Author Topic: Stacked Single Family Home  (Read 658 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8443
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #30 on: March 24, 2018, 12:45:37 pm »
Unlike London and New York, Vancouver is a very young city and until the nineties the average Joe could afford a detached home. The big change started with EXPO 86 and accelerated as the Brits left Hong Kong and the rest of China opened up. It also has geographical restraints that other Canadian cities don't have. Water to the west, mountains to the north and the US border to the south. The only room for expansion is higher density or up the Fraser Valley, which is some of the best agricultural land in Canada that is protected by the ALR.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #31 on: March 24, 2018, 12:50:42 pm »
Duh, I guess I just expect greed to, you know, duh, be in conflict with a buyersí desire to minimize costs. 

To the extent that it is not is because of cheap money and an irrational debt bubble for which I will appluad those who are shown to be left with a bathing suit on when the tide goes out.
Money's not cheap. Credit is cheap. Everywhere there's a credit industry, buyers are nothing more than the middle-person in an exchange of capital between the wealthy. Homeowners are on the hook to pay for that exchange of wealth when they buy a home (shelter being necessary for survival, this is an immoral racket from the start) and students are put on the hook when it comes to education. They only see this money in ephemeral terms: the homeowners as equity (eventually, if it's not eaten up by the impending collapse) and students as return to wages (again, eventually if they can leverage their skills). Credit, as it exists today, is an immoral and unethical means of enriching those who already have wealth at the expense of people who still believe in economic social mobility.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4836
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2018, 12:51:49 pm »
Isn't this just a duplex or triplex? They're fairly common around here. Don't they have those in BC?

I think BC_Cheque is talking about the idea of high-rise towers that contain condos that have space comparable to a detached house. Perhaps three or four bedrooms... enough that a couple with the typical 2.3 kids wouldn't have to look for someplace with "more room" as their family grows.  It sounds like a good idea.   People do tend to think of a house with a yard when they picture a place to raise a family, but in some places that's becoming unviable.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #33 on: March 24, 2018, 12:56:14 pm »
Credit, as it exists today, is an immoral and unethical means of enriching those who already have wealth at the expense of people who still believe in economic social mobility.
Credit, like drugs, is something that can destroy a person if abused. However, there are many people who use credit wisely to better their lives over time (i.e. virtually everyone who took out a mortgage that they could afford and paid it off). The price of living in a free society the fact that some people will make bad choices. That is not a justification for taking options from people who would make good choices.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2955
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2018, 01:12:36 pm »
Credit is never used wisely. It's always a net negative for society. Those who can afford credit, don't need it. Those who can't afford credit are forced to take it when others take it. Credit is like the PEDs of people's economic lives. It inflates the cost of things, forcing others to take credit to keep up with basic necessities like shelter.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2018, 01:18:45 pm »
Credit is never used wisely. It's always a net negative for society. Those who can afford credit, don't need it. Those who can't afford credit are forced to take it when others take it. Credit is like the PEDs of people's economic lives. It inflates the cost of things, forcing others to take credit to keep up with basic necessities like shelter.
We should take this to another thread. BTW - the high cost of building a home today illustrates why the cost of housing is not only a function of available credit.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2018, 02:17:40 pm »
I think BC_Cheque is talking about the idea of high-rise towers that contain condos that have space comparable to a detached house. Perhaps three or four bedrooms... enough that a couple with the typical 2.3 kids wouldn't have to look for someplace with "more room" as their family grows.  It sounds like a good idea.   People do tend to think of a house with a yard when they picture a place to raise a family, but in some places that's becoming unviable.

 -k

Finally someone gets it after all this talk of over-inflated markets and construction costs.  I'm only talking about providing options in cities that are becoming increasingly dense.

Whatever the cost of real estate will be and whatever it costs to build a house, I imagine the pricing being somewhere between a condo and house, but a little less than a townhouse since townhouse still have height limitations.

