The party’s over. That’s what some realtors are quietly telling their west-side clients who were rosily dreaming of selling their shacks for $5 million.
There’s been a slowdown in the higher end of real estate on the west side and, I suspect, a few other pockets as well that were attractive to a select group of well-heeled buyers, either investing or looking at moving here as immigrants.
That group has primarily been viewed as mainland Chinese buyers in stories of the last two years that have breathlessly talked about how they’re buying up Vancouver and driving real-estate prices sky high, to the dismay of more nuanced thinkers who noted that those stories 1. made no distinction between immigrants and offshore investors 2. never tried to parse out exactly how big or small this pool was 3. never clearly explained that whatever impact this small group was having was fairly localized.
We still don’t have any real statistics on this, but whatever they are, the anecdotal evidence coming from west-side realtors is that that trend has slowed. As people in my story today note, there are many reasons why: restrictions on capital being allowed out of China, new demands from bank for proof of income and assets even in what are called “equity loans” (loans where the buyer puts in a substantial downpayment and the bank can be assured of recouping its money no matter what happens), some over-supply as sellers jumped into the market thinking they would cash in on the easy money, immigrants and investors slowing down as they realize the market is over-priced and there’s actually lots of supply, and more.
This is all in the context of a general slow-down in the market with, as many have noted, a lot of inventory piling up and a low number of sales — the lowest since 2001 — being recorded in these early months of 2012.
Will that be enough to slow the speculative fever in Vancouver? I doubt it. Seems to me it would take several years of downward pressure on prices to convince everyone — both locals who stampede into the market fearing they’ll be left behind if they don’t, and investors here and elsewhere — that real estate is not magic money.
43 responses so far ↓
1 rf // May 7, 2012 at 10:09 am
“Last year, he says 90 per cent of his 100 house sales were to “offshore buyers” – people not living here yet, who flew in to buy. This year, it’s less than a tenth of that. ”
When Marty Pospichil says it’s 90 percent offshore, does it not really confirm (albeit anecdotally) that regulators have their head in the sand about where the money is coming from?
When folks were saying only 4% of buyers have an offshore address, was it borderline insincere to suggest that foreign buyers have not played a role?
Pospichil is as “local” as you get on the West side. If he was dealing with 90% offshore, what percentage of the Asian realtors were dealing with offshore money?
If the price of water was skyrocketing because offshore buyers were speculating and hoarding it, we would all cry bloody murder.
Some cry bloody murder when speculators supposedly force the price of gas up.
But for some reason it’s acceptable for non-Canadian taxpayers to speculate the price of housing stock through the roof.
Even worse, City hall tries to keep property taxes on those properties artificially low, at the expense of local business!
90%!
2 Lewis N. Villegas // May 7, 2012 at 10:20 am
Let’s just enlarge the capacity of that tea pot… The tempest would seem to warrant it.
There were reports out of Ottawa last week that Federal Agencies were keeping a close eye on the condo markets in Toronto, Vancouver, and probably a place near you, too.
It may turn out that what we are debating today is the difference between a ‘soft landing’ and a ‘bubble exploding’.
If the former, the sure:
However, if the latter… then all bets are off.
3 Derek W // May 7, 2012 at 11:03 am
Just another perspective, and some questions: Rental vacancy is extremely low in Vancouver, and plenty of those renters love this city and are just waiting to buy. I’m a 30-something renter with a career that pays OK, who has been financially ready to buy a starter home/condo in more affordable markets (Fraser Valley, other Provinces for e.g.) for years, but I’ve been waiting and building my savings so I can buy in Vancouver when I either have enough dough to pull off the massive mortgage, or if the market cools. Or perhaps someday I take a job in another city.
Plenty of my Vancouver friends are in the same boat.
Does what happens on the West side of Vancouver really matter to us? None of us are interested in those types of homes. Is there any “trickle-down” of affordability issues?
