The BC Real Estate Discussion Thread

[taxi]

2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

The concept and the principles behind the ALR are sound, but what's probably needed are incentives to actually make the land productive, instead of sitting fallow and used as Instagrammable material.

 

@taxi - the ALR is actually a provincial government thing; the City of Vancouver has little say in it.

The concept is inherently flawed and short sighted. Why would you put land that cannot be repurposed all around a major and growing city. 

 

And then, like some major slap in the face, they don't even enforce the use of the land. The vast majority of the ALR is nowhere near agricultural capacity, with much of it not being used for farming at all. Supposedly this is some of the best farmland in the country. So good, that having it can't be replaced with land elsewhere. Yes, people who are moving into it aren't even using it for farming...often citing that it's not profitable to run a farm on the land. Repurposing single farms would create housing for hundreds or even thousands of people, yet the government just allows them to sit empty, not even used for farming. 

 

I also wasn't blaming only the municipal government. All levels of government are playing a major role in restricting housing supply. 

[Warhippy]

30 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I was never a fan of the ALR but must admit seeing value after all these years. There might be some value in determining subsets of the type of farming allowed within distances of urban dwellings. IMHO density has to increase and that means higher buildings along the transit corridors. That would take care of the problem for awhile.  

Looking forward, the three greatest issues we're gonna face will be housing, food security and water security.

 

I am an ALR fan but there are absolutely areas that are unsuitable for agriculture that could 100% be developed.  What this country needs to do is reopen frontier acreage in which people can be given 1/4 of an acre if they can build on it; work it, pay for it.

 

The prairies are full of areas that work.

[taxi]

9 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Go nuts then.  But don't come whining when there's zero agricultural production and zero capacity to produce in the province when the ALR is disbanded and all the productive farmland is converted to high-priced condos and villas, and you're left having to purchase Mexican veggies or stuff flown in from overseas at grossly inflated prices.

Lol...how much is the ALR currently producing? And I'm not referring to just marijuana. Maybe just keep the farms that are actually producing then and repurpose the ones that aren't producing or producing marijuana. Once again, Canada has lots of land. You're telling me there's nowhere else in Canada that can be used for farmland?

 

I really don't think you grasp the severity of the housing crisis and the effect it's having on people. 

 

Edit: You seem to be against "high priced condos", which are the result of higher density, but also against supplying more land. What is the solution then? Density is bad? Repurposing land is band? How do you accommodate all the people?

Edited August 31, 2022 by taxi

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, taxi said:

The government needs to do whatever it can to encourage new housing builds and greater density across Canada. It's not just taxes, it's zoning, lack of land supply, poor transit infrastructure, lack of skilled labour, etc...all of it. Between baby boomers, baby boomers kids, and increased immigration, Canada simply has too many people for the housing supply. Canada, as a whole (well except maybe not Montreal), has some fear of greater density. On top of that they've surrounded all of their cities with farm land, that in the 2nd largest countries in the world and also a country with massive amounts of unused plains filled with potash, somehow cannot be located anywhere else. 

 

You can manipulate taxes and mortgage rates all you want, but if you have no more housing to sell and the population increases by 600k+ per year, it's going to create scarcity.

 

Vancouver is likely the worst offender. They refuse to rezone. They refuse to modify the ALR, despite the fact it produces very little actual product relative to its size. Obviously land in the west side of Vancouver is going to be valuable no matter what. But there's literally no reason other than zoning that land in the further suburbs is expensive. Other major cities like NYC don't have that. You can drive thirty minutes out of Manhattan and buy a detached house for $400k. 

I believe this is the biggest problem in Vancouver and the worst offender for sky high prices outside of the city.  We have too much wasted land out in the suburbs that is classified as ALR and is not even being used for farming.  You rezone all of that land and start building condos and townhouses and all of a sudden you have more supply than you need really.  With the vast amount of land in the ALR you can even build detached housing in the suburbs so families can actually live in a home and not in a box.

 

There is enough land out there to allow everyone to buy and live in a home.  We don't have a land shortage, we have a housing shortage due to the refusal of local governments to convert wasted land into useable land for residential housing and the refusal of local governments to rezone existing lands all around the city.  

 

Immigration is at an all time high right now.  Not sure how we are going to be able to give all of these immigrants homes to live in with our lack of supply.  

