Vancouver Rental Market Discussion

[Klazu]

Oh dear, sometimes you just can't help but wonder who is stupid enough to end up renting something like this...

"Luxurious" sub-penthouse 3BR unit in a 1992-built no-name building in South Granville with funky and original 80s-vibe (only 25 years old) interior and appliances. Only $4,995/month.

Did I mention luxurious?

https://rentitfurnished.com/vancouve...hattan-west-2/

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Oh dear, sometimes you just can't help but wonder who is stupid enough to end up renting something like this...

"Luxurious" sub-penthouse 3BR unit in a 1992-built no-name building in South Granville with funky and original 80s-vibe (only 25 years old) interior and appliances. Only $4,995/month.

Did I mention luxurious?

https://rentitfurnished.com/vancouve...hattan-west-2/

Haha what a spin! Gotta love those appliances with all the yellowed plastic parts and single bare bulb light fixture in the dining area, tres chic! Same with all the black staining around the edges of the carpet. Would she call that airbrushing?

My grandparents had those identical bathroom faucets in their ca.1990 Kits penthouse, gushed like a waterfall. Always got the crotch wet if turned too high. Always.

[whatnext]

B.C. tenants are about to get hit with the largest rent increases allowed in five years
by Travis Lupick on August 24th, 2017 at 1:03 PM

Every year, the B.C. Residential Tenancy Branch sets the maximum allowable percentage by which landlords are legally permitted to increase rents.

Because there is an acute housing shortage in Vancouver, it means that that percentage is the exact amount by which most landlords do raise rents.

Yesterday (August 23), the Residential Tenancy Branch revealed this number for the year ahead, and it’s a big one.

In 2018, landlords are permitted to increase rents in B.C. by four percent.

That’s a five-year high. It’s up from 3.7 percent in 2017, 2.9 percent in 2016, 2.5 percent in 2015, and 2.2 percent in 2014...
https://www.straight.com/news/955601...wed-five-years

[Klazu]

Oh man, I am so happy that NDP did deliver on their promise to patch the loophole in fixed-term leases with a move-out clause.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h...tenancies/news

It's also great that they are forbidding geographic rent increases, although this should have happened more than 5 years ago! Now most of the rental stock is already overprized and this doesn't really fix that. More is still needed to make our province a livable place again.

Province protects renters from geographic rent increases

The Government of British Columbia is beefing up protection for renters by closing a loophole that some landlords used to seek inflated and unfair increases in hot rental markets.

On behalf of Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Selina Robinson, Vancouver-West End MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert announced that government is eliminating the geographic rent increase clause in the Residential Tenancy Regulation and in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Regulation.

“Renters have been threatened with huge rent hikes under the existing rules — that’s a scary situation for any renter,” said Chandra Herbert. “Since 2008, I’ve been working to stop this, so that renters can have the more secure housing they need. I’m pleased our government has delivered for renters today.”

“My neighbours and I were threatened with huge rent increases — up to 73% for some of us,” said tenant Ross Waring. “No one should have to face that.”

Eliminating the loophole means that landlords will no longer be able to use this clause to seek large rent increases above the allowable rent increase limit when other units in the area rent for higher amounts.

“With near zero vacancy rates in many B.C. communities, too many tenants live in fear of drastic increases to their rent,” said Robinson of the amendments. “This change means an end to one more loophole that some landlords have taken advantage of, and builds on the other steps our government has taken to increase protections for renters, such as closing the fixed-term lease loophole and increasing resources for the Residential Tenancy Branch.”

The removal of the geographic rent increase clause will come into effect on Dec. 11, 2017. Changes to fixed-term leases — restricting fixed-term tenancies with vacate clauses, and limiting rent increases between fixed-term tenancy agreements with the same tenant to the maximum allowable amount — will also come into effect on Dec. 11.

“The Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre has too often seen landlords use the threat of excessive geographic rent increases to bully tenants into lesser but still significant increases that exceed the annual allowable percentage — 4% for 2018. Faced with the prospect of a 50% geographic rent increase, disadvantaged tenants often consent to a 30% increase out of fear,” said Andrew Sakamoto, executive director of the Tenant Resource & Advisory Centre. “Eliminating geographic rent increases is another positive step towards making housing more affordable and secure for the roughly 1.5 million tenants living in British Columbia.”

