February: Sluggish market continues
This year started with pretty weak prints from the Victoria real estate market, and that didn’t change in February. After holding up a lot better than the condo market in the fall, the single family side especially has extended its slide and now looks little better than the condo market in terms of sales activity. Both have given up the hard-fought gains from the past 3 years and are back to levels we hit in 2022 right after interest rates shocked the market.
New lists have erased their little slide from the fall, and are now at their highest level in some 15 years. Yes a lot of these are relists just like they have been for the past couple years, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a sign of weakness. There’s a reason all those sellers keep re-listing instead of just selling.
After a flat period that persisted for most of last year, it looks like inventory is turning up again. As a reminder, inventory goes up every spring, but what we are extracting out here is the underlying trend. In other words, is inventory rising faster than we would normally expect this time of year? Currently the answer is yes (by a little bit).
Just like last month, slow sales combined with healthy new listings means deteriorating market conditions. We’ve broken out a little from the ceiling around 6 months of inventory and outside of that COVID spike when sales essentially stopped, we are now at about the same market conditions as late 2014. Difference is back then the market was on a steady trend of improvement, while we’re currently heading the opposite direction.
Sales to new list ratio actually looks a bit weaker than months of inventory, back to levels we briefly saw in the fall of 2023 and the lockdown, but persistently not since ~2013.
Combining the two measures shows another small decline from January’s market conditions when we were still within a balanced range. This is now the first buyer’s market we’ve seen in some 2.5 years.
We hit a similar weak spot in fall of 2023, but as I recall rates were heading up at that point. Right now rates are stable so there’s less of an easy culprit other than, you know waves hands at general chaos.
Prices have not reacted to the weaker conditions, in fact short term trends are all positive, but the sales picture can’t be staved off forever. It’s still barely a buyer’s market, but a buyers market around these levels does support slow price declines if it persists. Benchmark prices are all down year over year, with the biggest declines in the westshore as we discussed a couple years ago.
They probably did. They also sent them to Canada.
A modest proposal would have been for the Irish to sell their children to the English, thereby generating income for impoverished families while conveniently reducing the population.
Those people from the 1800’s bred like rabbits, having dozens of grandchildren. They all needed houses, and food, probably why they faced starvation.
Yes Frank but a lot of those born in the 1800’s are no longer home owners. Ireland’s population is now the highest it has been since the 1940’s.
Ireland is one of the only countries in the world to have their population decrease since the 1800’s. You can look up the specifics.
That’s true of most things in life, Frank. But what if the game has been rigged and some one has been putting their thumb on the scale?
Could the Irish proposal be a good fit for Canada?
There are a tremondous amount of hurdles to try this in Canada. Canada is fucking huge country. To attempt a universal program with all the diversity would be mind boggling. And the Canadian lending culture is deeply embedded in income based lending which retirees typically have less of than when they were working. While Ireland is relaxing income tests for equity-rich downsizers with low incomes.
Our system is not designed to loosen rules for a speciic demographic.
Ireland’s proposal is likely to work for Ireland because it fits their regulatory culture, their housing stock, and the way their central bank exercises authority. It directly targets a mobility bottleneck and gives older homeowners the financial tools to move into more appropriate housing. For them, this could genuinely shift the missing‑middle dynamic.
In Canada, though, this kind of reform would be far harder to implement. You’d need buy‑in from lending institutions, OSFI, mortgage insurers, and the public—and none of those groups are naturally aligned with age‑specific underwriting flexibility. Our system is more fragmented, more conservative, and far more resistant to targeted exceptions. Even if the idea is sound, selling it politically and operationally would be a much steeper climb.
The “missing middle” problem isn’t unique to Canada; it’s showing up across most Western housing markets. Ireland is a good example. The Central Bank of Ireland has just announced a set of mortgage rule changes designed to make it easier for older homeowners to downsize—an explicit attempt to improve mobility within the existing housing stock.
The measures include:
Exemptions from standard borrowing limits
Removal of rigid income‑assessment requirements
Greater flexibility for short‑term or bridging finance
The goal is straightforward: reduce the financial and procedural barriers that keep older households in homes that no longer fit their needs, and in doing so, free up family‑sized housing for the next generation.
The real estate market is quite small relative to the entire stock of housing in a country. Only 2 or 3 per cent of the entire stock of housing is in the marketplace at any time. Tappng into the remaining 97 to 98% of housing would have an effect in providing missing middle housing.
