[mr.x]

Average house price in Greater Vancouver nearing $1-million mark

By Stuart Hunter, The Province
Published: Wednesday, March 05, 2008

At an asking price of $889,000, the Second World War bungalow in the 3100-block West 10th Avenue in Vancouver seemed like a bargain to realtor Terry Flahiff Wednesday.

With the average price of a detached home in Greater Vancouver nearing $921,000 last month, Flahiff's listing could be considered a bargain.

"It's very busy," said Flahiff, who works for Re/Max Crest Realty (Westside) and has been a realtor since 1985.

"There are still more buyers than sellers in this market and I think that if a property is perceived to be overpriced, it sits. If it is sharply priced, we are certainly seeing people competing for these properties. I'm still in more multiple-offer situations than not."

Helmut Pastrick, chief economist with Credit Union Central of B.C., said it won't be long before the region's average house price breaks the million-dollar mark.

"At some point, we are going to see that $921,000 break $1 million - it won't be that far off."

Andrew Ramlo of the Urban Futures Institute predicts the $1-million average price will continue to push people out of Vancouver and into multifamily developments.

"If you are in your mid-30s coming into the market at $900,000, you either have to win the lottery or have a lot of money behind you," Ramlo said.

"It will push people to more areas where housing is more affordable and cause the land to be used more extensively."

Nick Collier, 59, who is selling the house on West 10th that he bought in 1990, said he plans to rent and see what happens to the market.

"I was a bit hesitant to sell but it is time to move on," said the former stockbroker. "Trying to judge the top of the market is a fool's game."

Cameron Muir, chief economist with the B.C. Real Estate Association, said that with prices rising by about 12 per cent annually since 2000, more people are looking to multifamily dwellings, which accounted for 60 per cent of total sales last year.

"It is a much larger share than it has ever been," Muir said.

Muir predicts prices will rise by seven to nine per cent this year.

While the average sale price of a single-family house was $920,644 last month, Brian Naphtali of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board noted that the benchmark price for a detached home - the price of a typical home - was $761,342, an increase of 14 per cent from February 2007.

"The benchmark is a more accurate reflection of what the market is really doing," Naphtali said.

[quobobo]

I'm with that realtor - unless it's a complete dump, 900k for a single home in this area is definitely a bargain.

[bils]

still think it's a bargain?

http://images.mls.ca/listings/reb89/highres/9/v690059_1.jpg

link (http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=&SearchURL=%3fMode%3d0%26Page%3d1%26vs%3dResidential%26ret%3d300%26sts%3d0-0%26beds%3d0-0%26baths%3d0-0%26bt%3d1%26aid%3d6577%26MapURL%3d%253fAreaID%253d6577%26mp%3d0-1000000-0%26mrt%3d0-0-4%26trt%3d2%26of%3d1%26ps%3d50%26o%3dA&Mode=0&PropertyID=6695276)

[quobobo]

Ugh, you win. That's pretty sickening.

[WBC]

oh boy...I would not pay $5 to live in THAT

[deasine]

Needs a little work, but anything old can look new. When I can afford a house (haha that won't be until at least 15 years down the road), I would buy a fixer upper and update the house to make it new again. =D

[WBC]

Although I like how they seemlesly integrated those stairs with the facade...;)

[ckkelley]

And undoubtedly it'll fly off the shelf.

Crazy stuff.

[agrant]

100 year mortgage anyone?

[cornholio]

One of the reasons im getting the hell out of this city. One of the problems with Canada and (Vancouver is the most affected) is the idiotic poilcy of allowing foreigners to buy their way in, literally encouraging wealthy families to move to Canada. Vancouver gets for its size the largest share of these families who just inflate and outbid anyone else when it comes to things such as housing prices, etc. If I could I would severely limit this practice if not stop it, its literally bribery at the expense of locals and others. The prices in this city are now completely out of whack for what they should be for middle income people who make their living out here, i mean how the hell can someone compete to some a**hole family thats loaded that comes over and craps all over everything and outbids everyone with out having to actually earn the money in our system and our region. People who live out here and work out here cant compete to that, and having to pay your whole life out your ying yang to own a shoe box is not competing. I would love to stop this practice of icouraging wealthy families to move here, infact I would discourage it and deport any families that got here this way recently, and I would not allow people duo citizenship and make them choose one(even though I have duo).

