If you were a big cash moneys builder, what gets you more excited?

10 townhouses side by side, with proper garages for 1 mil each
Or
11 townhouses side by side, with "garages" for 1 mil each

The construction industry runs on cheapest bid, and maximising units

^ you could have 10 of those townhouses and hype up feature of spacious garages at $1.1 mill each and get the same as 11 townhouses with garages that meet code dimensions at $1m each. You'd get the same end result.

You'd only have to do 10 sales contracts (instead of 11) and have happier owners. In this day and age, not a whole big difference between $1m and $1.1m price.

I think you guys are missing westophers point that no one even uses their garage for vehicles anymore so it’s not even a consideration lol. Provide the bare minimum so people can fill the garage with junk and profit

From any car enthusiast POV obviously you want a useable garbage but I guarantee you in developer meetings people actually using their garage for working on their vehicle, moving around inside, etc. Is never mentioned lol. You want room to work on your vehicle and be able to have both people get out inside the garage? Better buy the double!

A few upstream things turn garages into storage rooms:

1. New builds are designed with minimal storage as they try to maximize visible space. It's rare to find builders who put in full size closets or pantries or crawl spaces now cause storage isn't something that you really notice till you move in and next thing you know you need the garage to put stuff in.
2. Garages are not considered part of the sellable floor space so whether it's a nice 240sf garage or an awful 180sf one makes no difference to the sale price or the way it's marketed.
3. Zoning allows for tiny garages which are not user friendly making people want to use them even less - with laneways you can't really build a garage wider than 9'6" so they either don't get made or they are used for storage (or even converted into living space later illegally). Developers see people parking on the street and figure no one wants a nice garage.
4. Street parking is free so why not take advantage of it? For the average person there's no real downside to parking outside in our climate.

A pretty vicious cycle emerges with all of this.

Yes they do. I don't remember why it is. But I believe some older buildings the stall is actually owned by the unit owner and not the developer but that is quite rare. As for presales it's usually first come first serve for stalls. A friend of mine just took possession of her unit at Hensley (Lougheed Mall area) and she was able to get assigned an EV stall and was also right at the elevators and not a small car spot. She was told cause she bought in early

I guess the developer would never give a shit but street parking while free in some areas is always 1 step away from being a shit show. Take the place I moved into, we were really the first multi family complex to come to the area and everyone enjoyed ample street parking. As soon as we came in, 55 units with 1 parking spot each underground. Based on my best guess there are about 100 cars so in a blink of an eye that's 45 cars on the street. It went from parking anywhere you wanted to parking within 1 block of the complex being full overnight. The area is 1 small complex away from being a real shit show.

That being said though a lot of it is self inflicted. I know for a fact some people in the complex don't bother parking downstairs because it's far. The single family houses while most have garages + driveways in front choose not to park there and use it as storage or whatever so in reality parking is actually plenty but people's habits make it not so.

+1 to shit show after 2nd or 3rd or 8th complex added. When everyone moves in and musical chair time with everyone trying to park on street except there is 10 people fighting for that one empty spot. You have to walk like 4-5 blocks to get home.

City planning ...

Their thinking is we're going to make it painful to drive = they'll use transit instead = we are doing environment carbon things yes good job!

I'd suggest looking in BCBC. That would be the definitive source. Or your local zoning guideline if that has information based on whatever the zoning is, cant remember if all municipalities have it in their zonings or not.

Good luck fighting that fight. Developers usually give stalls based on size of unit, but depends on the developer. Some like Bosa keep units in each development to sell later once prices have been raised, and because you have no say in the matter they abuse that and keep the best stalls for the units they have to sell later. This makes sense cause once the building is built, people who are interested likely want to see the parking stall during the viewing process if they care.

Also if you buy pre-sale and you know the selling agents, or you buy multiple units, they do shitty things and give the better parking stalls to those buyers. All about who you know, and $$.

In the end, if you just walk into the showroom and buy a presale, 10/10 you will end up with among the shitiest spots.