4 Lewis N. Villegas // May 7, 2012 at 11:17 am
In the last 20 years I have seen the Vancouver Real Estate market twice hit the zone where the rent equals the monthly mortgage fee. Okay, there are a few other things to consider once you own:
(1) Property tax
(2) Strata fees if you buy into a condo.
(3) Annual special levies (in a condo)
However, somewhere in that mx lies the equivalency that makes cities thrive. If living in Vancouver dooms you to rent a condo, then Vancouver will cease to attract the kind of creative talent it needs to stay at the head of the international creative wave.
5 Frank Ducote // May 7, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I don’t know what some people are smoking, but I know plenty of “creative talent” individuals who live in condos and clearly love it. Younger folks and established professionals alike.
While I know it serves some people’s purpose to continue to do so, I’d humbly request that the anti-condo junta stop trying to besmirch a perfectly acceptable urban alternative form of living for many, many thousands of people. Many more people, I’m willing to bet, than those who own, will be able to afford to or possibly even care to own a fee-simple house or townhouse.
6 Sandy Garossino // May 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Well the bloom is coming off the rose, and not a moment too soon…
As much as Vancouver may seem like the centre of the world, we are only one city among many around the world suffering gross anomalies in their residential real estate sector.
For a number of reasons (low interest rates and the fragility of the equity and bond markets play a role here) investors have been on a global search for high-yield performers to achieve gains that used to come much easier.
On a risk-return analysis it’s pretty hard to beat luxury residential real estate, especially as wealth accumulates upwards. Your Nortel & RIM stock might tank, but over the long term it’s hard to countenance a drop of more than 10-15% in high end real estate, while the gains can be spectacular.
After all, a person does need a place to hang The Scream (if you aren’t going to donate it to a museum for a sweet tax write-off).
So the super-rich investor has shown up in vast capital pools in residential real estate in premium markets in London, Zurich, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney Shanghai, Shenzen and of course Vancouver.
This WSJ article tracks a global trend.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317150261940990.html
But severe negative collateral effects have forced most governments to move to curtail this activity, using a variety of tax and financial mechanisms, or even outright restrictions.
China in particular sustained extreme damage to affordability throughout its residential inventory, with price to income ratios reaching a high of 27 to 1, which is 5 times the international average. At the peak, it was estimated there were 64 million vacant units in the country.
In a move that may have international implications even here, the Chinese government moved aggressively last summer to suppress its own housing bubble, employing a range of mechanisms such as restrictions on finance, buying limits, and other measures designed to drive down housing costs, even at the risk of a hard landing.
Similarly London has introduced a form of luxury tax on housing transactions, Australia and Switzerland have restricted foreign investment in residences, and Singapore and Hong Kong have both responded with a combination of tax & restriction measures.
How ironic that many US and European cities would give their eye teeth to capture some of this extreme wealth sloshing around the globe, creating havoc in its wake.
One thing’s sure, this story is far from over.
7 Max // May 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm
@Frances:
I read a snippet somewhere that City Coucil was looking at reducing the costs on the units at the Oly Village….making them ‘affordable’
Can this be confirmed?
Thanx
8 Max // May 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm
@Sandy Garrosino #6:
I also understood that in China, 50% of the unit cost was required as down payment and the balance of the mortgage had to be paid over the next 3 years.
Which left a lot of their own people stuggling just as we see here.
Back in the fall, Global (I think) ran a story on a Chinese Real Estate News group that was here ‘shopping’ for their clients. They were taken by helicopter to view properties – to better allow them to see where houses were situated, how close to schools and amenities etc. Some of it focused on Delta/White Rock, some here in Vancouver.
9 Grant // May 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Frank, can you explain what you mean by the “anti-condo junta”? I have a suspicion I fit the mould, but as someone who’s lived in a rented condo, I have no problem with the inhabitants. It’s the owners who I think have made a financial mistake if they bought in the last couple of years.
10 Glissando Remmy // May 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Thought of The Day
“High end of Vancouver west-side real estate shows signs of weakening… it’s like saying that Donald Trump is showing a receding toupee line!”