Basically the price of a house in the suburbs, but for people who don't care that much for a lawn (or don't even want to deal with the upkeep of a house), and who don't want to commute very far to the city.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 02:19:41 pm by BC_cheque »

Offline SirJohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2018, 09:14:09 pm »
We do have duplex and triplexes.  Even fourplexes, but I was talking about a different concept all together.  Something between a house and a condo.  Multi units, but not tiny in size.  I only brought up the 3 or 4 storey issue because Impact was talking about the costs of elevators.  I added that zoning would also be easier for 3 or 4 storey because they could be in more residential areas as well as major roads.

Well, elevators do cost a lot, and if you've got an underground parking lot that requires heavy maintenance. Sometimes repair costs can be close to half a million or more on those suckers. I was considering a condo downtown in one of those nice buildings (as an example) and they come with $1000 a month condo fees on top of the rest because of the additional costs involved. That's the problem you have with large buildings that have small footprints. If you have large apartments that means fewer people to pay for these elevators and other costs and consequently even higher fees.

If you're just talking about making the triplex wider that's doable, but you might need a larger lot if you want decent sized decks, esp if you're going to have a multi-car garage (not as important in BC but priceless here).
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 09:19:45 pm by SirJohn »
"When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't do." David Frum

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2018, 09:26:27 pm »
I was considering a condo downtown in one of those nice buildings (as an example) and they come with $1000 a month condo fees on top of the rest because of the additional costs involved.

Were property taxes and insurance part of that fee?

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2018, 09:35:33 pm »
SJ, thanks for contributing. You bring up good points.

We live in a house right now and I budget close to $1800/month to cover everything. Property tax, utilities, insurance, maintenance (this one is a lot) and contingency fund. Based on a square footage of 2000-2500, I donít think a maintenance fee of $800 would be unreasonable leaving just utilities and property tax.

Itíd come out about the same as maintaining a house.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 09:37:41 pm by BC_cheque »

Offline msj

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 368
  • I'm outta here...
  • Location: Vancouver Island
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #40 on: March 25, 2018, 01:17:45 am »

You're looking at it just from a tax-accountant point of view and leaving out a lot of other pertinent information.  Tax Shield alone doesn't give the full picture, you have to look at net annual casfhlows and appreciation of the asset as well.

I'm pretty sure he was talking only about nominal rate of return.

More importantly one has to consider inflation and competition between old stock housing and replacement values.

Economically, when capital appreciation is all that matters to the investment decisions (i.e. prices are divorced from rents) then buildings do, indeed, appreciate.

Even when real estate values rise at low levels we see buildings appreciate in value.

For the simple reasons of inflation, repairs and maintenace, and replacement cost considerations. 

My little example is interesting because it was a condo. Condoís do have a land value and an improvement value - yet does anyone buying a condo consider their purchase to be the dirt below the unit two stories below them?


I've gotta have more cow bell! -Bruce Dickinson

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #41 on: March 25, 2018, 02:25:45 am »
Nominal rate of return does not consider inflation or tax implications, that was my point earlier about the figures Tim provided.

Given the spike in property values in BC in the last 3-4 years, there is very little of anything else to consider.  Condo, townhouse, house, old or new, everyone came out on top in terms of NPV. 

CCA didn't really play the kind of role it should have in any other market.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 02:27:39 am by BC_cheque »

Offline msj

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 368
  • I'm outta here...
  • Location: Vancouver Island
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #42 on: March 25, 2018, 02:31:19 am »
Thatís fine but I specifically was responding to him claiming that buildings depreciate like cars.

They donít. Not even remotely.

They have fair market values that rise, like land, at the whims of emotional people. 

Especially when people are being stupid about buying real estate because of cheap credit.

I've gotta have more cow bell! -Bruce Dickinson

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #43 on: March 25, 2018, 02:39:06 am »
I don't disagree.  I was only referencing this quote though:

Quote
So this idea of non-depreciating buildings is kinda funny. 

I think Tim was talking strictly in terms of nominal rate of return (not considering any other factors other than ages of similar houses) and you were talking about real rate of return.
 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Stacked Single Family Home
« Reply #44 on: March 25, 2018, 09:52:35 am »
I think Tim was talking strictly in terms of nominal rate of return (not considering any other factors other than ages of similar houses) and you were talking about real rate of return.
Yes that is what I was talking about. The 'improvement value' on my property tax has been decreasing over time while the land price increases.