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2017MAH0021-002036

[whatnext]

So in its incompetence Vision Vancouver and City Hall have been apparently sabotaging rental projects by trying to squeeze more CACs out of them. way to go Gregor!

....Two of the most high-profile possibilities for rental projects that disappeared the past six months were in the West End neighbourhood.

The Dales family have owned their property on Robson Street since the 1980s.

Mr. Dales wanted to redevelop the site, currently a two-storey retail and office building that houses a restaurant and the housewares shop Chocolate Mousse, and originally pitched the city on a new building with two stories of commercial, 30 stories of rental and a two-storey stratified penthouse on top for himself.

"I felt that rental would be a good long-term stream," Mr. Dales said.

But city officials turned him down, saying they would never approve a rental building that had a stratified unit in it, even though at least one developer had built something similar.

Mr. Dales said he hired a consultant do an analysis of the building to look again at the possibility of building a rental tower. The analysis showed it made no economic sense to build rental because of the city's demands for a substantial community-amenity contribution. Meanwhile, condo prices had risen so high that he'd be giving up millions by doing rental under any conditions...

....So he sold the building for $79.5-million to Vivagrand Developments, a relatively new company in Vancouver that has described itself in the past as linked to a real estate firm in Guangzhou, China. At the price paid for the land, no developer could do a workable rental project, so it will have to be developed as condos..

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37353717/

This why we end up with blocks of pretentious twaddle like the Timber Condos and no places for real Vancouverites to live.

[retro_orange]

Great. It's official, I am being renovicted...

[Klazu]

Sorry to hear, retro_orange and I feel for you.

In positive news, I have a feeling that rents for the larger units have started to come down a bit. I tend to keep an eye on the market and have noticed many larger units that would in the last 2 years ask rents north of $5,000 going now for a grand less. Actually, you can now find similar units in Burnaby going for more than in Vancouver, which is new.

I am sure this has everything to do with the empty house tax and investment units being forced on the market to avoid paying it. I hope this trend continues, however I have also seen a lot of units renting only for 3-6 months and some 1-year leases offering a "rent discount" for the first 6 months. I have a feeling those are all cases of landlords trying to get around the new tax...

I really hope the new tax and the recent rent rule change will bite some greedy landlords in the ass.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Great. It's official, I am being renovicted...

That sucks. Best of luck finding a new place!

[GenWhy?]

Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Program project submission deadline is Feb. 15th, so we should see selections by late March and some movement on early pre-development by April.
http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/modera...m-bulletin.pdf

We have a couple projects lined up for application and the benifits of this program look really good for all, but only if the City delivers.

[whatnext]

I missed this in the Throne Speech, but it seems the Province is going to give municipalities the power to enact "rental only" zoning.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37987658/

Discouragingly, there seems to be the usual kowtowing to developers, in that areas currently zoned for condos won't be changed to Rental Only! Why are developers interest always sacrosanct in this city. Plenty of residents have their property values affected by what the city zones all the time!

[jlousa]

Usually when the city rezones it's beneficial to property owners. Making an area rental only would have negative effects on values... My suggestion to them years ago was not exclusive zoning but bonus density to the point where the values offset. IE 2.5FSR at 4 floors market condos, or 3.5FSR 6 stories for rental all withing the same zoning, allow the property owner to decide which route to take. CACs and DCLS would still be payable so the rest of the city doesn't get the burden. Those numbers could be tweaked over time to obtain the desired outcome.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Usually when the city rezones it's beneficial to property owners. Making an area rental only would have negative effects on values... My suggestion to them years ago was not exclusive zoning but bonus density to the point where the values offset. IE 2.5FSR at 4 floors market condos, or 3.5FSR 6 stories for rental all withing the same zoning, allow the property owner to decide which route to take. CACs and DCLS would still be payable so the rest of the city doesn't get the burden. Those numbers could be tweaked over time to obtain the desired outcome.

That sounds like a reasonable idea, why don't they do it?

With regards to zoning, in an insane market that always seems to go up perhaps it seems beneficial, but in a balanced market, zoning decisions can drive prices down. For instance, what would happen to those properties in Fairview if the city rezoned all their leasehold properties in South False Creek for view-blocking towers?