Solution;
A new Real Estate rejuvenation system in place is needed. The magical Toupini, will make your Sale follicles grow out of fresh baby butt.
13,000 High Ranked PRC members are AWOL, and presumed guilty on all $30-50 Billions embezzlement charges.
It’s only a matter of time till they’ll show up on our British Columbian shore, Lock, Stock and Barrel.
Last I’ve heard, Vancouver’s population was approx. 600,000, West Side a small fraction of that…
Now, if we take, say… 0.0001% out of 1,500,000,000 who wants to move here…
if you catch my drift.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
11 Frank Ducote // May 7, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Grant – “dooms you to rent a condo” pretty much sums up my reaction. I’ve seen this bias many times before on these postings so was reacting to that bias. Do you think “junta” is too strong or inaccurate a word for a group who believe in an extreme position and continue to frequently voice it against a predominant form of living in this city of ours? Give me another word that fits and I’ll use it.
Most of the world’s great cities have over 50% of their residents in rental accommodation, and most of those units are in multifamily arrangements, either strata-titled or landlord owned.
In fact, I’d really like to hear about a comparably vibrant and creative city where the predominant form of tenure is neither rental nor stratafied. I’m guessing “Broadacre City”, in Frank Lloyd Wright’s fanstasy world. Or Los Angeles.
12 rf // May 7, 2012 at 1:42 pm
So while other jurisdictions bring in luxury tax and capital controls, BC decides to raise the Homeowners grant to almost double the homeowners grant threshold.
So it’s ok to raise taxes on the income wealthy but it’s not ok to raise taxes on the asset wealthy.
Vive le Columiba Britinaque! OpA!
13 Silly Season // May 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm
The system has been scammed.
And the Canadian taxpayers lose out on capital gains taxes (non primary residence) that SHOULD be paid from true foreign buyers (non immigrants, non residents) who are trading property between themselves, aided and abbetted by some local developers, real estate agents and third party assistance, in the form of lawyers and accountants.
Additionally, and to me, almost unbelievably, apparently CMHC has a loophole wherein foreign investors can invest the minimum downpayment–and be covered under the CMHC rules, and therefore our taxes—under the sobriquet of “student housing”.
From an April 16th column by FP columnist Diane Francis:
‘But the latest loophole, offered by Canadian taxpayers without their permission, involves student housing that is being encouraged by CMHC. In 2010, the CMHC changed its rules to insure mortgages on residential properties that will be used for student housing, FOREIGN or DOMESTIC. For only 15% down a unit bought near a university, or hundreds of them at a time, and rented to students will be insured by taxpayers.
The dangers signs are everywhere. Figures show that Canada’s vulnerability to mortgage defaults has soared beyond U.S. levels at the time of the sub-prime frenzy.
In December, the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND warned Ottawa and urged it to review CMHC’s governance and oversight, and assess whether the agency needs to do more to protect itself against housing market risks.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who has acted to try to cool the market three times since 2008, has cautioned families to be careful about taking on debts they won’t be able to afford when interest rates rise. But this is not about the market or about Canadians, but about unacceptable foreign buying pressure’.
I don’t know if the Tory government’s move to rein in CMHC (who like many insurers down South is now facing the possibility that it will have to insure liabilities far beyond its current budget) is predicated on the assumption that local prices are soaring because of pure foreign speculation plays.
But in the crazy, economic world we are seeing right now, we cannot have ‘business as usual’. Difficult times mean different remedies, and we are fooling ourselves to think that we are not part of the panicky global flight of money—and that it is not dangerously artifically inflating our own market right now.
To not deal with now, means potentially larger setbacks later, both in reduced affordability and “bubble” potentail.
And I’d like to sic my dog on those in this country who, like the Wall Street barons before them, find it so easy to find ways to go over, around and under the system— and help others with tax evasion.
