Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Who are the biggest investors in Vancouver condos? It’s not always who you think, if you look at the property records

August 23rd, 2013 · 71 Comments

There’s an ambitious publication in London that periodically produces a feature called “Who Owns London?” to try to understand what’s going on with commercial buildings in the City of London proper.

That kind of property tracking is exceptionally hard to do. Even if you spend the thousands of hours needed to find out the official, legal owner of every property in a given swathe of territory, then it takes even more research to try to figure out who the people are, who the numbered companies are, who the corporations are.

I took a small stab at this for Vancouver magazine, by going through the property records of two prominent condo buildings downtown — an area that many people think is dominated by foreign investors bulk-buying our city.

I don’t claim to have found definitive answers — two buildings are far from the whole story. But even this small bit of research gives a more nuanced picture of who is making investment buys in our forest of condos.

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • Bill

    @rph #41

    “To begin with, we can start to invest in our youth”

    I don’t think the problem is lack of investment in our youth but misdirected investment which has led to young people educated in areas where there is no employment and they took on significant debt to pay for it. This has been a terrible waste of human and financial resources. We need to target investment in training in those areas where there is a need such as skilled trades. You are right, there is no good reason why we should need to import skilled labour other than we have told our youth for years that green jobs are preferable to those jobs where you get your hands dirty.

    The only jobs governments create are in the public sector which must be funded by tax revenue. So why do we make it so difficult for the private sector to create jobs? Why do we allow environmentalists whose objective it is to stop development of resource projects hijack legitimate reviews to ensure that development is environmentally responsible? Why did we vote to repeal the HST which puts BC at a competitive disadvantage? Why is the emphasis on “green jobs” rather than just jobs? Why have we let Aboriginal land claims drag on creating another source of uncertainty that will only chase away investment?

    Increasing private sector employment is preferable to the public sector so why do we not focus on ways to remove obstacles to private investment in BC?

  • Keith

    When real wages are not increasing, and educated people are settling for jobs that they are overqualified for, and new immigrants can’t work in the field they are trained in, it’s time to take real action. I propose a five year moratoriam on immigration, as an experiment to redress the labour supply/demand imbalance.
    High immigration creates demand for jobs, which lowers wages, and demand for goods and services, which leads to overpriced real estate.
    Stagnant wages, and increasing housing costs aptly describes the Vancouver of today.
    If the moratorium on immigration doesn’t work, cancel the policy – no harm done.

  • Bill

    @Keith #52

    You make some good points and clearly our education/immigration policies have been mismanaged. Provincial jurisdiction over licensing of the professions while immigration is a federal jurisdiction no doubt contributes to the dysfunction.

    However, our low birth rates combined with longer life expectancies means that without immigration there will an unsustainable ratio of workers to retirees. So I would argue that just like education, we should be targeting immigration to sectors that we forecast we will not be able to supply internally.

  • Roger Kemble

    “Provincial jurisdiction over licensing of the professions while immigration is a federal jurisdiction no doubt contributes to the dysfunction. “Bill @ #53

    So far as the licensing of the architectural profession is concerned I have to reluctantly agree.

    For architecture the twentieth was a golden century: art deco, modern, post-modern, exploring the future.

    The twenty-first century gives the Honey Boo style of architecture: obese, obsessives and likely to hurt itself if it does not stop consuming.

    Locally we see the HBB style replicates iteslf in most of downtown, the proposed Marine Gateway development and the Oakridge (don’t laugh) new town re excruciating examples of HBB.

    One has to wonder what ten years of undergrad, two years of internship and on-going professional education does to the mind when we seen the over bloated, totally inappropriate results.

    Unfortunately Honey Boo Boo is in for a short and painful future unless she changes her habits and the same applies to these ridiculous architects (it’s world wide. Check the new Museum of Human Rights, Winnipeg) doing the same.

  • jolson

    Seems the myth of foreign ownership has gone out the condo window. Thanks for bringing this up Frances. Do we have any right to be miffed that some own condos and some do not? People of means sometimes invest in condos. End of story. Stay dry, stay warm, stay safe in your car, tent, shack, camper, van, trailer, boat, cabin, basement suite, house, apartment, penthouse, hotel room, or mansion according to your means, your inclinations, and your passions. For the truly adventurous there is always the igloo.

  • A Dave

    Decades of decline and consolidation in older industries (fishing, forestry, mining) and a lack of significant new industries (value-added resource development has floundered; film and hi-tech are very unstable) has left Vancouver with a perilous reliance on a real-estate development economy, otherwise known as “old faithful.”