Governments tend to focus far more on new housing supply than on improving circulation within the existing stock. There’s a simple reason: new construction generates visible economic activity. It creates jobs, stimulates related industries, and produces measurable tax revenue.
By contrast, the resale market doesn’t offer the same political or economic payoff. When an existing home changes hands, very little new employment is created, and the tax impact is modest. As a result, policies that would help older owners downsize—or otherwise improve mobility within the existing housing stock—often receive far less attention, even though they could meaningfully ease pressure on the broader market.
No guarantees in real estate. You pay your money, you take your chances.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/real-estate/article/plummeting-condo-prices-leave-buyers-with-massive-financial-losses/
The just go by somes condos as a side investment thing….. You can always rent it out, make it an Air BnB and if not, just sell it for gains….Oh wait….
Data now shows that condo prices in Toronto have fallen back to pandemic levels after the brief spike in 2022. For buyers who wrote pre‑sale contracts near the peak almost four years ago, values have dropped by roughly 25 per cent. That decline is now colliding with a very different lending environment.
Post‑2023, OSFI and internal bank risk teams have shifted decisively toward stricter underwriting. The long‑standing practice of treating a pre‑sale contract price as a proxy for market value was never a regulatory entitlement; it was a discretionary accommodation that lenders extended during years of uninterrupted price appreciation. That accommodation has now been withdrawn. Lenders must rely on current market value, not a developer’s historical price sheet.
Because many pre‑sales were written at or near peak pricing, today’s appraisals often fall short of the original contract amount. This creates a predictable dilemma at completion: the lender will only advance 80% of the appraised value, while the developer still expects to be paid the full contract price. With closings approaching this year, many buyers simply cannot cover the gap.
Real estate lawyers and mortgage brokers describe the available paths as narrow and unappealing. Buyers may attempt to find additional capital to close, negotiate concessions with the developer, assign the contract to a new purchaser, or walk away and face potential litigation. In the most severe cases, bankruptcy becomes the final option.
Test, test.
Nicola Wealth has begun restricting or delaying redemptions on several of its real estate funds, citing elevated withdrawal requests and tight liquidity conditions across the private‑market real estate sector. Over the past decade, Canada’s housing system has grown in large part dependent on non‑bank lenders—the quiet lubricant that keeps the development pipeline moving when traditional banks won’t. But higher borrowing costs, softening rents in some markets, and growing valuation uncertainty have intensified pressure on these private vehicles. Valuation uncertainty is the gap between what the pro forma says an asset is worth and what the market would realistically pay for it today, given rising debt costs, weaker income expectations, and a lack of observable transactions. Faced with that ambiguity, private funds slow redemptions because they can’t be sure the number they’re redeeming against would survive contact with the market.
The real risk isn’t credit losses on existing assets—those will ultimately be absorbed by the investors who chose that risk. The deeper danger is a liquidity failure in the financing of new supply.
Yes, my client purchased one of those four units during pre-sales where the balcony had to be removed and the developer offered the deposit back; however, there was so much uplift in the market even with the removed balcony I advised my client to keep it and then we sold it later on -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7ACyFsLMvw
Even the four units with no balcony would be 430 to 440k. I would think once you get into the balcony units has to be 450k +/-.
? Dan lives in the penthouse unit at 989 Johnson.
Who pays for a new roof on these townhouses when it deteriorates in 20 years. By then you’re looking at around 50 grand, maybe more.
I think the worst unit at 989 Johnson would be around $430 to $440k so even if you have the worst unit out of the 200+ units that is not a very realistic offer on her part.
~~~
Thank you Marko. Wish I have full access to MLS( including the agent’s view, note etc).
i do know that there are a few /either 4 or 6 units) had no balcony — the developer had notified the buyers back the dates and the selling price was not reduced…. I also noted that some of the one bed unit does not fit a queen size bed( the door swing would almost hit them…
I also over heard that Steve’s son has pick up the old gig and kept on the phase 2…
this town is just too small and I was hoping to sell it around 450k lol and move on…
it’s a nice profit and time to get back into better location in my opinion..( ERA and Lagato and maybe the newer built Encore if they show up)
It probably is close to market value for a home of that advertised size.
