail)

"the city’s plan proposes rezoning all existing purpose-built rental buildings with six or more units as rental only."

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Big changes proposed in Burnaby - reported in Burnaby Now.

"The plan would require developers to replace every rental apartment they demolish in a redevelopment on a one-to-one basis.


And those replacement apartments would have to be rented out at affordable rates, defined as 20-per-cent below the rental market average determined by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In 2018, CMHC found the average rents for one-bedroom apartments were $1,253 in Burnaby’s Central Park/Metrotown neighbourhood, $1,094 in southeast Burnaby and $1,329 in North Burnaby."

and

"City staff are also recommending council endorse a plan that would require 20 per cent of units in all new multi-family developments to be purpose-built rentals. The city would be able to protect those units as rentals in perpetuity by applying rental-zoning to specific units, while the rest of the building would fall under different zoning for stratified units.


The rentals would remain under the ownership of each building’s strata."

"Developers building in commercial zones could add rental units to their buildings, as long as the overall building conforms to community plans for the area, Schumann said.


For example, if a developer plans to build a 10-storey office tower in an area where city plans call for a maximum of 20 storeys, they could add 10 storeys of rental housing, Schumann said. Only 51 per cent of the total floor area would have to be for commercial use."

And finally (for here - although the article has more detail)

"the city’s plan proposes rezoning all existing purpose-built rental buildings with six or more units as rental only."

Making a strata council administer a bunch of rental units? Nightmare incoming.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Changing City

"City staff are also recommending council endorse a plan that would require 20 per cent of units in all new multi-family developments to be purpose-built rentals. The city would be able to protect those units as rentals in perpetuity by applying rental-zoning to specific units, while the rest of the building would fall under different zoning for stratified units.


The rentals would remain under the ownership of each building’s strata."

Is Burnaby on DRUGS? That's the only logical explanation. All that would do would significantly raise the cost/price of condos, and who the hell wants to by a condo and be saddled with the collective hassle of operating a rental business? This is just so disconnected from reality.

[logan5]

Developers building in commercial zones could add rental units to their buildings, as long as the overall building conforms to community plans for the area, Schumann said.

For example, if a developer plans to build a 10-storey office tower in an area where city plans call for a maximum of 20 storeys, they could add 10 storeys of rental housing, Schumann said. Only 51 per cent of the total floor area would have to be for commercial use.

I wonder what the limitations are, if any, for this plan to exchange commercial floor area for market rental, because there is a potential for a huge increase in residential density in some parts of Metrotown and Brentwood. The Sears site in Metrotown for example allows 5 FSR for residential and 6 FSR for commercial. Using half that commercial FSR for rental instead gives a total of 8 FSR for residential. That would be 3.1 million sq feet of residential on that site. Lol. Then there's the Old Orchard site and gold towers site. What are we gonna have 1000' foot towers all over Metrotown and Brentwood?

I'm probly getting ahead of myself, but on the surface that's what it looks like they are planning.

[logan5]

It wasn't mentioned in the Burnaby Now article, but the 20% rental requirement doesn't count towards the density already put in place. So FSR 5 jumps to FSR 6. Is that in addition to the potential 3 FSR commercial to rental option? Total 9 FSR residential in the highest density areas? That would be insane. There must be a cap that we aren't seeing yet.

The Daily Hive article gives a few more details.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/burn...rk-may-24-2019

[Galaxy]

The interesting part about that article I read both in Burnaby Now and Daily Hive is that builders in Burnaby are apparently not building to max FSR and the city is looking for a mechanism to push builders to max it out and not leave extra buildable FSR on the table.

I definitely am not going to complain about building bigger buildings in Burnaby since at least they are encouraging more building and continuing there reputation for having clear and equal policies to all developers rather than the patchwork and negotiate style Vancouver is employing. What would be nice for Burnaby to do with the 20% rental is maybe allow builders to combine there 20% portion with other builders to build out rental only buildings that are managed by a rental company. Although I am sure they want to mix the rentals into owner-occupied builds to prevent rental only neighborhoods.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The interesting part about that article I read both in Burnaby Now and Daily Hive is that builders in Burnaby are apparently not building to max FSR and the city is looking for a mechanism to push builders to max it out and not leave extra buildable FSR on the table.

If they're not building to the max, it's because of diminishing returns. I'm used to seeing less than max density in many other markets because either the market's not there and/or because development returns aren't there for that last bit of permitted density.

So the city is going to force developers to build to the max. Again, ARE THEY ON DRUGS ?!?!?!?!?!?

FFS, they need a serious tune up on market dynamics and economics.

[Galaxy]

Lol! They are on drugs the expensive kind that's highly addictive its called Populism. Although I totally know about market forces it's just interesting their ideas...

[logan5]

I don't see where the City of Burnaby is forcing developers to build to the maximum density. There are some pretty good incentives though to build out all the allowable density. Rental buildings aren't as valuable as condo buildings, but they are valuable and worth building.