+1

Garage is important to me because I don’t like my cars outside. However, many buyers don’t care. To them, it’s like oh there’s the garage, okay. 9/10 times garages are filled with stuff at showings or not even available to show.

Maybe it's just me -- but I absolutely hate getting myself and all my things wet in that short distance between my front door and the street-parked daily shxtbox. And we rain a lot in Vancouver! Esp now, we no longer get the super gentle drizzles that we used to get when I was kid, so it is definitely making things worse for me.

A couple of years ago when I had access to an offsite storage (for my fun car), it was so nice to park my shxtbox back in the garage during the winter months.

It just doesn't make sense to me that people would rather use the garage for storage instead of puttng their cars there...

I can't be bothered to put either of our vehicles in the garage, we park in our driveway.

I could put at least one of our vehicles in it right now, it's fairly organized but we don't bother with it. I obviously kept my motorcycle in the garage and if I buy a toy like a Corvette at some point, that will be in the garage.

Our garage is actually pretty decent size, wide with a really high ceiling. I used to be a lot more anal with my vehicles now I DGAF really. I wash my truck maybe twice a year so I don't care if it's outside.

M3 is on street now because half the garage has reno materials in it. Can't wait to clear it out and put the car back inside.

I like the convenience of working on cars in the garage (it's level, dry, good lighting, can leave tools out etc), but unless it's a really massive one I find the walls and other stuff in there are always getting in the way. Mines definitely on the smaller side (house was built in 88) but bikes, tire storage, my dirtbike and some tools chewed up one side pretty quickly. The other side my wife parks in now but with more tires and tools it's pretty snug too and all she has is a fairly small Rav4. Add in our kids stuff and how little storage most places come with and I can see why most people just park outside.

The beauty of a garage is being able to stop what you're working on and pick back up the next day/month without having to put everything away.

The thing about not having a garage is your projects get finished fast.

Aside from my condo parking situation, when I took possession of my presale last week, my Notary & RE agent told me to live in the principal residence for a year before selling to avoid capital gains. My understanding is, it's a principal residence and as long as I'm not selling and buying every few months, CRA won't come after me. I know this area is grey with CRA.

When I bought this presale a few years ago, I was single and intended to live in it. Fast forward few years upon possession, I am now engaged, marriage/kids next year, so even if sell the place in 3 months, it shouldn't trigger CRA after me. My personal priorities have changed due to condo will not serve my personal needs due to space constraints (e.g kids etc). I understand I will have to pay back some of the PTT as it requires the owner to live in it for a year; however, the principal residence disposal seems grey as different people I talk to give me different answers.

You can go rent somewhere else, and have your condo as your primary residence for x years. Even if you dont live there.

If you buy a second unit, then you need to title your other properly as deemed disposition. Because you can only have one purchased property as the principle residence.

Thats what my tax guy says at least. Regardless, your 3 years in, so your good to go.

Bought my condo and then rented it out for a couple of years because I couldn't afford the mortgage payments since I put everything down. Every year I wrote CRA with my tax returns that my intent is to move back into my apartment within the 4 years given to rent out. Strange that there is no option or form to fill out. I had to write out a letter and sign.

What you guys are talking about is filing an S.45(2) Election to avoid a "deemed disposition" under S.45(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Normally, if you have one property that has been your primary residence, and then you move elsewhere but keep the first property and, say, begin renting out, that is a "deemed disposition" where the use of that first property is no longer as a primary residence and is now an rental property. This first change in use is no problem (...at that point in time), because up until that point it's under the Principle Residence Exemption and there's no taxable capital gain. The problem is if you move back into it or sell it later, e.g. 2 years down the road, and there is another change in deemed disposition - if the value of it has appreciated in that 2 years' time where it was used as a rental property, the capital gain during that time span is taxable.

The S.45(2) election basically lets you tell the CRA, "hey I'm doing this for a specific, time-limited reason" and lets you continue claiming the PRE for another 4 years on that property so there is no deemed disposition. You could use this like vash13 did to rent it out for a couple years before moving in, or you could use this like I am now, where my job moved me out of province temporarily, so I am renting out my home and then moving back in. It is a little funny that you have to write a letter and basically tack it on to your income tax filing.

