you save a lotttt

interesting
so after 15 years i'll prbly be able to pay down my hypothetical house, including interest and everything, but i won't be able to spend a penny for a decade and a haff....


:fuuuuu:

$1.1 million home in Winnipeg Manitoba
http://images.realtor.ca/listing/reb...89332530000000

$1.1 million home in Quebec
http://photos4.bonnevisite.com/CAN/Q...202:51:33%20AM

$1.1 million home in Alberta
http://images.realtor.ca/listing/reb...52040530130000




















$1.18 million home in vancouver
http://images.realtor.ca/listing/reb...91624541700000

Well, it is easy to find the most shitty and ugly houses for an expensive price.

The hard thing is the find the good priced ones since they fly off in less than a week.

Besides who the hell wants to live in Winnipeg?!

that's nice got trees and yard and everything.

Equivalent in HK:
http://hk.centanet.com/icms/attachme...1%E5%9C%92.jpg
no not the whole building, ONE unit.

that's a flawed, yet depressing comparison. Real estate isnt valued on the house, its the property it sits one. More demand for the property, higher the cost. Those mansions in Winnipeg are on shitty land that majority of ppl dont want to or cant live on (ie lack of work close by) so no matter how big of a place you build not many ppl is willing to live there. On the other hand, you fly that exact mansion here and plop it down on granville street, it is instantly worth 5-6 times more. On the other hand, if you tear down that shitty looking house in vancouver, you can still sell the land for more than what that house is worth while in winnipeg. Location location location. Its true but sad for some of us that cant afford to live here.

I think you're missing the point.

I'm assuming that $1M Vancouver house is on the West side. Would you buy it for $700k in Van East? Even at say, $700k, is that Vancouver house "worth it"?

Somebody said they're rather have one place here rather than nine places in Detroit... fair enough.

But would you rather have one place here in Vancouver, or one place, plus enough cash for a 911 (one with turbo ;) ) in, say Calgary or Toronto? Better jobs there too... makes me think a bit about staying in/leaving Vancouver sometimes.

investment I never plan on holding onto it for long term. With rent all I had to pay is about $350 extra per month. Of coz the value of the apartment went up when I sold it so it was cheaper when I first purchase it.

wake up and smell the roses...drugs and china fuels this inflated city.

yea... funny thing is the so call "88th" floor is actually just 46th floor
:haha:

the the mainlander thought the price was for per square meter, not square feet

oh well... those mainlander have so much hot money with them that they wont give a shit even there is another zero on the end of the check

a 800 something sqft flat at "The Masterpiece" in TST cost a fucking 16m....

Anyone want to guess how much this patch of land cost? My guess would be atleast 400-500 million. I'm pretty lousy at estimating, but that's my guess.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=4...16512&t=h&z=17

I don't know man... I love Vancouver too much as a city.

And a house like that in East Van would be like 500-600k depending on if the house was even livable and the lot size (since primary cost will be attributed to land).

When do 6 nations = the world? Rugby, even that is at least 7?

Canada is second largest country in the world..Can't afford living in Vancouver!? MOVE

Canada may be huge but quantity of land doesn't equal quality.

The reason the west coast is so inviting is because we're not spending 8 months out of the year steeped in minus double digit temperatures.

Also, try finding a job worth working in Winnipeg, St Johns or Thunder Bay. Sure there are some trades and industries that'll keep you above the cost of living in some of those cities but some folks may not want to put their MBA or networking certifications to use while working a welding torch or pipe fitting out on the rigs.

The problem is the artificial inflation of the local economy from external sources

since when did that land sell?

That really depends on what year it was bought.

I know what you mean about loving Vancouver. However, look on MLS. Anything less than $600k is the proverbial POS.

$1.1M does not buy a nice house anywhere west of Oak street, infact you'll have a hard time finding a house to buy at all at that price.

Yes, many Canadians with money choose to migrate west and settle here.

For instance, BC had a positive emigration of Albertans, while every other province was losing people to Alberta. Why? Cause Albertans that saw huge property increases cashed out and moved to BC and bought property, so their mortgages are small, not 10x income. They can also afford $1M if they sell their home for $600K in Calgary.

Wait, you mean there are no jobs for MD, LLB, CA or MBAs in Winnipeg, St Johns or Thunder Bay? You are kidding right?

I have left out networking certifications because they don't worth the toilet paper they are printed on.

It belongs to the Federal government. It was used to house some radio towers there.

Why not talk about the last decade?
Does history not repeat itself? Is real estate, and the financial market cyclical in nature?

The market may be changing, but the rules established a hundred years ago regarding the markets still stand. The same rules apply, albeit with a higher buy-in.

Why do you have to buy in Metro Van?
It's like Californians bitching about not being able to afford to live in Beverly Hills. At what time in the last 40 years has a new home buyer been able to buy into a West End home as a first time buyer?

Even my parents bought in Coquitlam in the 80's because they couldn't afford Vancouver. It was easier to buy in the 'burbs and take us to soccer practice, than it was to work extra hours to pay for a Vancouver home. Can you see the parallels regardless of the date?

Yes, as it's the nature of the beast. You buy a condo, build equity, and use that equity from the sale to finance your next home, rinse, and repeat.

It's the way it's been done forever. As a parent, homeowner and landlord, I can tell you that a person can, and will adapt to their new lifestyle, if they so choose.

Sometimes you win at Blackjack, sometimes you lose.
But if you live in that house the sting is much less. As interest rates rise, there are fewer homes being sold, and more rental demand. Supply and demand kicks in, and suddenly you realize that no matter what, you gotta live somewhere. And nothing is free.