Sometimes you accept an offer right off the bat and then it collapses on financing or cold feet and to bring attention back to the listing you reduce the price a small amount to make everyone aware that it is still available.
I recently had a collapse and the day after the collapse we reduced the price 20k.
The price is pretty close to market imo
Mohammad, typically, Gordon Head homes come in under 1,400 sq ft on the main floor. When you see one that’s right at the upper edge of that range, it usually means the plan includes a main‑floor family room. You can also cross check the overall area through BC Assessment. But those figures may be off as well.
If you’re serious enough to write an offer, bring a 50‑foot tape measure. Don’t rely on staging, wide‑angle lenses, or optimistic MLS numbers. Measure the rooms that matter and confirm the spans that actually shape how you’ll live in the house.
Buying a home with incorrect square footage does not guarantee you have recourse. Unless the number was a clear, factual representation that you relied on—and the error is large enough to be considered material—you may have no legal remedy at all. Many listings use “approximate” disclaimers, and courts expect buyers to exercise reasonable diligence, which includes verifying measurements themselves.
Patrick-4 astronauts got it right and left the madness.
How does seller psychology work?
Can reducing the price by just $20K really help sell a $1.25M home?
For example: 1503 Edgemont Rd, Saanich.
https://housesigma.com/bc/map/?status=for-sale&lat=48.490429&lon=-123.334879&zoom=16.1&with_listing=eVbOYENNLxryx2P0
Interesting, I wonder if the cordova bay ones will follow suite. Then there are the Mcbriar and Ash road ones without private outdoor space.
$50k reduction on these Oak Bay townhomes -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29549853/2-3513-henderson-rd-oak-bay-henderson
Reduced demand, not everyone with some money is chasing RE anymore. Very simple, not complicated.
Foreign buyer ban literally had nothing to do with it in BC as we’ve had a foreign buyer tax since August 2016 which essentially removed foreign buyers from the marketplace. Airbnb ban also nothing substantial to do with it for a couple of reasons. Airbnb zoning was limited to 16 buildings downtown Victoria so it’s not like new builds were being sold to investors looking to Airbnb because the zoning was capped to those 16 buildings. Yes, some Airbnb inventory returned to the long-term rental market but there are PBR developments in Victoria that have been built that have more units within the complex then all of the Airbnb units returning to long-term rent combined.
Reduced immigration did help, but at the end of the day it comes down to affordability. Prices went crazy during COVID and then interest rates went up on top of those crazy prices and the market has slowed until affordability returns. It isn’t that complicated.
Seller was likely a wealthy Canadian escaping the madness 🙂
Probably a wealthy American escaping the madness.
Some big sales to start the year, $9.7 million dollar sale today.
Yup. This long run trend ain’t changing, completely independent of whatever policy direction the government takes.
Sigh, not going to bother with this conversation anymore.
Told you we have a demand problem, not a supply problem.
So, condo sales look to be still taking it on the chin, interesting as thought they where doing better
March 2026 VERB Real Estate Report
A total of 579 properties sold in the Victoria Real Estate Board region this March, 5.5 % fewer than the 613 properties sold in March 2025 and 24.5% more than in February 2026. Sales of condominiums decreased by 18.8 % from March 2025 with 164 units sold. Sales of single-family homes decreased by 2.4 % from March 2025 with 285 sold.
Why would it decrease the rates? While BoC might leave the overnight rates unchanged to wait and see how inflation evolves, he doesn’t have much control over long term rates (and fixed mortgage rates). GoC borrowing is out of control and the bond investors actually do the math and see if they are compensated for the risks and inflation.
Yah looks like the three pronged approach of banning foreign ownership of residential housing, airbnb ban unless primary residence and decreased immigration are actually having a positive impact on housing prices. Hopefully businesses and banks start investing in technologies to give the economy a little help since they wont be able to rely on cheap imported labor as much. I’ve seen a lot of places listed already for the spring, we’ll see how it all shakes out. The only unknown is what happens to rates since we’re likely going to have an inflationary period on the horizon thanks to the Iran war. That will likely decrease rates and maybe bring some buyers off the sidelines. Personally, we’re not looking to improve our situation from town house to SFD, doesn’t seem worth the price increase and extra yard work.
There are more homes under $850K today for a simple reason: people finally have credible alternatives. You no longer have to sell a great condo and move into a tired “starter house” just to climb the property ladder. Or you can rent for less than the cost of ownership, save aggressively, or move into new missing‑middle housing .
