Beautiful Empty Homes of Vancouver

[whatnext]

This blog has been receiving a lot of media attention and draws well deserved attention to the further resortification of Vancouver. If we're constantly beign told we must densify because land is so scarce, why do we allow the wealthy to tie up these properties?
http://beautifulemptyhomes.tumblr.com/

media:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09...n-local-anger/

[sacrifice333]

I wholeheartedly agree with some of their comments and suggested solutions... As many desirable jurisdictions around the world have done, it would be advisable for Vancouver (or British Columbia / Canada if that's who needs to do it) to implement a non-resident Property Transfer Tax Surcharge in the neighbourhood of 15-20% to if nothing else capture some of the tax income that is otherwise lost to owners living abroad. This type of solution also gives CDN tax paying residents a slight leg-up on their offshore brethren.

Additional penalties for non-occupied properties seems advisable.

Not sure if that uber-run-on sentence made any sense, but...

[phesto]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This blog has been receiving a lot of media attention and draws well deserved attention to the further resortification of Vancouver. If we're constantly beign told we must densify because land is so scarce, why do we allow the wealthy to tie up these properties?
http://beautifulemptyhomes.tumblr.com/

media:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09...n-local-anger/

At first I found the blog interesting, but as I followed it over the past couple of weeks, I started to see that it is purely anecdotal and the blogger does virtually no research or analysis of what is actually occurring in each case aside from interviewing an anonymous neighbour here or there. It's easy to assert that these are all owned by off-shore investors who are simply speculating and leaving the properties empty to the detriment of the neighbourhood and housing market, but where are the facts to back this up?

For example, the latest post is a property at 2050 SW Marine Drive. A 2 minute google search indicates that this property is under an estate sale of someone who passed away. A deal previously collapsed which is why it has taken some time to sell and while you could argue that it is overpriced and should be lowered to sell faster, it likely cannot be easily rented out in the interim given how unique and large the property is. There is actually a ton of info on this estate, but alas, no research was done.

Another one, 587 W King Edward, will be imminently seeking a development permit - again a simple google search would find this and the rezoning that was approved this year. There are a variety of reasons why developers prefer not to rent out houses for less than one year before demolition; and that is likely the case here. (actually I think this house is being preserved on site and may require deconstruction or moving as opposed to demolition).

Overall, I think this site is of value because it has triggered an interesting discussion about our City, but as far as I can tell it is simply a blogger riding around taking pictures of houses that look empty and making guesses about their status. While the majority may in fact be empty, it would be nice to see some real research to back it up; as it stands, it is just a nice site full of pictures. As with so many housing issues in our City, we are forced to rely on anecdotal information, much of which is simply full of errors or fabricated to fit a hypothesis.

[spm2013]

More interesting if people use this blog to squat or destroy the homes.

[djh]

Originally Posted by phesto

At first I found the blog interesting, but as I followed it over the past couple of weeks, I started to see that it is purely anecdotal and the blogger does virtually no research or analysis of what is actually occurring in each case aside from interviewing an anonymous neighbour here or there. It's easy to assert that these are all owned by off-shore investors who are simply speculating and leaving the properties empty to the detriment of the neighbourhood and housing market, but where are the facts to back this up?

For example, the latest post is a property at 2050 SW Marine Drive. A 2 minute google search indicates that this property is under an estate sale of someone who passed away. A deal previously collapsed which is why it has taken some time to sell and while you could argue that it is overpriced and should be lowered to sell faster, it likely cannot be easily rented out in the interim given how unique and large the property is. There is actually a ton of info on this estate, but alas, no research was done.

Another one, 587 W King Edward, will be imminently seeking a development permit - again a simple google search would find this and the rezoning that was approved this year. There are a variety of reasons why developers prefer not to rent out houses for less than one year before demolition; and that is likely the case here. (actually I think this house is being preserved on site and may require deconstruction or moving as opposed to demolition).

Overall, I think this site is of value because it has triggered an interesting discussion about our City, but as far as I can tell it is simply a blogger riding around taking pictures of houses that look empty and making guesses about their status. While the majority may in fact be empty, it would be nice to see some real research to back it up; as it stands, it is just a nice site full of pictures. As with so many housing issues in our City, we are forced to rely on anecdotal information, much of which is simply full of errors or fabricated to fit a hypothesis.

Yeah, I think this blog lacks research and could cause many negative effects for the neighbours of the houses identified.

I live a few blocks from one of the places listed. On our block there is another property that the site would undoubtedly list as a "Beautiful Empty Homes of Vancouver". I would never take a picture and submit it to this blog. Why?
a) I know that the owner of the house is in a home for the elderly, in deteriorating mental health, and as such is unable to make decisions on the upkeep of the property. Luckily, family does what they can to keep it looking decent. That blog would never care about "details" like this and would possibly concoct their own theories about "rich foreigners sitting on property" etc.
b) The minute that photo went on line, I bet we'd see squatters appear.

I feel sorry for any neighbourhoods that are now broadcast all over the internet because of an irresponsible post that will inevitably cause trouble for the neighbours.

[spm2013]

Well at least stupid journalists will have a flashy story about a website being used to ransack houses and squat.

[casper]

Originally Posted by spm2013

Well at least stupid journalists will have a flashy story about a website being used to ransack houses and squat.

Had a look at the site again today. Irresponsible is the best way to describe this site. Publically listing the location of un-occupied homes is opening up these building to abuse and the neighborhood would feel the consequences.

Even the Urban Explorer sites protect the location of abandoned buildings and sites to avoid vandalism.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by casper

Had a look at the site again today. Irresponsible is the best way to describe this site. Publically listing the location of un-occupied homes is opening up these building to abuse and the neighborhood would feel the consequences.

Even the Urban Explorer sites protect the location of abandoned buildings and sites to avoid vandalism.

Then so be it. Maybe it will make someone think twice before hoovering up real estate and letting it sit empty and unproductive.

It really is criminal that in a city where we have people tenting it in parks to survive, we allow people to let housing sit empty.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Then so be it. Maybe it will make someone think twice before hoovering up real estate and letting it sit empty and unproductive.

It really is criminal that in a city where we have people tenting it in parks to survive, we allow people to let housing sit empty.

I would agree the fact that having people live in tents in a park is a major problem that needs to be solved. I don't think a web site that encourages people to ignore property rights is the way to do it.

More housing needs to be built in the city, and that includes co-op housing or social housing.

[quobobo]

How to tell if someone is fundamentally not serious about housing policy: they're focused on filling up the handful of vacant units in Vancouver, and don't care that 80% of the residentially zoned land in Vancouver is zoned to forbid anything other than single-family homes and duplexes.