    The result, a generation later, is a proliferation of “investor class” condo towers with a dirty little secret that the hyper-density pushers, green gurus and Vancouverism boosters refuse to admit. The price per square foot pushes the Canadian zenith in our new downtown tower districts, yet Frances’ article finds that about one in every five units in these towers sits vacant.

    “Using 2011 census figures, he (Andy Yan) determined that 15 percent of dwelling units in Vancouver’s new downtown neighbourhoods were vacant or only temporarily occupied, and that the figure rises to nearly 25 percent in one part of Coal Harbour.”

    “Yan’s research shows Toronto also has a near 25-percent “vacancy” rate in its downtown condo district.”

    Those are remarkable numbers, equating to thousands of vacant units. And it is a spectacular failure in community building that no one with a skin in the game wants to discuss.

    Obviously, only a certain type of investor can afford to pay that premium price per square foot and just let the dwelling sit empty. Nationality is irrelevant – Frances uncovers a diverse mix of local and international investors, most who probably don’t belong to drug cartels. Nevertheless, these aren’t the type of neighbours you are likely to share a hotdog with at a block party.

    The old mantra “Build it and they will come” has flown out the window, despite the fabulous views. With investor-class product, the mantra is, “Build it and they will buy.”

    So, how can our civic governments, with limited powers, influence local job creation and wages?

    The question may as well be, how can our real-estate industry defy global odds and remain strong? How can we build more parking garages for capital when the downtown is already overbuilt?

    Well.

    The city can assent to a series of localized megaprojects in neighbourhoods across the city. Through targeted upzonings and “special sites”, they can clear the way to roll-out investor-class condo towers everywhere, thus ensuring that our real estate oligarchs keep on producing new wealth and jobs (and campaign finances).

    Gastown, Chinatown, Marpole, Oakridge, Commercial Drive, West End, Mt. Pleasant, Endowment Lands, DTES… and anywhere a rapid transit stop is or may someday be.

    So what if one in every five new units sits empty, owned by an amorphous investor?

    As Yan’s research shows, we shouldn’t be expecting vibrant, affordable and well-designed communities (and long-term, liveable-wage jobs) to rise out of the hubris.

  • Terry M

    How incredibly despicable! Back from the summer holiday (away from this site I mean) I leave to comments … One inquiring how come no one contests or comments on the fire sale of the olympic village rental stock to an …”investor” a loss of several millions of dollars to the city… And a second one observing that other than bikes and bike lanes as a topic of conversation, nothing changed. Oh, my bad, the pathetic Fabula censorship (for whatever reason, beats me) is in full Vision-like force. Good riddance!

  • waltyss

    TerrM, don’t let the cracked pot hit you on the *ss as you depart this site.
    I appreciate that you have trouble understanding but let’s k.i.s.s. People were having a relatively sane conversation and had no interest in your baseless wet dreams about corruption in the sale of some units in the Olympic Village. That should be simple enough. Bye, bye!

  • brilliant

    So we’ve agreed wages are basically stagnant yet west of Main prices have gone up 300% in 15 years. How is that possible. And forget highrise, the amount of land driven up out of reach of locals in the housing sector is far greater. How much of the city’s west side landmass is held by people deriving their income from offshore?

  • brilliant

    Our brave new world, welcome to it:
    http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/the-boy-that-peed-in-a-garbage-can-at-a-bc-mall-why-did-it-happen/article14048692/?service=mobile

  • Mira

    brilliant @59
    “So we’ve agreed wages are basically stagnant yet west of Main prices have gone up 300% in 15 years. How is that possible. ”
    Speculation, speculation, speculation… offshore speculation. Simple as that.

  • teririch

    For those that missed Vision Cllr. Jang’s definition of ‘affordable housing’ , this should enlighten you on what an arrogant ass he is:

    http://www.straight.com/news/418221/vision-vancouver-accused-misleading-residents-use-term-affordable-housing

  • Cheezwiz

    Interesting comments all.

    Vancouver is certainly a head-scratcher of a place isn’t it?

    The median household income hovers between$65,000 – 70,000 per year. That’s household income, not personal income.

    Yet single family homes in metro usually start at about 800,000 minimum and shoot up from there. Even small townhomes in far-flung suburbs start at around 450,000. I have no idea how people trying to raise families survive anywhere in the lower-mainland.

    Decent (older) one bedroom condos in the city start at about 350,000 minimum.

    Do you ever look at the cars people drive in Vancouver? I rarely see older models or beaters on the road in the city.

    We have no major industries here, we are not a head-office town, and wages remain stagnant. Many of the jobs here are in the service industry – not know for being terribly lucrative.

    We have lovely scenery & a milder climate than the rest of the country, but there is absolutely nothing that justifies the outrageous cost of housing here.