[jlousa]

Perhaps my suggestion will get consideration from the next council. I'm not sure I'd trust any council not to muck it up but city staff if left alone from political interference should be able to sort out the details to make it workable.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That sounds like a reasonable idea, why don't they do it?

With regards to zoning, in an insane market that always seems to go up perhaps it seems beneficial, but in a balanced market, zoning decisions can drive prices down. For instance, what would happen to those properties in Fairview if the city rezoned all their leasehold properties in South False Creek for view-blocking towers?

These policies already exist in one way or another, but I can agree that they could be simplified or "streamlined" better through the process. Big issue in permits is a lack of staff and heavy consultative process with public and City Staff on multiple levels.

[whatnext]

I see the City now defines affordable rentals as $1,750 for a one-bedroom and $2,505 for a two-bedroom. Does that seem reasonable to most forumers? It seems high for a single person in a 1 bed, more doable for a couple. For the average income of $67k, that would be around 1/2 your take home pay.

[Metro-One]

Wow! I was renting a basement suite for 800 a month near Marine Train Station with my girlfriend 5 years ago, 400 each, I thought that was reasonable.

Now I rent a two bedroom on the 10th floor for 550 a month in Japan, which is nice. Of course Osaka and Tokyo are more expensive, on average my friends living in those cities pay 650 to 800 for a one bedroom.

So in other words... fuck calling that affordable rent! Seriously, 1700 a month??? How do people afford this on minimum wage again??

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Wow! I was renting a basement suite for 800 a month near Marine Train Station with my girlfriend 5 years ago, 400 each, I thought that was reasonable.

Now I rent a two bedroom on the 10th floor for 550 a month in Japan, which is nice. Of course Osaka and Tokyo are more expensive, on average my friends living in those cities pay 650 to 800 for a one bedroom.

So in other words... fuck calling that affordable rent! Seriously, 1700 a month??? How do people afford this on minimum wage again??

Hah, even for a working professional it's still a pretty large sum. Welcome to why our city is dumb.

[WarrenC12]

If this is a new condo in Yaletown, that price is a bargain. If this is an old one bedroom in a woodframe in Marpole, it's expensive.

As an average, those numbers are probably fair.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I see the City now defines affordable rentals as $1,750 for a one-bedroom and $2,505 for a two-bedroom. Does that seem reasonable to most forumers? It seems high for a single person in a 1 bed, more doable for a couple. For the average income of $67k, that would be around 1/2 your take home pay.

These are for new builds, and under the Rental 100 Program (the one stated in the article), the capped rents are the ones you posted under this program if the developer decides to get their DCL's waived. "Affordable" is a term used by the City to indicated, "less than buying", or at or just under market rents. The City actually has a new rental building program for private developers that talks about "Moderate Income Rental Housing" pilot, the name of the program. Both under the MIRH pilot and Rental 100, "affordable" is more geared towards those over $30,000 with the Rental 100 focusing on incomes around $45k+.

The reason for this is that building, under the current system (zoning, construction, trades, land cost), new builds with rents lower than that are tricky to manage with a City-wide program. Hence the new pilot that requires new builds under its program to be 100% rental with 20% tied to incomes between roughly $35k-50k, in addition to a minimum of 35% family housing, but we know, through the process, that the City will likely accept proposals under this pilot to include more of the income-tied units and more family units.

"Affordable housing", as it might seem as heard or read, isn't for minimum wage earners. That income bracket falls more into income categories for social housing... either HIL's rates or the affordable subsidised housing rates, as per BC Housing.

[GenWhy?]

Looking and making proformas for projects, we have been squeaking by for rental projects (doing much better when our clients have inherited, banked, or off-market land) due to all the above costs, but the DCL waiver on Rental 100 helps a lot, especially on those 4 or 6-storey builds, even with mainly wood construction. The density bonus and parking reduction we get on those builds makes these projects work... but the fight with the City is crazy sometimes where they reduce units, make them smaller, or increase costs in other ways.

I mentioned it in another tread, but on one of our Rental 100 projects the City said some of our family units were to big to get our DCL waiver under the program... so, we either had to make the units smaller, keeping the waiver, or lose the waiver, keep the units as is and subsequently raise the rents to make up for paying for the DCL's.