[quobobo]

...I would love to stop this practice of icouraging wealthy families to move here, infact I would discourage it and deport any families that got here this way recently...

I suppose it's probably a good thing you're not in the federal government then. The people you're railing against contribute a lot - they're generally highly productive and they more than pay their own way in taxes and money they inject directly into our economy.

Do you really want to chase away people who contribute millions to our economy? Britain was thinking about a tax for that (for London), and it was a stupid idea - the estimates were that it would actually cost Britain billions every year to tax these foreigners (as it would drive them away). http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/12/dont-go-scaring-the-geese-who-lay-the-golden-eggs/

I'd say that ridiculously dated zoning policies that severely limit housing supply are more to blame than anything. I mean, good luck building a 3-5 story apartment building in 75% of Vancouver - you simply can't do it. That seems like a much better explanation than "Foreigners with monocles and top hats are conspiring against us!".

[cornholio]

^It isnt the only problem but it is one of the bigger causes of our housing prices being too high for normal middle class people. Understanding money and economics is complicated but I can tell you that the negatives for middle class people out weight the positives by allowing this sort of immigration. I will also go as far as to say that many of these people are less productive and contribute less to our society then middle class people living and working out here. Anyways the people who do benefit from this are the same people with all the influence and power and it certainly is in their best interest to prevent people from even considering taxing or preventing all the filthy rich people coming in. The money they bring in doesnt do any good, it just inflates our prices which affect everyone else negatively. There is only so much money to go around in Canada, the more you designate to wealthy people the less there is for everyone else, by encouraging wealthy people to move in you are creating a unhealthy balance between the rich and the the rest which makes many things such as housing unfordable to the middle class. There is only so much money to go around, the more equally its distributed among the citizens the better of the citizens are, the less equally its distributed the worse of the majority is. I dont know how better to explain it. When a person comes in with a million dollars the city doesn't gain a million dollars but rather everyone else looses a small percentage of their wealth to make up that million dollars. When you take in to account global economics then it gets more complicated and thats where there are some advantages, but in the end its the midle class that suffers anyways. The midle class is better of by not allowing this to happen.

[quobobo]

^It isnt the only problem but it is one of the bigger causes of our housing prices being too high for normal middle class people. Understanding money and economics is complicated but I can tell you that the negatives for middle class people out weight the positives by allowing this sort of immigration. I will also go as far as to say that many of these people are less productive and contribute less to our society then middle class people living and working out here. Anyways the people who do benefit from this are the same people with all the influence and power and it certainly is in their best interest to prevent people from even considering taxing or preventing all the filthy rich people coming in. The money they bring in doesnt do any good, it just inflates our prices which affect everyone else negatively. There is only so much money to go around in Canada, the more you designate to wealthy people the less there is for everyone else, by encouraging wealthy people to move in you are creating a unhealthy balance between the rich and the the rest which makes many things such as housing unfordable to the middle class. There is only so much money to go around, the more equally its distributed among the citizens the better of the citizens are, the less equally its distributed the worse of the majority is.

Right, right - the middle class would never benefit from someone who pays much more in taxes than they do and has money to invest in start-ups and the like.

Keep in mind that many of the richest immigrants come here through the BC PNP program which requires them to invest in BC businesses.

[bils]

Without foreign investment, you could say goodbye to the Shangri-La, Ritz-Carlton, and at least half of the developments going on in this city. I completely understand how difficult it is to afford a home in Vancouver, but realize that without the driving forces behind this latest boom, we wouldn't be half as great a city.

[cornholio]

Right, right - the middle class would never benefit from someone who pays much more in taxes than they do and has money to invest in start-ups and the like.

Keep in mind that many of the richest immigrants come here through the BC PNP program which requires them to invest in BC businesses.