Once those alternatives become legitimate, the entire price distribution shifts. The lower end of the ownership market stops being the mandatory entry point, so it stops getting bid up by desperation.
Starter homes only made sense when they were the only path upward.
The paradox of housing in the western world.
Across many Western countries, house price–to–income ratios have climbed dramatically, especially since the 1990s. The core of the paradox is that the house didn’t change — the economic structure around it did.
https://youtube.com/shorts/duE-q7HGVN4?si=wexes80oPgRwm6VH
Haven’t seen so many somewhat livable small freehold homes in the core available/hitting the market under $850k since 2020. 64 SFH under 1 million in the core right now and climbing. At one point in 2022 it was 6 or 7 I believe.
Great opportunity imo as SFHs will become more and more scarce in the future.
If u want crazy shite go build in Surrey, i hear lots of stories .
Shouldn’t it just be what’s in bylaw and published regulations and a person their would “like” or “dislike”…… So, what I am hearing is the system would be vulnerable if there is that much discretion to possible influence based on what could get a person to suddenly “like” something.
Month Mar Mar
Year 2026 2025
New Unconditional Sales 579 613
New Listings 1,516 1,487
Active Listings 3,261 3,024
Slowest March going back to 2014. That being said inventory is building slower than I thought as we head into spring. I was predicting we hit 3,300 by the end of March but it’s under.
2026 – 579
2025 – 613
2024 – 588
2023 – 590
2022 – 833
2021 – 1,173
2020 – 608
2019 – 640
2018 – 688
2017 – 929
2016 – 1,121
2015 – 734
2014 – 575
Marko- You should ask them if they have garages. Prime example of a small group of people micromanaging the behaviour of the greater population.
COV staff on my proposed missing middle townhome siteplan….”we don’t like garages.”
I think the worst unit at 989 Johnson would be around $430 to $440k so even if you have the worst unit out of the 200+ units that is not a very realistic offer on her part.
Seen a number of posts coming out of James Bay with complaints about lack of parking or looking to pay for a place to park.
“Hi everyone, I recently moved to the Oswego/Superior/Menzie block in James Bay, and unfortunately, my building’s allotment of permit parking passes is already maxed out.”
…
“Has anyone in James Bay got a parking spot they would like to rent? I am down on Superior Street and with all the construction it is hard to find on street parking.”
There is almost no unrestricted parking in the area and more places being built without parking. And the problem is going to get much worse over time in most areas of Victoria (city) as it moves to require less off-street parking and limit on street parking. Likely that residential only parking will move to a paid parking permit system with quotas in future along with more metered parking in zones near commercial businesses outside of downtown such as cook street village, james bay, fernwood, jubilee and areas of gonzales-fairfield. https://engage.victoria.ca/parking
Gentrification isn’t what I was describing earlier. Properly defined, it’s the process where buyers move into older, neglected neighborhoods and renovate the aging 1950s housing stock, raising local property values in the process. That model has largely broken down. Renovations are too expensive, trades are scarce, and the economics of flipping no longer work, so you don’t see much of it today.
Densification in Victoria plays a very different role. It’s unlikely to make housing cheap, but it can slow the rate of price increases. Prices only fall when supply overwhelms demand.
Yeah, a person can always gain a few bucks back by selling them to the rendering plant as well.
>.>> Groot: The missing‑middle housing going up today won’t be affordable now — it will be affordable in twenty years
OK Leo, finally someone admits it…. In TWENTY YEARS we may see affordable homes.
Since you’ve told me that I don’t know any people that aren’t “comfortably housed”, how about you do me a favour and tell the people you know that aren’t ”comfortably housed” that help is on the way. And through densification, homes may be affordable to them in twenty years. But they should hang tight, and wait out the 20+ years of gentrification that takes place immediately with luxury priced missing middle.
Affordability is a separate issue entirely. New construction is never cheap in real time, and it would take either an extraordinary surge in building or a recession to make brand‑new homes genuinely affordable. The missing‑middle housing going up today won’t be affordable now — it will be affordable in twenty years, just like every previous generation of “expensive” new builds eventually became the naturally affordable stock of their era.