We need a regulatory framework, with real teeth in it for the real estate industry that holds people accountable for how these deals are set up–and who will be penalized by looking away.
14 Sandy Garossino // May 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm
@Max #8
You’re correct that China’s 2010 reforms included radical increases to the required down payment, though this was for second homes (40%).
Other remedial action included increased interest rates, a new national real estate sales tax, tightening developer borrowing eligibility, restricting Beijing real estate to only long-time residents, and ownership limits.
The broad economic consensus is that China’s real estate bubble resulted in large measure from its 2008/09 stimulus package of around 4 trillion RMB ($640 billion US).
It’s good to see rigour applied to controlling housing costs, though the concern endures that China’s landing could be quite hard.
An outcome that will affect the global economy too.
15 Sandy Garossino // May 7, 2012 at 2:24 pm
@Frank Ducote: The “anti-condo junta” is something of a canard–but congrats on a great phrase!
Condo living is great and desirable for many–the challenge is that suitable strata housing for families is still completely out of reach–and is largely not even being built.
By the time they hit 50-60 lbs, growing humans take up space–lots of it once you factor in the bouncing.
You need 1100 sf to raise 2 kids to adulthood. Try and buy that anywhere on a typical Vancouver household income.
16 Silly Season // May 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm
As per your Globe column: biked down West 33rd Ave on Saturday. Counted 14 “For Sale” signs over 3 blocks, with three sets of “side by side” homes on the market. NOT speculators?? Just sayin’…
Interesting to hear so many real estate agents saying that the prices were unsustainable for the local market (Really?!). Have also heard that Richmond is deadsville right now, too.
Everyone has a threshhold. Look for more (less pricey) sales in Coquitlum and Surrey.
Now, if real estate (especially for families—sorry those 255 sq ft. condos don’t work for all!) once again enters the realm of the possible, perhaps City Hall can focus on job development and saving light industrial land for the city?
17 gman // May 7, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Its not just hot money coming out of China, over 600 CEOs have recently resigned,took the money and ran which would suggest that something much more serious is just around the corner. http://americankabuki.blogspot.ca/p/131-resignations-from-world-banks.html
Hang on to your hats folks its going to get ugly.
18 Max // May 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm
From the Gobal BC site – May, 2011:
Vancouver homes more expensive than New York or London
Buyers from mainland China are leading a wave of Asian investment Hui-yong Yu and Christopher Donville, Bloomberg News : Monday, May 16, 2011 12:00 AM
VANCOUVER — Vancouver’s Royal Pacific Realty had such a surge of business during the first two weeks of February that agents and assistants worked day and night shifts to find homes for Chinese buyers visiting during the Lunar New Year.
“It was unprecedented,” said Royal Pacific Chief Executive Officer David Choi. “I called them sleepwalkers.”
Sales of detached homes, townhouses and condominiums in metropolitan Vancouver jumped 70 percent in February from January, to 3,097 units from 1,819, and were up 25 percent from a year earlier, according to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. In March, sales climbed 32 percent from February, to just shy of a record for the month of 4,371 transactions set in 2004. Sales increased by 80 percent from two years ago.
Buyers from mainland China are leading a wave of Asian investment in Vancouver real estate as China tries to damp property speculation at home. Good schools, a marine climate and the large, established Asian community as a result of Canada’s liberal immigration policy make Vancouver attractive, said Cathy Gong, who moved from Shanghai to the Shaughnessy neighbourhood on Vancouver’s west side about three years ago.
“The schools here are the best and there are a lot of Chinese people here,” said Gong, whose son is in sixth grade at Shaughnessy Elementary School. Eastern Canada wasn’t an option because “I cannot bear cold weather,” Gong said. Vancouver has the second-largest immigrant Chinese population in Canada after Toronto.