As a percentage of their wealth they pay considerably less taxes which means we dont actually benefit. If their wealth would be more evenly distributed between all the citizens then the turn over rate of money and the real money via taxes that the government would have at its disposal would be greater. Not to mention that I was recently reading that the top 10% pay less in taxes then the low to high income(basically the rest except the bottom 10% or so percent). Infact I was recently reading a article on that Buffet guy(riches person in the world) and he said that the richest people often pay less in taxes then their secretaries. Anyways like I said there is only so much money to go around, when you bring in wealthy people then all you do is make everyone a bit poorer and create another citizen that is wealthier then the majority which just puts everything of balance in our society. I dont think im explaining my self properly and this crap is complicated but at least im trying. The popular misconception is that bringing in wealthy people increase the wealth of the country which is just not true, it may appear like it but its all at the expense of the lower classes(the middle class gets hit the hardest). The only argument in favour of this is that the more money some individuals hold the better decisons can be made, its alot easier to get one person with 50million to take the money and spend it on something like a new business or condo tower etc. then it is to get 5,000 people to chip in a $10,000 each to get the same thing done. But having those rich people hurts everyone else, everyones quality of life becomes lower while the rich persons becomes extremely high(the middle class becomes more or less slaves to the rich). In anycase thats why we have stock markets to pool peoples money together to play the part of a filthy rich person(via a corporation), they work just as well and better then this idiotic policy of trying to bring in rich families at the expense of everyone else. ahh I give up I doubt im making much sense.

[bils]

i had a good year this past year and will be paying over $35k in income taxes. don't even try to convince me that you're paying more taxes than i am.

[quobobo]

As a percentage of their wealth they pay considerably less taxes which means we dont actually benefit...

I’ll agree, they probably do pay less taxes as a percentage of their wealth - but that’s kind of meaningless. They pay more as a percentage of income (just take a look at our “progressive” income tax rates, federal and provincial), and they definitely pay more in absolute value than the middle class because of that.

I also don’t buy the “rich people pay very little tax” argument. A few minutes of Googling pulls up multiple sites that all show the top 1% of earners in the United States pay over 20% of federal income tax. It’s not quite as dramatic here at around 15 percent, but that’s to be expected since we have fewer millionaires/billionaires.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
http://www.ctf.ca/articles/News.asp?article_ID=503

[98fb]

Cornolio you're so out to lunch. Without these foriegners BC wouldn't be experiencing the boom it is now. You'd still be working in a mill wondering if its the next one to shut down. Blame people like Sophia who can't even finish a frikin condo. I don't see a foreigner in him. You make me sick

[mr.x]

Cornolio you're so out to lunch. Without these foriegners BC wouldn't be experiencing the boom it is now. You'd still be working in a mill wondering if its the next one to shut down. Blame people like Sophia who can't even finish a frikin condo. I don't see a foreigner in him. You make me sick

I couldn't agree more....

[deasine]

Sorry to say this but you (cornholio) remind me of the immigration guy at the EcoDensity City Hall meeting

[Blake]

No, the average price for a detached bungalow in the City of Vancouver is in the $1,000,000 range.

The average price home price in Metro Vancouver is still in the mid $500K range.

[twoNeurons]

If a wealthy people bring in a lot of money to the economy, we all get paid more, right?

I somehow don't think so.

I can see the point you're making cornholio... but on this forum, there is a degree of "skyscraper" worship... and since wealthy people make skyscrapers...

well, you see where I'm going.

As for Shangri-La... since that building is really only affordable to wealthy people, what benefit really is it to us? more $12/hour hotel jobs? Eye Candy? Generally, people who live here and are wealthy contribute more. I'd image Jim Pattison, although a shrewd businessman, contributes a lot more than a foreign family who doesn't live here.

I remember reading something saying that skyscrapers are inherently inefficient. The taller you go, the more resources they require. What's better, a 50 floor building, or 5 10 floor buildings?

I think if you looked into it, you may find that the 10 floor buildings are both more sustainable, more desirable and ultimately, probably create a more urban feel.

I don't know enough about property laws to have input on this here, but it certainly is an interesting dilemma.

I do know one thing...

If allowing wealthy people to drive prices up

Perhaps I'm being simplistic here, but only allowing foreigners to lease land could be an option... or drastically increasing taxation for non-residents (to be a resident, you're required to live here 6 mos of the year) may discourage people from driving prices up.

Whether or not this would dramatically affect things... I don't know.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an old adage... but it's hard to argue that it's not happening.

[quobobo]

If a wealthy people bring in a lot of money to the economy, we all get paid more, right?