[taxi]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I believe this is the biggest problem in Vancouver and the worst offender for sky high prices outside of the city.  We have too much wasted land out in the suburbs that is classified as ALR and is not even being used for farming.  You rezone all of that land and start building condos and townhouses and all of a sudden you have more supply than you need really.  With the vast amount of land in the ALR you can even build detached housing in the suburbs so families can actually live in a home and not in a box.

 

There is enough land out there to allow everyone to buy and live in a home.  We don't have a land shortage, we have a housing shortage due to the refusal of local governments to convert wasted land into useable land for residential housing and the refusal of local governments to rezone existing lands all around the city.  

 

Immigration is at an all time high right now.  Not sure how we are going to be able to give all of these immigrants homes to live in with our lack of supply.  

It's also the quality of immigration Canada has been pursuing. Canada somehow has a shortage of skilled and other labourers. Meanwhile, there's a suspicious amount of students and low income people making 7 figure home purchases. The cost of renovations and constructions is through the roof, which further adds to the housing shortage. 

[Elias Pettersson]

12 minutes ago, taxi said:

It's also the quality of immigration Canada has been pursuing. Canada somehow has a shortage of skilled and other labourers. Meanwhile, there's a suspicious amount of students and low income people making 7 figure home purchases. The cost of renovations and constructions is through the roof, which further adds to the housing shortage. 

We used to get lots of people coming here from Europe. They would come here and immediately start to work in the trades industry, real estate industry and other areas that helped our economy and our real estate industry grow. Look at all of the top real estate developers in Vancouver. Most of them immigrated from Europe and came here with nothing and immediately started to contribute to our economy. 
 

Now we get students coming over to Vancouver who don’t work but have money from their parents and also wealthy families who already have their money and don’t want to come here to actually work and contribute. Their contribution to the economy is to purchase real estate and drive the prices up as well as spend money on non essential items like high end clothes, jewelry, furniture and expensive cars. 
 

There is a reason the government instituted the foreign buyers tax. Some people even wanted to go a step further and not allow foreigners to be able to buy real estate at all. People who come here with money don’t really want to contribute to society. They simply want to enjoy their wealth and live and entertain themselves in the most beautiful city in the world. I don’t blame them but it doesn’t really help the locals and the local economy. 

[Gurn]

There are likely a few areas in the ALR that are truly not farmable, or of value to nature conservation; and those I'm fine with being used for housing.

All other ALR land should be being actively farmed or used for water storage areas by building/digging ponds and such.

They can be used as swimming spots; otherwise empty fields, become BMX tracks and so on.

But the land needs to be kept in such a way it can be used as farmland again, with  1 months notice.

 

The ability to quickly grow what we might need is a vital thing to have.

[4petesake]

5 hours ago, taxi said:

Lol...how much is the ALR currently producing? And I'm not referring to just marijuana. Maybe just keep the farms that are actually producing then and repurpose the ones that aren't producing or producing marijuana. Once again, Canada has lots of land. You're telling me there's nowhere else in Canada that can be used for farmland?

 

I really don't think you grasp the severity of the housing crisis and the effect it's having on people. 

 

Edit: You seem to be against "high priced condos", which are the result of higher density, but also against supplying more land. What is the solution then? Density is bad? Repurposing land is band? How do you accommodate all the people?

I agree that some land could possibly be removed but not not nearly so much as you suggest.

On the topic of ALR usage:

Note this information is for the Fraser Valley Regional District only)

For the purposes of your discussion there is 18% of the land in the ALR that is not currently being farmed in one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas in Canada with good water supply and moderate temperatures (for the time being) and the longest growing seasons. All conditions that are not readily available elsewhere in Canada. Once it’s gone…it’s gone.
 

Roughly 15% of the land included in the ALR is either unavailable or has limited potential for farming. This is the area that could be looked at to see if it should be removed and used for residential building but keep in mind that much of this is taken up by golf courses, parks, wetlands, etc so this figure would be substantially lower.