It'll be interesting to see how these changes will reshape recent proposals like Gilmore Station. I would think they would want to add market rentals. What was the height of the tallest tower? There's good chance it could go even taller, given the opportunity to add even more residential density on the site.

[Changing City]

There's a Vancouver Sun article looking at the number of unsold new units. "Vancouver-based developer Townline gave official notice that it’s postponing its Meridian project, a 39-storey tower with one-, two- and three-bedroom units near the Evergreen Line in Coquitlam."

Urban Analytics numbers show 1,783 new condos and townhomes sold in the first quarter of 2019 "it was the third-lowest quarterly sales total since 2010, after the global financial and credit crisis".

Lowrise projects are far less impacted than highrise: “Highrise condo projects, which carry significant risk for developers and construction lenders, comprised the largest proportion of postponed developments." "highrise condo sales fell by 61 per cent year-on-year, there was only a 28-per-cent drop for lowrise condo sales"

The slowdown in projects going on sale seems to be caused by an abundance of caution by developers (or their financial backers), not a crisis caused by massive numbers of unsold units on the market. "Overall, the total number of completed, move-in-ready-but-unsold units at the end of the first quarter of 2019 was 453. This figure has been increasing “moderately” and is an 18-per-cent increase over the last quarter, but still well below the high of just over 2,200 that was recorded in the last quarter of 2013, according to Urban Analytics."

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There's a Vancouver Sun article looking at the number of unsold new units. "Vancouver-based developer Townline gave official notice that it’s postponing its Meridian project, a 39-storey tower with one-, two- and three-bedroom units near the Evergreen Line in Coquitlam."

Urban Analytics numbers show 1,783 new condos and townhomes sold in the first quarter of 2019 "it was the third-lowest quarterly sales total since 2010, after the global financial and credit crisis".

Lowrise projects are far less impacted than highrise: “Highrise condo projects, which carry significant risk for developers and construction lenders, comprised the largest proportion of postponed developments." "highrise condo sales fell by 61 per cent year-on-year, there was only a 28-per-cent drop for lowrise condo sales"

The slowdown in projects going on sale seems to be caused by an abundance of caution by developers (or their financial backers), not a crisis caused by massive numbers of unsold units on the market. "Overall, the total number of completed, move-in-ready-but-unsold units at the end of the first quarter of 2019 was 453. This figure has been increasing “moderately” and is an 18-per-cent increase over the last quarter, but still well below the high of just over 2,200 that was recorded in the last quarter of 2013, according to Urban Analytics."

That's interesting.

Even if that grows 300% and makes the next dramatic headline - "Unsold condo inventory jumps 300% in Metro Vancouver!!!" That barely brings us to 1400 units, nearly 1000 units below 2013.

This would be hardly indicative of crisis situation, which might make the cut in supply all the more potent.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

That's interesting.

Even if that grows 300% and makes the next dramatic headline - "Unsold condo inventory jumps 300% in Metro Vancouver!!!" That barely brings us to 1400 units, nearly 1000 units below 2013.

This would be hardly indicative of crisis situation, which might make the cut in supply all the more potent.

Honestly if your not supporting the we don’t have a supply problem circle jerk prepare to get ignored.

[whatnext]

He's being way too optimistic if he thinks sales will recover in 2020. based on what?

‘Marshmallow soft’ B.C. home sales to fall 11 per cent, prices to keep sliding: forecast
Median residential resale price won’t see uptick until 2021 at the earliest, predicts Central 1 economist

Home sales across the province will remain “marshmallow soft” through the rest of the year, according to a forecast published May 28 by Central 1 Credit Union.

2019 will see a total year-over-year sales decline of nearly 11 per cent, province wide, said the report. This will be followed by a recovery of 8.8 per cent in 2020, taking resale transactions across B.C. to just below 2018 levels, reported deputy chief economist Bryan Yu...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/newr...te=1&p=8583766

[rofina]

Originally Posted by whatnext

He's being way too optimistic if he thinks sales will recover in 2020. based on what?

‘Marshmallow soft’ B.C. home sales to fall 11 per cent, prices to keep sliding: forecast
Median residential resale price won’t see uptick until 2021 at the earliest, predicts Central 1 economist

Home sales across the province will remain “marshmallow soft” through the rest of the year, according to a forecast published May 28 by Central 1 Credit Union.

2019 will see a total year-over-year sales decline of nearly 11 per cent, province wide, said the report. This will be followed by a recovery of 8.8 per cent in 2020, taking resale transactions across B.C. to just below 2018 levels, reported deputy chief economist Bryan Yu...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/newr...te=1&p=8583766

Based on the fact that May will show about a 50% increase in sales over April.

Showing signs that ask prices are finally being met by buyers. One month does not make a trend, but the sales increase will be a significant bounce off the lows we have experienced.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by rofina

Based on the fact that May will show about a 50% increase in sales over April.

Showing signs that ask prices are finally being met by buyers. One month does not make a trend, but the sales increase will be a significant bounce off the lows we have experienced.

Even if so, that would still be well below the 10 year trend.