China Curbs Speculation
China, where home prices rose 28 percent in Beijing and 26 percent in Shanghai last year, according to the country’s biggest real estate website owner SouFun Holdings Ltd., has taken steps to curb property speculation within its borders. Chinese home prices gained for 19 straight months through December and climbed in almost all 70 cities tracked by the government during the first quarter. Premier Wen Jiabao placed curbs on mortgage lending, boosted down-payment requirements and limited the number of purchases.
“As the Chinese get more and more prosperous, they are diversifying their assets out of China,” said Jim Rogers, an American investor who moved to Singapore from New York four years ago so his daughters could learn Chinese. “Vancouver is very high on the list.”
The rest of the article is here and worth the read.. http://www.globaltvbc.com/vancouver+homes+more+expensive+than+new+york+or+london/285584/story.html
19 jesse // May 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm
“there are many reasons why”
I’m sure. Still, when things hit the fan, remember the three letters ABC: Always Be Closing
High prices, tighter lending, change of sentiment, sure all these are factors. Seasonally-adjusted inventory has been climbing for a while now, any look at the lacklustre population growth should be the first clue things are changing. My guess: the mention of 2001 — a year when BC population growth was in its previous nadir — for high inventory and low sales is no coincidence.
Bill finishes his last coat of paint and walks back to the foreman’s F150. “Now what?” he asks. “Nothing,” is the reply.
Eventually, once we build the house on the stead, we need to learn how to grow stuff.
20 Silly Season // May 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm
@jesse #19
Bill finishes his last coat of paint and walks back to the foreman’s F150. “Now what?” he asks. “Nothing,” is the reply.
‘Eventually, once we build the house on the stead, we need to learn how to grow stuff’.
Absolutely right on.
21 Roger Kemble // May 8, 2012 at 4:39 am
The lies we are told . . .
Locals line up to buy!
and
those few Cantonese families enjoy
the quality of our schools and education
and the mild Pacific climate.
. . . and get this . . . we believed ‘em!
Now we are told . . .
90% of sales go to Mainland China.
Families? Investors? Astro-naughts?
Ummmm, the Renmimbi is becoming as unstable as the dollar:
Who but currency hedgers can afford to leave the lights on, year in year out, to make the Mayor’s Task Force happy?
Interesting to see how this shakes out . . . (Phew, good job we did move VAG to Larwell.)
22 Roger Kemble // May 8, 2012 at 5:00 am
Correction . . . (Phew, good job we didn’t move VAG to Larwell.)
Huh, I’m getting as stupid as Silly Season!
23 Frank Ducote // May 8, 2012 at 8:31 am
@Sandy – don’t want to dispute the 1100sf (3bedroom/2.5 bath?) estimate for rasing a family of 4, but there’s “ages and stages” in life, with housing that best fits each one.
Downtowns have historically suited the needs of pre- and post-family stages (and never-family) but Vancouver is certainly seeing the middle ranges fit in very well. Hence the demand for parks, daycare and schools, as you know so well.
24 ThinkOutsideABox // May 8, 2012 at 9:53 am
Downtowns have historically suited the needs of pre- and post-family stages (and never-family) but Vancouver is certainly seeing the middle ranges fit in very well.
As a child that lived in a household with a brother and sister, two parents, and an uncle, I attended Charles G Fraser school at Queen and Bathurst in downtown Toronto for a portion of the elementary grades. The school is still there and was built in 1877 – I’d suggest that’s old enough to demonstrate that indeed downtowns have accommodated families historically.
I agree that the anti-condo sentiment is off-putting but the “ages and stages” argument is a narrow perspective and there may be extended families, single parents in their senior years living with their child’s family, aunts/uncles, etc. where they don’t just ship off to a 1 bedroom condo or a seniors’ home just because they’ve reached a certain age.
Developers don’t like to build 2 or more bedroom condos, because they make more money off 1 bedroom units. That (and Bob Rennie’s comment of downtown Vancouver being a resort town) precedes any further anecdotal observation as to the notion of how well families are fitting in. Family housing is in short supply. A friend now has a second child and has to leave the West End because he cannot find the 3 bedroom condo/coop/rental apartment that he requires.