This is why the slogan “build more to make it affordable today” misses the point. Building more can stabilize rents, slow price growth, and prevent future scarcity, but it cannot deliver cheap new units in the present tense unless the broader economy collapses. What we build now is an investment in future affordability, not an instant fix
.> What have we gained by allowing people to make housing choices that are best for them?
Sorry are you seriously asking this question?
No, I was responding to this statement Groot made, not the question you just made up above.
Here was Groot’s statement.
Groot: “ Additional supply may simply change the distribution of households within the region, allowing younger or lower‑income residents to remain in central areas rather than relocating to outlying communities.”
What Groot is describing is just gentrification – and sure the well off single people get to buy the expensive missing middle in central areas. .and get to move here from “outlying communities”. But how does that the missing‑middle housing going up today won’t be affordable now — it will be affordable in twenty years make things better for housing? Even though prices haven’t been lowered?
I thought the idea with densification would be to make homes affordable (ie less expensive). Simple question…. Is it expected to do that or not?
What have we gained by allowing people to make housing choices that are best for them?
Sorry are you seriously asking this question?
>>>. or euthanizing a pet simply because the rental market leaves them no choice.
Good God. I would hope that people are taking their healthy pet to the Victoria SPCA and not euthanizing them with the mistaken belief that they have “no choice”
The largest weakness I am seeing right in the rental market is the generic one-bed units downtown, like this type of unit has come down at least $200 to $300 per month in the last 24 months -> https://cloverresidential.com/rentals/502-1097-view-st/ and they continue to trend down.
My view is it is better to rent a little under market and be able to choose a responsible tenant.
100%, I always go a bit lower and it’s paying dividends right now as I don’t have any turnover currently. I would imagine right now it would be a lot more work to rent to a quality tenant as there are so many options. Plus more likely to have to absorb a month or two of vacancy right now as well.~~
~~~~
I still have a one-bed at 989 Johnson and tenant been there after it was bought- paying 1800 +utility since Jan 2020. I never heard from the tenant , who works for the public sector and makes good money. Recently, she asked me if I want to sell to her via a realtor with an offer 360k with no financial subject- clean offer. I said no to the offer as I want to keep it still( have a parking spot)
I think she will eventually find a great deal in DT either keep renting or get her own spot.
.>> Additional supply may simply change the distribution of households within the region, allowing younger or lower‑income residents to remain in central areas rather than relocating to outlying communities.
What have we gained by doing that?
Not certain what you’re saying. Is it that Langford population would fall and COV would rise? If so, then Langford would have vacancies that would get filled by people from ROC moving there.
Someone has to fill the homes, and if we build an abundance of new homes our population has got to rise (unless we shrink our household sizes even more than the tiny “lowest in Canada” 2.1 people per dwelling Greater Victoria has now. Which wouldn’t help anything).
Allowing pets in PBRs is interesting. For some renters, a pet is one of the main reasons they choose a basement suite over an apartment in the first place. When someone moves from a house into an apartment, strict pet rules can mean losing the home they want—or euthanizing a pet simply because the rental market leaves them no choice.
Adding missing middle homes expands the housing capacity of established neighbourhoods, which in turn raises neighbourhood‑level population. The additional units allow more households to live on the same amount of land, reversing the population decline that often accompanies shrinking household sizes.
Whether the region’s total population increases is far less certain. Additional supply may simply change the distribution of households within the region, allowing younger or lower‑income residents to remain in central areas rather than relocating to outlying communities.
This isn’t unusual, at least by North American standards. For example, 70% of Seattle rentals allow pets, and lots of cities are in that range. And overall, 59% of renters have at least one pet (40% have dogs ) https://www.multifamilydive.com/news/dogs-and-cats-are-priority-no-1-for-potential-renters/715772/
Chatting with my friend regarding his PBR project and says so far two people have not provided a deposit and ghosted the property manager once they’ve already signed a lease. Property manager says commonly happens in this marketplace. Imagine if it was the other way around and landlord didn’t honor a signed leased?
Secondly, 75% of the rented units so far have pets (a few units have two dogs). These are brand new nicely finished units. Wish all the people constantly complaining about no pets allowed understood some basic economics. You build more, vacancy rates go up, and the landlord has to allow pets if he or she wishes to rent out. Funny how markets work when.
> When development cost charges (DCCs) are reduced, competition pushes builders to bid more for land until their profit margin returns to normal.