 

ALR Availability
Land cover, land use, and physical site limitations (topography, flooding, etc.) were used to assess how much land is available and may have potential for farming in the future. Of the effective ALR (56,436 ha), 67% was actively farmed or supporting farming (e.g. crops, barns, farm houses, farm roads, farm buildings, etc.). Another 8% was unavailable for farming due to an existing land use or land cover (parks, industrial buildings, wetlands, non-farm residences, etc.) and 7% had limited potential for farming due to a physical site limitations such as topography or flooding. That leaves 18% of the ALR (9,943 ha) that is available and may have the potential to be developed for agriculture.
Despite having 18% (9,943 ha) of the ALR available and with potential for farming, most of this land is comprised of relatively small areas. Thirty percent of the available land cover (3,015 ha) occurs on parcels that are already “Used for farming” and offers little opportunity to new farming entrants. In total, there are 1,754 ALR parcels that are not currently farmed and are available for farming. A parcel is considered to be available for farming if it is not already “Used for farming”, it has at least 50% of its area and at least 0.4 ha in land that is available for farming. Ownership and cost are not considered when assessing parcel availability. Of the available parcels:
• 629 parcels (36%) are less than 2 ha in size,
• 1,219 parcels (69%) are less than 4 ha in size. • 535 parcels (31%) are greater than 4 ha in size. • 69 parcels (4%) are greater than 16 ha in size.
There is evidence that small parcels are less likely than larger parcels to be utilized for farming.
In FVRD there are 2,602 ALR parcels less than 1 ha. Of these parcels, 16% (410 parcels) are “Used for farming”, 258 parcel (10%) are “Not used for farming but are available”, and 1,934 (74%) are “Not used for farming and are unavailable”. Furthermore, parcels less than 1 ha comprise 68% of all parcels considered unavailable for farming.

 

STATUS OF THE EFFECTIVE ALR
Land cover, land use and physical site limitations (e.g. topography, flooding) were used to assess how much land is available and may have potential for farming in the future.
Farmed or supporting farming: includes “actively farmed” land cover as well as farm houses, farm roads, and other built structures on farmed parcels. Actively farmed land cover includes cultivated crops, farm infrastructure, greenhouses and crops barns, but excludes unused / unmaintained crops and greenhouses.
Not farmed – unavailable for farming: Areas where future agricultural development is improbable because of a conflicting land use or land cover. Examples of unavailable for farming land uses include golf courses, parks, and small lot residential. Examples of unavailable for farming land covers include wetlands, waterbodies, and industrial or commercial buildings.
Not farmed – limited potential for farming: land with significant physical or operational constraints to farming. Included are areas with steep terrain, rocky soils, riparian areas, or a very small (less than 0.4 ha) or awkward shape.
Not farmed – available for farming: areas that can be used for agriculture without displacing a current use. Includes natural and semi natural land cover, managed vegetation (managed for landscaping, dust or soil control), and non-built or bare areas. These areas must be free from physical and operational constraints.

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

7 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Go nuts then.  But don't come whining when there's zero agricultural production and zero capacity to produce in the province when the ALR is disbanded and all the productive farmland is converted to high-priced condos and villas, and you're left having to purchase Mexican veggies or stuff flown in from overseas at grossly inflated prices.

The idea of building condos and houses in the Fraser Valley is so that they are not high-priced but affordable for most.  If you are densifying an area in Vancouver or the surrounding suburbs the prices of those condos will be too high for most people.  If you can open up parts of the ALR in the Fraser Valley which are not being used for farming then the prices of those properties will be much cheaper.  You could even build detached homes and they would be similar in price to a one bedroom condo in downtown Vancouver.

 

You could even go as far as Abbotsford and Chilliwack to get actual detached homes.  The prices in those areas are too high right now for the average family.  As @taxi pointed out earlier you can buy a detached home 30 minutes outside of Manhattan for $400k.  So that means that prices of detached homes in the Fraser Valley and out to Abbotsford should be similar in price.  The problem is they are not.   The average price of a detached home in Surrey is over $1.5 million and in Abbotsford it is $1.2 million.  In Chilliwack it is $850,000.  $850,000 to live in Chilliwack is insane. 

 

People should be able to buy a house out in the Valley or Abbotsford for under $600,000.  And they should be able to buy a condo for $300,000.  That is not happening because of the lack of supply.  The municipal and provincial governments need to open up more space out there and build more homes.

[Chris12345]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The idea of building condos and houses in the Fraser Valley is so that they are not high-priced but affordable for most.  If you are densifying an area in Vancouver or the surrounding suburbs the prices of those condos will be too high for most people.  If you can open up parts of the ALR in the Fraser Valley which are not being used for farming then the prices of those properties will be much cheaper.  You could even build detached homes and they would be similar in price to a one bedroom condo in downtown Vancouver.