    How are people living? Where are they living? Are they in debt up to their eyeballs? I suppose some people have found cheaper housing in the burbs along with jobs nearby, but most people still have to commute downtown, which is in itself a huge cost.

    Nothing adds up. My hometown is a mystery to me.

  • Terry M

    Cheezwiz@63
    Good post and fair questions.
    IMO Vancouver is a vast casino where people are trying out their luck. Speculation, money laundering, offshore investors, cheating, stealing… Who knows? Honest work never bought someone a million dollar condo! My hometown is a mystery to me too. Greed and arrogance are the only two qualities visible all over the city, in monster homes , and monster SUVs. Sigh.

  • Kenji

    @63

    I made my money the good old fashioned way: I inherited it.

    When I was 20, an uncle died and left all his nieces and nephews thousands of dollars. It occured to me briefly to use the money for self-improvement, travel, or a dream guitar collection but lacking the courage to do those things, I used it as a downpayment on a rental property with my cousin. That turned into an ok profit so I got another place and then another and then I bought a house with my wife almost 15 years ago for the then-shocking price of $285K.

    So I surmise that the cheaper houses are owned by people who got into the market years ago, and the rest by Russian gangsters.

    In theory I should be happy that my investment has multiplied by an egregious amount, but I’ m very uneasy about this market. It surely cannot keep going up, for one, which will hurt my friends and neighbours who just bought into it. And what about my kids? Will they be paying Tokyo-style lifetime mortgages for postage-stamp-sized condos?

    As for the cars, your guess is as good as mine. I don’t do leases, they scare me too much, but I think there is a lot of that going around.

  • Kenji

    @63

    As for where the money comes from, this is not a head office town to the extent that Ottawa or Calgary are, but it’s not the middle of nowhere either. Regional offices are a thing too.

    There is a substantial amount of government, and it is also a university town, which brings in the money as well. A lot of people I know have a university student or two in the cellar (that sounds like Silence of the Lambs).

  • rph

    @Cheezwiz #63. All anecdotal I know, but a quick summary of how some of my social circle have purchased homes:

    #1. UBC grad, Kerrisdale upbringing, inherited legit family business, prospered, sold company for millions.

    #2. UBC grad, westside upbringing, inherited legit blue-collar family business, making enough to afford nice house no mortgage.

    #3. Accountant and municipal employee, dual income, modest home no mortgage.

    #4. Two municipal employees, dual incomes, nice house no mortgage.

    #5. Prov govt employee, one income, mortgage, waiting for inheritance to pay off house.

    #6. Private sector middle management, got in early into real estate, flipped numerous apartments, still owns several, no mortgages.

    #7. Federal govt employee, private sector middle management, got in early, no mortgage.

    #8. Hospital employees, dual incomes, bought recently, house with suite and student boarders.

    #9 Municipal employee, private sector employee, bought recently, huge mortgage, hoping for run up in value.

    #10 Two private sector employees, small inheritance, third flip, profits have almost paid for lovely home.

    Anyways, sorry for being long winded, just wanted to say it is not all drug dealers, mafia, and foreign money. Although as prices keep getting higher, and income stagnates, who knows.

  • Cheezwiz

    Kenji 66 & rph 67

    Thanks for your posts – even if anecdotal, it does offer some valuable insight. Dual incomes are always a good thing, and having renters in the basement does help chip away at mortgages.

    I could go get a mortgage right now (for a dinky shoe-box condo somewhere) if I wanted to, but it would mean being extremely house-poor and running the risk of interest rates shooting up in the next few years.

    If only I had a small chunk of change and a time-machine, I would travel back 20 years and snag something in my present neighborhood. Those were the good old days when it was a pleasant but forgotten corner of the city that no one cared about!

  • Everyman

    @rph 67
    What year did each of those people buy their homes?

  • rph

    Hmmm, one within the year, one several years ago, one of the flippers within the past couple of years, the majority 10-20 years ago.

    Out of the ten examples, I would think if they were to buy today, with no previous large equity as a down payment, it would be a stretch to come up with the funds unless they took on boarders/tenants. Mind you, as the years have gone by (and are going by), many of them have received or will receive inheritances so I cannot second guess what their buying behaviour would be.

    Going forward I think Vancouver will see fewer and fewer situations where middle income families can afford, or want to make the sacrifices, to purchase real estate. We are seeing that already with the stampede to the suburbs of families with children.

  • Kenji

    @70

    Yep. No way could I buy my house now.

    But then I suppose, in the nutty alternate universe, I was a renter BUT then I invested what would have been my downpayment in some stock that would now make me so massively rich that I would…um…have so much alimony and lawsuits that…nevermind.

←  Older Comments
 →