Not all businesses own the property they operate out of, many lease.

And there is only so many people that are going to want to pack 15 deep into a condo while working at starbucks just to have the downtown living experience. The rest are going to want decent jobs...meaning, they are going to need a place to work.

It's so irritating to watch a city be so close, yet so far away.

Well, that should solve the problem. Everyone knows that property taxes just disappear when you lease. Not included in the rent at all.

Seems to be that way when my tenants ask why their rent always goes up. No mortgages, nat.gas, water, garbage or maintenance to be paid for...its 100% profit.

I think people get caught up in the fact that you need an office to work. There are quite a few people who don't have a permanent office, or work out of their homes as consultants.

Like I said, there are 30K downtown ballers, but there are couples making 10 times that salary who are living the dream in Coal Harbour.
Posted via RS Mobile

I couldn't agree more. How can a city get so many things right when it comes to development, and at the same time get screw things up so royally? The core is walkable, good transit, bike friendly, great views...but obsessed with putting condos everywhere! Life is not just condos.

Well, how would you feel if you zoned land commercial with no developers lining up to build on it? If land is going to sit vacant, that costs the city money. Or maybe, companies don't want to move here because top-end talent would rather be in New York, Toronto, or London.

Arguably, Vancouver encourages high density residential to keep the property taxes of those living in single family homes at reasonable levels. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But you know, if only Gregor stopped building those bloddy bike lanes and community gardens we wouldn't have to densify to keep our taxes low, right?
Posted via RS Mobile

Fascinating article, worth a read..

Vancouver Secretary’s Urgency To Buy Condo At 7.7x Annual Pre-Tax Income –

Comment really nails it:

"Cultural family and peer pressure is one of the main drivers of RE in the lower mainland."

"Cultural family and peer pressure is one of the main drivers of RE in the lower mainland."

Astute observation.

I'm somewhat impassioned any time someone says, "renting is throwing money away," because they often do not understand the proportion of a mortgage payment that goes straight to interest.

How is that different from anywhere in the world. The idea that this is a local or "cultural" phenomenon is pure BS.

I can't remember the last time i heard Obama make a speech about the economy that didn't include a line similar to "the american dream of home ownership".

Amen, why buy a place when your mortgage interest is $900 a month plus strata fees + property taxes, when you can rent the same apartment for $1,000 a month.

This doesn't even consider that there is a decent chance that property prices may drop in the next 1-3 years. So if the market drops say 10%, on a $300K condo that's $30 grand. for a person that makes $39,000 a year in that article, it would take her a a whole year to save that assuming her spending is zero and she makes $30K after taxes. :fulloffuck:

plus mobility, which is HUGE in vancouver

given our crap economy, i'd hate to be in a situation where i have to take a scrappy shite job to stay in vancouver versus being able to move to calgary, toronto, or the US when the need calls.

being mobile make you way more valuable, and opens loads of doors for your career development.

in my relatively young age, i own real estate as an investment (not locally, and up about 35-40% in value since acquisition, and yield of about 6-8%), and i will continue to buy real estate when the time is right, but i will NEVER stretch myself to live in a place that if i have to move i'd either lose my shirt if i sold, or could not rent for positive return.

a house is a home - purchasing a house is a financial decision, but you can still make your home in a house owned by someone else!

Would it be too much to ask for some rough calculations where you got the number of $900 mortgage interest?

No problem, I'd be the first to admit I just threw the $900 out there on the top of my head. As most properties in Vancouver would probably be yielding that much in interest costs or higher.

But punching numbers that would give $900 a month in interest:

base on a $300,000 mortgage, at 30 year amortization, at say 3.6% (I understand you can get rates right now for much cheaper, but 3.6% gives you ~$900 a month interest costs).

Of course if you get rates at 3% it would bring that interest cost to ~$750 a month. Keep in mind historic rates have been around 5-6%, would be closer to $1250- $1300 a month in interest costs. And it would be higher the larger the loan.

Mortgage payment = interest + principal


Anybody can go to their banks website and play around with the calculators out there to give you an idea of what payments would be.

But doing the math out there even using best case scenarios, it really doesn't make sense at current prices. Only way it makes sense is if you think that properties will appreciate by 10-20% in the next few years, which based on stats and sales, is most likely not going to happen. (February sales numbers are 30% below 10 year averages).


Also for investors looking to flip properties, you have to factor in realtor commissions, property transfer tax, legal fees, mortgage discharge fees and maintenance costs too. It's not as easy anymore like the last 10 years in Greater Vancouver.. The market is slowing down in terms of sales, and inventory (supply) are at highs.