 

You could even go as far as Abbotsford and Chilliwack to get actual detached homes.  The prices in those areas are too high right now for the average family.  As @taxi pointed out earlier you can buy a detached home 30 minutes outside of Manhattan for $400k.  So that means that prices of detached homes in the Fraser Valley and out to Abbotsford should be similar in price.  The problem is they are not.   The average price of a detached home in Surrey is over $1.5 million and in Abbotsford it is $1.2 million.  In Chilliwack it is $850,000.  $850,000 to live in Chilliwack is insane. 

 

People should be able to buy a house out in the Valley or Abbotsford for under $600,000.  And they should be able to buy a condo for $300,000.  That is not happening because of the lack of supply.  The municipal and provincial governments need to open up more space out there and build more homes.

$850 in the whack.....man it's nice and all but that's a lot. Why live in the Valley just move to the interior?

[Elias Pettersson]

6 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

$850 in the whack.....man it's nice and all but that's a lot. Why live in the Valley just move to the interior?

A friend of mine bought a house in Peachland for just under $1 million last year.  Houses in Kelowna are over $1 million in some areas.  In Kelowna pre-sales of condos are at $850 per foot or more.  There are projects everywhere in Kelowna right now.  Even rents are sky high in Kelowna.  If you want to buy cheap in the interior you gotta go alot farther than the Okanagan to get affordable housing...

[Chris12345]

8 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

A friend of mine bought a house in Peachland for just under $1 million last year.  Houses in Kelowna are over $1 million in some areas.  In Kelowna pre-sales of condos are at $850 per foot or more.  There are projects everywhere in Kelowna right now.  Even rents are sky high in Kelowna.  If you want to buy cheap in the interior you gotta go alot farther than the Okanagan to get affordable housing...

There's more to the interior than Kelowna. I'd also bet $1M in Kelowna gets you more than the Whack.

[WeneedLumme]

17 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

... Their contribution to the economy is to purchase real estate and drive the prices up as well as spend money on non essential items like high end clothes, jewelry, furniture and expensive cars. 
 

... I don’t blame them but it doesn’t really help the locals and the local economy. 

You seriously believe that people spending money on "non essential items" like clothes, jewelry, furniture and cars does not help the economy? How do you think they acquire those items? A wave of a magic wand, with no humans involved? I can only assume that your income is salary and comes from tax dollars, and that you have never studied any economics.

[I.Am.Ironman]

3 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

You seriously believe that people spending money on "non essential items" like clothes, jewelry, furniture and cars does not help the economy? How do you think they acquire those items? A wave of a magic wand, with no humans involved? I can only assume that your income is salary and comes from tax dollars, and that you have never studied any economics.

I think his point was that buying Gucci, Fendi etc has minimal benefit to locals other than who they employ.

[bishopshodan]

58 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

There's more to the interior than Kelowna. I'd also bet $1M in Kelowna gets you more than the Whack.

Yeah, but you're in a city with the highest crime rate in Canada if you do that.

[bishopshodan]

Humble 2 bedroom home on 1/2 an acre near me just sold for list in one day. Not water front, no view. 

$1.5 mil.

 

 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

You seriously believe that people spending money on "non essential items" like clothes, jewelry, furniture and cars does not help the economy? How do you think they acquire those items? A wave of a magic wand, with no humans involved? I can only assume that your income is salary and comes from tax dollars, and that you have never studied any economics.

 I have a business degree from UBC. I’ve studied economics extensively. As another poster pointed out, buying Gucci, Lamborghinis and other high priced items has minimal benefit on the economy as a whole. Also, scooping up high end real estate and investment properties with cash only only helps to drive prices higher, shrink supply and make real estate unaffordable for the average local. 
 

Also, these immigrants don’t actually work when they get here, not in the areas that need the most help anyways. 

[Chris12345]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 I have a business degree from UBC. I’ve studied economics extensively. As another poster pointed out, buying Gucci, Lamborghinis and other high priced items has minimal benefit on the economy as a whole. Also, scooping up high end real estate and investment properties with cash only only helps to drive prices higher, shrink supply and make real estate unaffordable for the average local. 
 

Also, these immigrants don’t actually work when they get here, not in the areas that need the most help anyways. 

Sauder er? Grad year?

[Elias Pettersson]

54 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

Sauder er? Grad year?

Yes, Sauder.  Was awhile ago, don't want to disclose my age as I am supposed to only be 23 years old and Swedish born...   

[Chris12345]

51 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Yes, Sauder.  Was awhile ago, don't want to disclose my age as I am supposed to only be 23 years old and Swedish born...   

Can't be before me!!!!