Good post. Thanks.
I note that your post doesn’t mention effects of new building on population growth or overall prices (affordability). I believe that the new builds in Victoria have an effect to increase population and lead to higher prices from more competition. As we’ve seen in many other desirable cities who’ve grown in size from building.
Victoria’s population growth is somewhat unique among Canadian cities, in that much of the net growth is other Canadians moving here.
Yes, it will be awesome when we build an “abundance” of homes. But we should expect that this will also mean a “abundant” population growth, from more Canadians moving here.
Which, unfortunately means even more competition for desirable homes like SFH and townhouses, and no improvement to affordability.
Land Value=Revenue-Constructions Costs-Soft Costs-Finacing-Profit
In a competitive market, builders cannot retain windfalls. When development cost charges (DCCs) are reduced, competition pushes builders to bid more for land until their profit margin returns to normal. The benefit of the DCC reduction is therefore captured by current landowners, not by future buyers or renters.
This dynamic persists because builders are all competing for a tiny pool of inner‑city starter homes whose improvements have nominal value. Zoning restricts multi‑unit housing to such a small share of the city that every builder is forced to buy from the same group of owner‑occupiers, who have no economic reason to sell at anything other than a monopoly price.
Starter houses are expensive for the same structural reason. They are not inherently valuable; they are expensive because too many households are forced to compete for them. The largest and most avoidable source of that competition is condo owners who want to move up but have no alternative except a 1950s bungalow. When the only upgrade path is a detached house, condo upgraders enter the same bidding pool as first‑time buyers, downsizers, investors, and builders.
The way to expand the pool of developable land is not to pressure these homeowners to sell. It is to provide credible, attractive alternatives to single‑family homes for households upgrading from a condo. When people can move into townhomes, multiplex units, or other ground‑oriented housing forms, they no longer need to bid on starter houses. That reduces competition, increases the number of parcels available for redevelopment, and prevents policy benefits from being absorbed into land prices.
As demand from home‑occupiers eases, inner‑city starter‑home land values will fall. Lower land costs expand the number of viable pro formas, allowing more missing‑middle developers to enter the market and deliver the kinds of housing options that have been structurally suppressed by high land prices. Adoption is always slow at first, but once credible alternatives exist and early projects demonstrate the model, uptake accelerates steadily.
Ya I think Frank was the one that said it was gona go over ask for sure here.
“Ford, Carney announce $8.8B to help cut development charges, spur housing builds in Ontario”
The funding will do nothing for municipal inefficiency.
It’s throwing money on the fire.
…and that’s what it was.
Who knows. Lots of expensive properties have dropped their ask a bunch. What are you looking for?
What a difference a little bit of time makes. Remember when someone did a matterport on that Mt. Doug place that looked like a place for a horror movie shoot that ended up selling for over a million.
1542 San Juan, damn close to cashflow neutrality, I think bottom is near.
“Let’s say 50 sales combined today and tomorrow and we are at 580ish for the month”
50 sales on 2 weekdays, versus 532 on 29 days of rest of the month – how does this work?
I have always liked this property and for the first time it is up for sale.
Is it a deal? probably not. But if you have to worry about the price then it isn’t the right home for you. This is a legacy property fit for a real estate tycoon.
https://listings.platinumcreativestudios.com/3475upperterrace
Month Mar Mar
Year 2025 2026
New unconditional sales 532 613
New listings 1,417 1,487
Active Listings 3,259 3,024
Let’s say 50 sales combined today and tomorrow and we are at 580ish for the month so trend of lower sales than last year continues.
Interested but 578 Island Road looks like one of those OB houses with floors that slope just enough to make you question your balance and we’ve been through a few. The suite looks like the top option to live in between the house and the suite, which isn’t appealing at all.
What’s the best value in OB right now?
Nah, no party has a monopoly on winning.
Both parties will try to evolve to capture the voters where they’re at.
Alberta’s NDP has already issued a statement they want nothing to do with the federal party
>>> So the new NDP leader’s two top housing ideas are:
Bring in a national rent cap – Not actually possible given housing is a provincial responsibility
Increase taxes on big landlords – Aka drive up the cost of rents.
——=======
Agreed. The other ideas he has are just as bad, such as having the government run the grocery stores, cell phones and other businesses.
I can’t imagine this going over well with Canadians.