25 Mira // May 8, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Roger Kemble # 21
You are saying;
“Now we are told . . .
90% of sales go to Mainland China.
Families? Investors? Astro-naughts? ”
Can’t get over what Glissando Remmy was trying to tell us, in great detail, one year ago (took me a while but I found the post), and you Sir, were right on the money too!
Voice of reason?
You bet!
http://francesbula.com/uncategorized/is-our-city-good-to-live-in-or-good-to-visit-only/#comments
How do we solve this now?
That’s the problem. A very, very big problem.
26 Frank Ducote // May 8, 2012 at 5:05 pm
2TOAB – Thanks for your anecdote. It probably would have been more accurate to say “in the postwar era” or “traditionally”, rather than “historically.” The fact that your school was built in the 19th c. speaks to this change, IMO. I had a similar experience during my childhood in New Orleans in an inner city neighbourhood, a few centuries ago.
Also, the school in the North Shore of False Creek was the first built in a North American central area in decades, if I have my facts straight. This underscores my original point about families with children finding urban living to suit their needs.
27 ThinkOutsideABox // May 8, 2012 at 5:20 pm
This underscores my original point about families with children finding urban living to suit their needs.
Families with ‘child’, yes they can make a go of it if a 2 bedroom condo/or rental is affordable.
Families with ‘children’, not so much.
28 Declan // May 8, 2012 at 10:57 pm
“This is all in the context of a general slow-down in the market with, as many have noted, a lot of inventory piling up and a low number of sales — the lowest since 2001 — being recorded in these early months of 2012.
Will that be enough to slow the speculative fever in Vancouver? I doubt it.”
Actually, it would seem to me that the data suggests that the speculative fever is already slowing (cooling?).
Still, you’re probably right that it will take a while to change attitudes completely. Of course, once attitudes have changed completely will be the time to buy.
29 Andrew Browne // May 9, 2012 at 12:42 pm
@ Lewis #4
“If living in Vancouver dooms you to rent a condo, then Vancouver will cease to attract the kind of creative talent it needs to stay at the head of the international creative wave.”
Yes, because other creative cities have… no apartments? Are you kidding? This is one of your weirdest statements to date.
30 Silly Season // May 9, 2012 at 3:06 pm
This just in from Jeff Nagel at the Surry Leader.
Economist Helmut Pastrick sez not to do a victory dance re: affordability.
http://www.surreyleader.com/business/150837865.html
Will be very interested to see final presentations from Mayor;s task force on same.
31 Bill Lee // May 9, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Bunch of new graphs of real estate sales, prices as of 09 May 2012 for Vancouver, Toronto, etc.
at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/mortgages/home-buying/median-resale-price-of-detached-homes-and-condo-apartments/article2427850/
including
Median resale price of detached homes and condo apartments
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:59PM EDT
Toronto housing starts and units under construction
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:57PM EDT
Y/Y change in average house price: Vancouver
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:56PM EDT
Monthly home sales: Vancouver
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:53PM EDT
Active MLS listings in Greater Vancouver
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:51PM EDT
Growth in Vancouver house prices compared to fundamentals
Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 3:46PM EDT
Mortgage balance versus proceeds with 15% housing correction
Monday, May. 07, 2012 2:26PM EDT
Halifax
Wednesday, May. 02, 2012 3:47PM EDT
Montreal
Wednesday, May. 02, 2012 3:46PM EDT
Ottawa
Wednesday, May. 02, 2012 3:46PM EDT
32 Bill Lee // May 9, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Globe and Mail today said (Business Front Page)
‘Canadian condo craze’ gets crazier
by Bertrand Marotte, Jacqueline Nelson And Richard Blackwell
Montreal, Toronto, Toronto—
From Wednesday’s Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, May. 08, 2012 7:45PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, May. 09, 2012 10:23AM EDT
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/canadian-condo-craze-gets-crazier/article2426997/
The fevered pace of building in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal is fuelling fears that the condo market is dangerously close to overheating.
