|
spotted at Granville/Robson this morning:
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
quote:
https://twitter.com/Healingslowly/status/557589584633016320?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Have rents gone up in Canada? They've basically been pretty flat (growing at 2/3% a year) in Australia. In Edmonton for most places I survey it's up by about $25 to $50 per suite per month every year over the last 3 years or so. Some have jumped as much as $100 or so but those are generally places that have been purchased with rents in place far below market. As someone else posted, this varies wildly between centres, some places (Grande Prairie) experienced a big downturn in 2008/09 and had >10% vacancy, which resulted in rents dropping by about $100 to $200. Rents were back at their peak about 6 months or so ago, when I last did an appraisal of a property up there. E: for reference a pretty typical one bedroom is about $900 to $975 in Edmonton for most locations. Rents in Grande Prairie for most buildings were about $925 - $1,000 give or take. All of these figures are asking rents, which can vary from what they're getting for current renters. Baudin fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Nobody should ever pay more than 10-15% of their yearly intake on rent. It is a rule I have stuck to for half a decade now. gently caress that's not possible for me. I average 20-30% of my annual pretax income to rent even the shittiest places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Who the heck can pays than 1/3 their income on housing? Also all the financial/budget guides say 1/3 is about right, or at least the ones I've read. I'd have to move with my wife into a 1br in the country or a bachelor unit to pay 10-15%. I can't tell if you just make insane money or pay insanely cheap rent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Who the heck can pays than 1/3 their income on housing? Also all the financial/budget guides say 1/3 is about right, or at least the ones I've read. I'd have to move with my wife into a 1br in the country or a bachelor unit to pay 10-15%. I can't tell if you just make insane money or pay insanely cheap rent. I rent a 2.5 bedroom condo in New Westminster with my partner and we both make combined $160K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Do you consider yourself middle class?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:I rent a 2.5 bedroom condo in New Westminster with my partner and we both make combined $160K. We make less than half what you do, should we move into a bachelor to satisfy your sage 10-15% rule? Your rule seems less "don't over pay on rent" and more "be rich". Not that that's terrible advise because there's tons of rich people who spend 50+ percent on housing and have zero savings and massive debt and need HELP god it's hard being rich. But seriously, unless you're a very high earner or willing to live in a slum no normal working class family can reasonably manage much below 1/3 on housing. We were almost doing 15% when we lived in my parents little 400sqft basement suite, the only reason we have a TFSA really. But it's absolutely miserable living in a cramped dingy basement suite. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
if you're single housing (including insurance & maintenance) can easily eat up to 50% of your take home in a larger city. I like roommates, but I understand why that situation loses its luster as you enter your late 20s/30s/40s. Mine is about 35% of take home and my apartment is a steal in Toronto. However we've been living on one income for about 1.5 years now in some form, so as soon as that #economicactionplan kicks in, we'll be back in the 15-20% range. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
What you should be concerned about is that commercial real estate is suffering just as badly, and unlike residential rents, those tenants can't just "eat out less" to make ends meet. Case in point: Chapters on Robson to close in June, blaming rent increase. This place was profitable, very profitable. Have any of you walked up Robson lately? Or Broadway? They're both becoming loving ghost towns, half the shops on Broadway have closed down in the past eight years since I moved here, and every one of them was due to rent increases. As an example, ABC Comics & Books went under because the building changed hands and the new landlord decided the lease was worth $10,000 a month. The storefront has been empty since they closed, no takers. This bullshit is starting to stretch out to Commercial Drive ,as well as Main St, and one by one the awesome little shops there are going under as these enclaves of affordable retail spaces are either priced in the realm of insanity or demolished for condo towers. This is how a city dies. The population can suffer through unaffordable residential prices for a very long time, because there's little choice there. When your retail starts to vanish because retail cannot afford the rents charged by investor-owners, that's the death knell. Chapters is a monolith, not even Levis could afford to stay on Robson. (Chapters is being replaced by Sportchek, so that Holt Renfrew can double in size to compete with The Bay and Nordstrom for the clearly massive rich as gently caress consumer market that exists downtown.) Rime fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Do you consider yourself middle class? Yes. I've been using this money to just save up whatever I can because I cannot expect to have this income for the rest of my life. Baronjutter posted:We make less than half what you do, should we move into a bachelor to satisfy your sage 10-15% rule? Your rule seems less "don't over pay on rent" and more "be rich". Not that that's terrible advise because there's tons of rich people who spend 50+ percent on housing and have zero savings and massive debt and need HELP god it's hard being rich. Well here's the thing: you shouldn't have to be paying 1/3rd on housing to begin with. If we had a proper housing system in this country, nobody would be paying more than 15-20% of their income. Having to fork out 1/3rd of income to live somewhere is indicative of a problem within this country. When I say "you should never have to", I mean that there should be no need to ever do so without having to resort to a slum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Economists, is it possible to contango real estate? This is what's happening right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Rime posted:This is how a city dies. The population can suffer through unaffordable residential prices for a very long time, because there's little choice there. When