I somehow don't think so.


Yes, actually. When someone spends and invests a lot of money, is that better or worse for the economy (and accordingly, just about everyone's jobs)? The answer here should be obvious.

As for Shangri-La... since that building is really only affordable to wealthy people, what benefit really is it to us? more $12/hour hotel jobs? Eye Candy? Generally, people who live here and are wealthy contribute more. I'd image Jim Pattison, although a shrewd businessman, contributes a lot more than a foreign family who doesn't live here.


Again, having wealthy people around is a good thing for the rest of us, whether or not they live here all the time. This hypothetical rich family who only spends 2 months a year in Vancouver still pays tons in property tax (way more than the average Joe like myself) and they're likely to spend lots of money while they're here and possibly invest in local businesses.

Perhaps I'm being simplistic here, but only allowing foreigners to lease land could be an option... or drastically increasing taxation for non-residents (to be a resident, you're required to live here 6 mos of the year) may discourage people from driving prices up.


Again, bad idea. Britain might be doing this, but even a cursory glance at the numbers reveals what a bad idea it is. Non-doms (as they're called there ) spend huge sums of money in Britain (despite being in their native countries quite often), enough that they pay about 3 billion pounds a year in consumption taxes. The tax they're considering on non-doms would likely bring in about 800 million pounds, and also drive a large number of the non-doms out of England to other European "tax havens". Does that seem like a good idea to you?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/465111/fleecing-nondoms-is-the-thin-end-of-a-bad-wedge.thtml


At any rate, what's a high estimate for the number of very wealthy foreigners who own mostly unoccupied property in Vancouver? 2000? 3000? No matter how you look at it, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of new units that could be built with extensive zoning changes.


The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an old adage... but it's hard to argue that it's not happening.

I'll agree with you on the first point but not the second. Take a look at the following two links (both from the States where income inequality is pretty high, and the rich have indeed become very much richer):
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01ar.html
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new01_001.htm

You'll notice that the income of the bottom quintile of American taxpayers has grown significantly over the last 30 years - even accounting for inflation and even after the explosive growth of foreign competition in manufacturing jobs. Another thing to note from the second link is that the median number of earners in high income households is now much higher than in low income households - the income of low income households would have grown even more if they kept pace with the trend of having two income earners per household.

Holy crap, so far off topic... I need to stay out of any threads related to economics. I'm sorry.

[theman23]

There is only so much money to go around...

It seems to me that most of your rant is based off of this assumption. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but its not true.

[EastVanMark]

If a wealthy people bring in a lot of money to the economy, we all get paid more, right?

I somehow don't think so.

I can see the point you're making cornholio... but on this forum, there is a degree of "skyscraper" worship... and since wealthy people make skyscrapers...

well, you see where I'm going.

As for Shangri-La... since that building is really only affordable to wealthy people, what benefit really is it to us? more $12/hour hotel jobs? Eye Candy? Generally, people who live here and are wealthy contribute more. I'd image Jim Pattison, although a shrewd businessman, contributes a lot more than a foreign family who doesn't live here.

I remember reading something saying that skyscrapers are inherently inefficient. The taller you go, the more resources they require. What's better, a 50 floor building, or 5 10 floor buildings?

I think if you looked into it, you may find that the 10 floor buildings are both more sustainable, more desirable and ultimately, probably create a more urban feel.

I don't know enough about property laws to have input on this here, but it certainly is an interesting dilemma.

I do know one thing...

If allowing wealthy people to drive prices up

Perhaps I'm being simplistic here, but only allowing foreigners to lease land could be an option... or drastically increasing taxation for non-residents (to be a resident, you're required to live here 6 mos of the year) may discourage people from driving prices up.

Whether or not this would dramatically affect things... I don't know.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an old adage... but it's hard to argue that it's not happening.

10 floor buildings more desirable than a 50 floor building? Not by a long shot. Then by that logic, why stop at 10? Perhaps then no buildings should be taller than 1 floor (to conserve resources). Thats just about as logical as Vancouver's imaginary belief at one time that 35 floors and less were okay, but once you add floor 36, the building is now too tall. (taller buildings have now been constructed and as of yet, the sky has in fact NOT fallen).