A surge in condominium construction helped drive overall construction starts up 14 per cent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 244,900, the highest since September, 2007, and an increase from the March pace of 214,800, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. data released Tuesday.
Starts of multiple units, which include condominiums and apartments, climbed a sharp 27.4 per cent to 158,500, the second-highest monthly reading on record and a reflection of what Scotia Capital economist Derek Holt termed the “ongoing Canadian condo craze.”
Overall starts have now increased in seven of the past eight months, playing into concerns that the condo market is headed for a serious correction as developers continue to build. Canada now has the highest stock of unsold condos since the early 1990s, Mr. Holt said. A burst bubble would ripple through the economy….
…Building permits in Vancouver and Montreal have dipped, which could point to a slower pace of building, but Tuesday’s numbers still raised eyebrows.
Even Montreal developer Michael Dickey worries about Toronto and Vancouver, though not his city, which he sees as still playing catch-up with the others.
“I’d be worried if I was in Vancouver and Toronto,” he said.
“In Toronto, you’re getting an oversupply,” he said, adding that there is a danger the banks will start backing off on financing new deals.
Joe Vaccaro, president of Toronto’s Building Industry and Land Development Association, said the high construction rate simply reflects the breaking of ground on properties that were sold in 2010 and 2011.
“The statistics are a lagging indicator to those sales of previous years,” he said, adding that he’s confident Toronto can absorb new condos.
“Household formations are different today,” he said. “You’ve got baby boomers downsizing, born-again singles, young couples who want an affordable first home, and 100,000 new people coming into the [Greater Toronto Area] every year.”….
33 Frank Ducote // May 9, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Well, my neighbours (in our downtown condo) just had their second child. There are others in the development as well.
I know that it doesn’t prove anything, other than they are certainly not unique among young couples choosing an urban lifestyle.
34 Terry M // May 9, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Frank ducote – 33
“I know that it doesn’t prove anything, other than they are certainly not unique among young couples choosing an urban lifestyle.”
…or they can’t afford to move out, or buy something bigger anymore.
Oh, Chinada!
35 IanS // May 10, 2012 at 8:50 am
We have two children and have always lived in a condo downtown. We can afford a house, but chose to live in a condo, because we prefer it.
Different people like different things.
36 Everyman // May 10, 2012 at 10:25 am
Frances, your article focuses on the most extreme West Side examples. $1.5 million bungalows in Riley Park are just as ridiculously priced vs. incomes for what you get (or as building lots), and they’re still selling like hotcakes.
37 ThinkOutsideABox // May 10, 2012 at 11:15 am
The friend likes living downtown and chooses to live in a condo too, as do I.
He will be needing a 3 bedroom home. A search on realtor.ca reveals the least expensive currently available in the downtown peninsula is a $580K townhouse on Fairview slopes, which is within his realm, but listings jump steeply from there towards the $700K’s and upwards, which is not. And at that, there is not much available.
38 A Dave // May 10, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Frank Ducote: “I don’t know what some people are smoking, but I know plenty of “creative talent” individuals who live in condos and clearly love it.”
I’m not sure what the “developer ass-kissing junta” is smoking, but Frank is totally missing the point. First of all, what are the predominant options in Vancouver? Condo or SF house. So, yeah, duh, without a true choice, we MUST live in condos.
But even the Condo King admits that Vancouver is subject to a huge brain-drain of creative talent. From the Observer:
“rampant condo developments – many of them Rennie’s clients – are causing rapid gentrification of a once working-class neighbourhood (DTES), and displacing the impoverished residents, including artists.
“…he (Rennie) acknowledges that, unless Vancouver safeguards its arts and cultural communities, which he calls “the fabric of the city,” we risk becoming an uninhabitable “resort town.”
Snip
“The loss of Vancouver’s talent to LA, Montreal, New York and Toronto is something that should concern us all, says artist, lawyer and recent independent City Council candidate Sandy Garossino.