It's important that you file this with taxes for the year the deemed disposition occurs. You can file it late but it's sort of a "pretty please" situation at that point.

You cannot simultaneously claim PRE on two properties despite filing S.45(2) so it doesn't work if you own two properties for an overlapping period - you have to pay capital gains tax on one of those during that period (although it can allow you to optimize by paying taxes on the one that appreciates less). If you're renting during the period, or crashing with mom/dad, no problem.

I'm not an accountant so check with yours.

More info:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...-property.html
https://kbllp.ca/kraft-berger-llp-ca...u-should-care/

^^^
Pretty much what I did. Crashed at my parents for 3 years before moving into it. Just recently sold it this year and hopefully there is no capital gains.

There's an additional loop hole that lets you file at the end of the period as well which is what I did since I only learned of this when I sold my condo. I had moved out for 5.5yrs due to a relocation and never filed any paperwork. Because the way this works is based on calendar year you can technically stretch it to cover 5 years (if a single day applies from a year you get to count it as long as there's no other PR). I think I ended up paying only a couple grand in capital gain taxes on $120k in gains.

Ask your accountant about this loop hole - I think it's usable if you move back into it and then sell it.

The letter you submit is kinda hilariously simple - you just say you are claiming this exemption for period X to Y on address Z. If you submit your return electronically you send a physical letter to Revenue Canada.

Thanks guys for the comments! Sounds like essentially I need to sell the place (my only principal residence) first (whether it's in a few months or >a year), then crash back at my parents crib to live and then buy a bigger place (safest option). I don't plan to rent my principal residence out or change the usage of it besides living it in for personal usage with fiancee currently.

It's really the part where if we decide to sell the presale we just took possession of in a few months or a year, and then buy a bigger home for change in family purposes (eg. Kids), will that trigger CRA attention due to the short time frame. I'm not trying to "skirt" the system or trying to hold multiple homes, just want to get an understanding what options I have for planning purposes. My current place is like 600sq ft and this development delayed 1.5 year completion due to Covid - the needs have changed now as now I head into family life where I need a bigger place.

Capital gain tax is usually taxed on 50% of your appreciated value. IE, you bought at 400k presale you sold at 500k. Then its 50k that's taxable at your tax rate but if you wait for a period of time to buy another property then you should consult with a tax expert and see how that affects you. If you sold and moved back home for "X" amount of time then CRA may also consider taxing your gains at 100% citing it as Business Income VS capital gain. CRA may consider what your intent was at time of purchase, financing terms, what your career is and what RE you have dealt with, LENGTH OF TIME YOU OWNED THE PROPERTY(this sounds like your scenario) , why you sold..etc. But really consider asking a tax expert on this. Better safe than sorry. I'd suggest calling CRA but the crap my wife went through with CERB then Mat leave she was given like 5 different answers to every question she had makes me believe half the CRA staff is clueless

https://www.reddit.com/r/PersonalFin...al_254_vs_120/

The topic of variable vs fixed comes up here once in a while and this thread on Reddit has some good opinions on the topic that are backed by some useful facts. The one that I hadn't seen brought up before is that if you choose a variable with fixed payments and rates do go up when you renew the bank will still expect your amortization to be what it should have been - eg. you started with 30 years and 5 years later your max amortization will now be 25 years rather than whatever it has ballooned to with rate increases so your new payments could potentially be a LOT bigger than when you started.

I've not run into this problem as I always lump sum a bit of money in each each year but something to keep in mind that you don't max yourself out on a variable mortgage and know that if rates increase that you should try to increase your payments too.

Not sure about if only certain banks have this. But I've seen variable rates have trigger rates attached. So unless the variable rate goes higher than the trigger rate, only at that point will your payments need to go up. The trigger rate is essentially protection from having your payments changed every time the prime rate changes.