15% of downtown Vancouver condos sit empty, turning areas into ghost towns: Study

IMO although I think housing prices aren't going to go up drastically, there won't be a pop like America in 2008. If you look at history, when has real estate ever depreciated for a long period of time? My uncle once told me a really simple concept, that the population is always going to grow which means a demand for real estate is always going to be increasing in the long term. Even if there's a dip in Vancouver RE, it'll always bounce back up as demand is always high pertaining to how convenient it is to go everywhere compared to living in Surrey or Langley. And even if supply somehow manages to substantially outweigh demand, the market will probably be cornered to create an illusion of demand and the value of Vancouver property (present day). Furthermore, the only way for our real estate to "pop" is if there is some crazy economic meltdown (think subprime mortgages). My 2c

And the idea that "RE will always go up" is a great one, but when you have significant holding costs (which you do with RE), then it's extremely painful. Especially if you've bought a condo that you had planned to rent and then the owners at the beginning decide to have a strata meeting and then ban rentals from the building. Now you're stuck with a condo you have to pay the mortgage and strata fees on, and you can't rent it out to defer the costs. Sure, you'll get a payoff in a decade or two...but what about now when you have to lose thousands a month?

I agree with your points, I was actually talking more about land value itself rather then condos. Saying RE will always go up is kind of like saying the stock market will always go up. Compare the Dow jones industrial today to 20 years ago and you'll see a huge difference, same thing in property. Obviously the stock market is much more volatile and there were a couple bumps here and there but just logically speaking, time is a commodity of value and the monetary value of real estate will go up just through the passage of time and growth. I actually didn't know stratas could ban rentals, that's a little absurd in my opinion unless it's like a niche oriented property, e.g old people ;P

Your analogy of the stock market may be somewhat correct, but here's the thing, 20 years is a long time. What if you were to purchase the Nikkei back in 2000 or even about during japan's asset bubble during the late 80's early 90's? Your portfolio would have had negative returns for the last 10 years. If you didn't need that money then yes that's great, but for regular folks that's time value of money.

Same thing with people in the USA that bought their homes RIGHT before the last recession, how long does it take for the real estate prices to go back up to the prices that they purchased at? Yes it may go up back to that level again in 20-30 years, but that may just be just due to inflation. The guy in the US is losing lots of money holding that property due to opportunity costs (not to mention holding costs such as mortgages, property taxes, maintenance etc).

Your analogy is more like inflation, yes overtime, everything in general should go up. But what if perhaps there are signs that are pointing to a chance of a market correction in a certain market? should you jump in? or just buy the underlying asset (be it a business, corporation, real estate, stocks, base metals, commodities etc) cause you know over time all things in GENERAL will keep going up.

Yes that was my intention, however, I did not correlate it directly to Vancouver's housing "bubble", just providing my opinion on everyone's growing optimism of a bubble about to pop. Supply and demand are principals of any tangible good. To see a crash, supply would have to logically exceed demand, however, that is in a perfect market where extrinsic variables don't come into play. Using the U.S RE market as an example, right now there is growing speculation of housing recovery and a supposedly exhausted supply. 1.6 million properties are being listed on the market right now, however, over 9 million properties are not owned, and there are over 15+ million vacant properties. How is this possible with nearly 9%+ homes vacant? Because the banks know if they release all these properties, american real estate will plunge and the economy will take a heavy toll, thus cornering the market. Likewise, Vancouver has been a juicy place for real estate investors in the past decade and I'm not talking only about the people that own one or two properties, I'm talking big wig investors who control a portion of the market.

IMO, I don't think the housing market will "crash", it's not popping, but you can already see in many parts of town that it's starting to correct already with price declines. However I'm pretty sure if there was an earthquake in Greater Vancouver I can easily see housing decrease further.

All it takes is some perfectly synchronized events to some individuals to "crash" the market. We aren't seeing the effect yet because Canadian's mortgage tend to be more traditional in 5yr terms. And for the vast majority who bought in the last 3yrs (the last climb) still has a few years until renewal.

Problem? What if interest rate raises by the time of renewal? (it can't go lower, so chances of going up seems high) What if the market corrects, let's say even a modest 10~20% decrease, and wiped out one's initial downpayment? There would be people who are forced to sell.

Then there are those rich Chinese who hold tons of units with no mortgage. When they see price continue to decline, they would bring all their entire portfolio to the market at once and sell them for cheap as a method to stop losses.

By the time we reach there, there'd be a bloodbath with everyone racing to the bottom to get their unit sold first. Then you'd see the "crash" and it won't be pretty.

I'd be interested in 4444's(dude, you need a better name) take on this. What's the likelihood of this scenario?

^ on the topic of names, is there a way to change it? I have azndude69 cause I created it back in 2004 (shiet cant believe it's almost been 9 years) when I was still a youngin and only went on revscene to check out pics or hot chicks and look at cars.
never knew I would still be using the same username.. . .

Name Changes are thataways -> Member's Support Area / Suggestions Box / Website Bugs - Vancouver's Top Classifieds and Automotive Forum - REVscene.net