“We’re draining the lifeblood out of our city with the disappearance of the artists,” she says. “By the time you’re at a certain point in your life, you can’t afford to live here.””
*
Frank Ducote: “While I know it serves some people’s purpose to continue to do so, I’d humbly request that the anti-condo junta stop trying to besmirch a perfectly acceptable urban alternative form of living…”
And yet, as was the case with the Rize development, the “developer ass-kissing junta” continually condescends to and besmirches any true alternative to condos, and isn’t afraid to provide technical misinformation and grossly mischaracterize the opposition they encounter.
For example, the one alternative development that was proposed to the Rize was a development with 160 or so units. This on a piece of land that previously had only 8 residential suites (occupied by artists and musicians who were displaced, btw) in total above the stores on Broadway.
So a more affordable development proposal with a 2000% increase in population density on this site is characterized as coming from an “anti-condo junta”, who are also characterized as being “anti-density”?! Huh?
Why the gross mischaracterization? So we can sell tiny luxury boxes and realize a 3000% population gain? Huzzah.
Sorry Frank, but it seems really unprofessional for a former City planner to continually dismiss any viable alternatives to condos, and to constantly rely on misinformation and condescension to prop up your ass-kissing agenda.
Just because in your little anecdotal bubble of a world “business as usual” is the order of the day, it doesn’t mean that Everything Will Be Alright.
39 IanS // May 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm
@A Dave #38:
“but it seems really unprofessional for a former City planner to continually dismiss any viable alternatives to condos”
I won’t comment on Mr. Ducote’s professionalism, but I am curious (and forgive me if I missed this from an earlier discussion), but what was the viable alternative to condos being proposed? How do you get 160 units onto the property without condos?
40 MB // May 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm
@ A Dave,
Ditto what Ian S said.
So we’re back on Rize. Jon Petrie did not supply any graphics with his 160-condo write up, which he called a proforma.
Lewis’ “plan” sans proforma comes up about 2/3rds shy of that number by my calculation of his floor area and building heights.
Rize may be too much, but Lewis’s is too little and therefore does little to assuage the feeling that a mere 55 or so suites / rowhouses will swing in at stratospheric asking prices on this very central site.
Bill McCreery based his proforma on a real three-storey wood frame structure on a concrete first storey somewhere in Richmond or someplace.
All assume no underground parking or basement utility rooms, which I think is a big leap even next to a future rapid transit station. Less than reaquired parking? Sure? Co-op car parking shared amongst half the units. Could work.
But no parking, not even for visitors, deliveries and commercial /retail? Highly unlikely that will make it through even the most sympathetic planning approvals.
And I really doubt retailers would want central heating units taking up their floor space. Decentralized HVAC located in false ceilings? Pretty common, but goes against 21st Century energy conservation principles.
So A Dave, what is your proposal — without ass-kissing references please?
41 A Dave // May 13, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Ahhh, sorry, I meant to write “alternatives to towers”, not “condos”. While I fully support the decriminalization of fee-simple row housing, I am not in any way against condo developments, and neither are the vast majority of those who oppose towers in their neighbourhoods, which is why I take umbrage with FD’s mischaracterization. The issue is scale, not tenure.
42 Bill Smolick // May 14, 2012 at 7:15 am
Garosino should be happy. She rants against foreign ownership without providing any information to back up here accusations.
43 Frank Ducote // May 16, 2012 at 11:40 am
@A Dave – who the devil was talking about the Rize in this posting? Certainly not me, so please refrain from trying to rope me into your particular position on this project. It has been whipped to death in other postings, anyway.
But since you brought it up, just what form of tenure would your supposedly credible alternative to apartments (condo and/or rental) be, anyway?
Further, if you feel so confident that you label – or libel – someone “irresponsible” for a position they’ve taken, I’d suggest you let me know who I’m talking to, just out of courtesy. If you know anything about that.
Leave a Comment