I own numerous houses, and have for a few years now.
Welcome to the club. We have some refreshments on the table over there.

:lol



My wife's family has owned the same farm in Denkendorff for over 100 years. Two world wars later, they still live there running the farm, living life and preparing to pass it to their children. My own father in law, a German owns over 400 acres all over the province. In Germany, it used to be honorable to be a land owner. Not much different than here actually.

But we digress, because Germany has some of the strictest rental laws in the known world, and renters have more rights than the landowner. I don't know enough about Japan to comment.


And I bet he lived there most of his life too. Had family dinners there, etc, etc, etc. So not only did he have an asset worth just under a million bucks to put into his retirement, but also had the joy of never worrying about missing a rent check, or whether or not his landlord would kick him out next month.

Yes its cyclical. Since 1977 we've had:
3 years flat - 1977-1980
1 year up - 1980-1981
1 year down - 1981-1982
5 years flat - 1982-1987
2 years up - 1987-1989
1 year down - 1989-1990
2 years flat - 1990-1992
2 years up - 1992-1994
8 years flat - 1994-2002
6 years up - 2002-2008
1 year down - 2008-2009
1 year up - 2009-2010
? years ? - 2010-?

Notice a pattern? After every up/down we've had a period of flat prices that lasted longer than the runup.
Wanna guess when the next flat period is coming? and if it'll be longer than the 6 year runup?
Rules change. Ask anyone that lives in Japan.
I agree with you on this. First time home buyers should not be buying in the nicest parts of the city. The house I bought was on the outer limits in Ottawa, first time buyers should be.

What you're missing is that incomes adjust to where you live. If you make less, you live further away in the burbs. The GVA burbs are just as over priced, so the income ratios aren't much better.
If you lived in Japan, your house would have lost equity for the last 2 decades faster than you can pay off the mortgage.
If you lived in Germany, the only equity you make would be paying down the mortgage as house prices have been flat, actually deflating with inflation.
If you live in many parts of the US, you'd have lost a decade of equity when the markets reset, and continue to fall.

Try and rinse that bad taste out of your mouth while being stuck in a small condo for a decade or more, paying a premium for the privilege of being stuck with debt.

Why should people have to adapt to bad decisions cause they didn't learn from history? You are right, its been done forever, there will always be sheeple willing to buy overpriced assets at the top of a bbble and get stuck holding onto them for long periods of time, paying silly carrying costs and walking away with a net loss. Ask anyone that bought gold during the last runup in the 80s.

Here is where you are wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

Look at the US and their housing crash. Vacancy rates are way up, and rents down. Why? Supply is through the roof as people cannot sell and try to rent their places instead. My friend in Seattle just negotiated his rent 30% cheaper.
Please read about Japan. History is doomed to repeat itself if you don't learn from it.

As for Germany, you didn't once comment on the investment of real estate. Lookup returns on German real estate, and rent/own ratios. You'll find its more profitable to put the rental savings in a bank account than in a mortgage.
A Japanese 40yo that bought in 1990 would be 60yo now and entering retirement. That person would have a house worth 1/2 what it was bought for in 1990, and with inflation worth about 1/3 in today's money. Having an investment that loses 66% of its value over 20 years is not a good retirement plan.

Yet you wouldn't know that, you foolishly believe all real estate follows the same fundamentals - always up.

This is the most asinine comment you've made:
1. The bank will be harsher on you than a landlord for a missed mortgage payment
2. A good landlord wants good tenants and will not kick them out. I rented a place for 6 years before I moved out. I met a grandmother that had lived in the same building for 20 years.

Please do your homework and come back with some real numbers and some historical evidence, not more feel good BS stories that will only convince people to make poor decisions.

I guess I have no idea.
:lol

I make enough in rent that my wife doesn't have to work. Rent pads my income and allows me to extend myself to the point of owning multiple homes. I then use my own money to pay down the debt, giving me a clear title on my asset. I don't care if it decreases in the span of a few years, because it will rise again. Not only that, but I'm making money off said asset.

I hope to be moving on to industrial land soon, as the roi is much higher. I couldn't do this when I first started out, but now I am, and why? Because of assets. I'll use the bank's money to buy a warehouse. If I'm able to put enough down, my rent will easily cover the mortgage. I can then use the rent from my other properties, which are mostly paid off now, to pay down the debt. I've paid off homes in a few years, while you drive an old car that's painted like some sort of clown mobile.

So the next time you attempt to "educate" me on real estate, ask yourself if you have the experience. Make your first million before 30 like I did, then come back to me, partna.

If I was 10 years older and lived in Van 10 years ago, I'd could easily duplicate what you did.

You couldn't repeat what you did right now. This is why my first response to you starts with:
Please find me a single residential property in Vancouver that I can buy and rent for a positive cash flow, without leaving so much down that the returns on my investment are less than in safer investments. If you cannot, shutup, bragging about the past doesn't mean anythign to those buying right now.

Thanks for showing that money doesn't buy class. :thumbsup: You're the lowlife on real estate blogs bragging about making money in real estate. The truth is you were just lucky enough to be the right age to take advantage of the bubble. You cannot repeat the same investments now without losing money.

Why do I say you're lucky? Cause you're not educated on how the market can change. The #2 and #4 economies in the world have negative returns for real estate over the past 2 decades. The #1 economy just lost a decade of gains. Yet the rules are different here right? Moron.