your retail starts to vanish because retail cannot afford the rents charged by investor-owners, that's the death knell. Chapters is a monolith, not even Levis could afford to stay on Robson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I don't understand who's setting commercial lease rates to the point where tons of things are vacant. Victoria is having a lot of the same troubles, empty storefronts, empty offices. Demand is there but the leases keep going up and up. What is the business strategy of the building owners to raise their rents to the point that their buildings sit empty? I guess they have a formula where it's better to have X % vacant than while raising rents on the rest that can still afford it. Like you raise leases and now you're making an extra 3 million a year, and your empty spaces are only losing you 2 million a year so you've come out a million on top. But it's horrible for the local economy. I wish there was more the city could do to discourage this formula, make it not in owner's best interests to have empty units. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Charge the owner a monthly fine on empty units set at the same rate as the owner is charging for rent, forcing them to lower their demands enough to either quickly lease the space or save their own skin.  Reforming things so that commercial spaces are also subject to rent controls would also be a good idea, so that mainlanders buying the building as an investment asset can't decide to jack the rent 400% in order to empty the building.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Best part of Toronto is telling people you live near the intersection of [bigstreet] and [bigstreet] and unless it's like Jane and Finch they'll assume you live in the nice area that is a stone's throw away from whatever low income area they're afraid of. I can tell people I live near Queen and Roncesvalles and they assume that means I'm from Roncey. Or my friend who lives at Bloor and Church, which is Yorkville, not St. James Town. Unless you're a visible minority. Then they assume the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I can tell people I live near Queen and Roncesvalles and they assume that means I'm from Roncey. Soon you`ll be able to tell the truth, which is you`re from Parkdale. It won`t be long until that neighbourhood completes the gentrification cycle. It`s already knee deep in hipsters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I wish I'd thought to screencap this insane post I saw on FB this morning... In response to someone posting some article ripping the poo poo out of that Eric and Ilsa couple, a woman who works in the financial sector replied that she was tired of seeing this because it is just "wealth-shaming". She went on to explain that it is totally normal and acceptable for people to be living beyond their means, regardless of if they make $60k or $300k, because "everybody does it" and things are just as difficult for the rich as the poor. Making more money doesn't change anything you see, because your expenses will always grow (and exceed your income) depending on how much you make. This was then concluded for some reason with the claim that "besides, it's entirely possible for people to live on $10k a year if they make the right choices." So yeah. We're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:What you should be concerned about is that commercial real estate is suffering just as badly, and unlike residential rents, those tenants can't just "eat out less" to make ends meet. Case in point: I suggest that you're missing out on something - the land lord is effectively kicking out the Chapters tenant with an above market rental increase (which is a win/win for the landlord, since they can either reap massive profits or use the space in a preferred way). e: reread the article a bit, the colliers broker is probably right on the money. Your ABC comics example is missing the size of the building so I can't comment on it really, asides from saying they were probably paying far less than market. Here in Edmonton we saw something similar on Whyte Avenue - initially the spaces were very attractive due to extremely low rents and proximity to a fairly high spending student population which in turn led to new property owners buying property, raising rents and gradually pushing out a lot of the small retail shops that drew people in. Fortunately the area has a very good reputation and continues to act as the retail hub within the city, but if rents continued to rise in that fashion you'll see rates above $50 per square foot per year for new buildings. It's a bit unlikely though the most expensive space we've got in our database is about $50 psf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't understand who's setting commercial lease rates to the point where tons of things are vacant. Victoria is having a lot of the same troubles, empty storefronts, empty offices. Demand is there but the leases keep going up and up. What is the business strategy of the building owners to raise their rents to the point that their buildings sit empty? I guess they have a formula where it's better to have X % vacant than while raising rents on the rest that can still afford it. Like you raise leases and now you're making an extra 3 million a year, and your empty spaces are only losing you 2 million a year so you've come out a million on top. It makes no goddamn sense to me that landlords are willing to tolerate extended periods of empty months just to hold out for the possibility of someone accepting a higher rent. This country is economics bizarro land - nothing makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Isn't China's housing bubble worse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It makes no goddamn sense to me that landlords are willing to tolerate extended periods of empty months just to hold out for the possibility of someone accepting a higher rent. Don't forget it's generally not a single landlord, it's a huge leasing company that leases space on behalf of a ton of building owners. I'm not sure all the specifics, but I've heard of individual owners getting scewed because they signed over control of rates to the huge leasing corporation who are fine sacrificing that building's income for the greater good of keeping prices high in the city/region as a whole. It functions almost like a commercial leasing cartel where supply is restricted to keep prices up. If every landlord and individual building owner (as if they aren't just owned by a handful of families already) then there would be actual competition and it might depress lease rates! Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Don't forget it's generally not a single landlord, it's a huge leasing company that leases space on behalf of a ton of building owners. I'm not sure all the specifics, but I've heard of individual owners getting scewed because they signed over control of rates to the huge leasing corporation who are fine sacrificing that building's income for the greater good of keeping prices high in the city/region as a whole. It functions almost like a commercial leasing cartel where supply is restricted to keep prices up. I would guess that the value of the land and building are strongly tied to future rents, so if you can keep rents rising fast enough, the property will appreciate faster than you lose money on vacant space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I would guess that the value of the land and building are strongly tied to future rents, so if you can keep rents rising fast enough, the property will appreciate faster than you lose money on vacant space. The math doesn't work out if whoever appraises it notices the historic vacancy - it's one of the things a good appraiser will ask, and BC does a fairly good job of training appraisers from what I've heard. If a building you're looking at has had historic vacancy issues you're more likely going to hit it on vacancy and ask questions about why it can't fill up - is there a structural underlying problem that the landlord isn't addressing for that space? You'd also be far less willing to be bullish on the attainable rate, which impacts the final value in a big way. Plus you'd have to include the leasing cost (commission, tenant improvements and maybe land lord work, as well as lost income for a lease up period), which again lowers value. Basically for commercial real estate valuations (literally what I do at work) vacant space is a bad thing, especially if it's a long running issue. You're severely increasing costs to the landlord and hurting your value by not getting a tenant with a strong covenant in place. You can add a lot of value by signing a good tenant to a building at a high rate for a long period of time, conversely you can lower it by having space vacant and not keeping the building in good repair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Is the issue with this that it doesn't really solve a housing issue? Because the most offensive thing to me about McMansions is the amount and extent of conspicuous consumption. No one needs a house that large for 3-5 people or a single family. The fact that some people are subverting this model is good to me. Maybe I don't see a problem with living communally though. I don't think there's a problem with communal living inside rented mansions beyond what you already said. It was just amusing to me to see the inhabitants portrayed as caricatures of exactly the kind of hippies you'd expect to find doing this. Really, a former architecture student named Phoenix lounging in her meditation chamber, explaining that she quit architecture because she couldn't make a living designing the communal housing of his dreams?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
No one can make a living at architecture, it's the worst career. It's basically the job prospects of being an artist. Maybe you'll be one of the few who gets famous and rich, but the vast majority slave away for lovely and very unreliable income.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Soon you`ll be able to tell the truth, which is you`re from Parkdale. It won`t be long until that neighbourhood completes the gentrification cycle. It`s already knee deep in hipsters. I tell them I'm from Raunchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:No one can make a living at architecture, it's the worst career. It's basically the job prospects of being an artist. Maybe you'll be one of the few who gets famous and rich, but the vast majority slave away for lovely and very unreliable income. The only reason architecture still exists as a named field is because building codes require someone who is registered as an "architect" to sign off on the engineering doodles that pass as "architecture" these days. Realistically, it's about as dead as coppersmithing except without the opportunity to sell bespoke custom pieces at farmers markets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Wow you guys have no idea. You can't their a rock in London without hitting a Canadian architect. In my social circle I think I knew 6 architects from Canada, all of whom were in the process of obtaining something called their part 3s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Mar 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
"No I don't hate rich people, but you're not rich. And also, yes, I hate rich people. gently caress them."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
If you can't fund your luxury purchases without leveraging yourself you aren't rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
How dare you try and shame me into not wasting money I don't have!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Remember at the beginning of this thread a couple of you idiots accused me of rich shaming
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
quote:
https://twitter.com/dbcurren/status/557644815845036034?s=09
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
And how does everyone feel about the Canadian housing market now that this thread is coming up on its two-year anniversary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Baha so not only is the surplus gone, the ensuing deficit will be costlier. Good on those Canadians from a parallel universe where the government didn't throw a bunch of money on tax credits for high earners. Meanwhile the low CAD helps out my dad 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
the housing crisis dragging on for years and years in bad for anyone who saw it coming and his/her credibility. Because the detractors, in many way, have been right this whole time we've been saying the sky is falling. Housing "values" have increased. Lay people don't know that if the bubble had burst 2 years ago, it would have had some bad effects. Now we're totally hosed 
peter banana fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Don't worry; Vancouver is only the second most unaffordable housing market in the entire world after Hong-Kong. There's no bubble and according to CBC business, today might be the day to buy a home!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
"Wealth-shaming" seems pretty absurd to me. Like "giant-dick-shaming" or "not-having-cancer-shaming".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2015 23:33
|
|