The entire socialist federal NDP platform reads like a political suicide note 🙂
That’s basically a list of some things that affect supply, demand, or both.
All moot, this is the federal NDP folks are talking about. Any dippers pragmatic, disciplined enough, and non-fanatical (to some extent) stay in provincial politics where they have a chance to govern. The federal NDP picked the one leader that likely won’t bring them back to their historical norms in support and keep them at Jagmeet levels of support. The unfortunate thing is, without the NDP at their traditional levels of support, the plurality will leave the Liberals with a perpetual path to victory. Policy and democratic renewal is tough when a ruling party feels it has no chance at losing.
I don’t think this really plays into things substantially. Spring time home shows better but also offset by you have a lot more competition as the seller. This winter was strong for luxury sales, there were three >$5,000,000 sales in February which means accounting for conditional period buyers would have seen these luxury properties in January. Most buyers that I work with looking at nice properties figure okay if it is this nice in January it can only be nicer in the spring time. Sure, there is the occasional property where the sun doesn’t clear the trees in the winter and maybe you can fool someone listing in the spring.
The only seasonality thing I believe in that Leo has brought up many times over the years is lowballing stale properties in Nov/Dec that haven’t sold throughout the spring/summer. I’ve seen a few deals here and there, but on a straight up attractive property not sure seasonality plays a big role. I’ll stand by my comment seasonality 5% factor, 95% factor overall strength of the market.
So after we drive out mom-and-pop landlords go after big landlords 🙂
“Big Landlord” what a lot of crap.
I wonder how the NDP are going to identify “Big Landlords” Doesn’t sound like they have put too much thought into it.
I bet none of you that own a REIT in your RRSP or TFSA consider yourself a big landlord.
So the new NDP leader’s two top housing ideas are:
Incredibly lazy pandering stuff. Lots of good left-coded housing policies they could have taken but they go with the dumbest most counterproductive stuff.
Best deal I’ve seen post COVID is 3932 Tudor.
Well done. There were motivated sellers during the run up to the pre-announced (but later cancelled) June 2024 cap gains increase. Which was an advantageous time for buyers able to act quickly.
My industry atleast half of the total comp is variable, but it’s still based on salary (e.g. full bonus is 100% of base or something like that). Not sure how people in government or other jobs can negotiate a bonus structure if it doesn’t exist already…. No established company is going to customize a compensation package for a non executive employee, that’s a pipe dream.
For those not early in their careers, I hope they negotiate a performance based bonus structure or they should be ready to accept just inflation based cost of living adjustments and no actual income growth.
If early in their career then yes.
I assume most people would get a promotion or two in 5 years or at least hired by a competitor.
40% sounds a little rich without a promotion in Victoria.
No it’s wait for spring so the flowers are blooming making the yard look nice.
Well, during the COVID years, like everyone else, spending opportunities dropped so an extra 30k a year was easy to add on top of the existing savings plan and I assume most people have seen the 40% or so income growth during the same period. As for the window, as I was making offers that Spring, I was only competing 1, 2 or 3 other offers compare to the dozens previously. The 4 offers I made that Spring before my successful one, I had lost out to missing middle investors each time (lot sizes around 10,000 squ ft) that came hard over the top with offers.. However, those offers weren’t there on the smaller lot and my only competitors were a couple of flippers that weren’t as well resourced.
I thought the question was whether to wait until spring?
The question is whether it’s worth having a nice garden/landscaping when prepping the house for sale. My take is that it’s definitely worth it for decent houses in the upper end neighborhoods. A 5 5k spent on landscaping can add tens of thousands to the final sale price.
Agree. Not sure when it will swing back to sellers’ market.
However if you are buying in the same market and have equity, especially if you plan to buy a more expensive home, I’m not sure it matters overall as long as you are pricing the market right.
If you can’t wait for a seller’s market, I think putting your best foot forward at the start is good advice in any market. I personally would prefer to list when the garden looks good, but the quality and price of the house is probably the selling factor when buyers have lots of time and choice.
Seasonality is like 5% of the equation imo while the market is 95% of the equation. For example, much easier to sell a home in Dec/Jan in a seller’s market then to sell in April/May in a buyer’s market.
Just look at this year, if this non-sense in the middle east keeps going interest rates will go up in an environment where sales were already slow prior to the war and inventory is at a 12 year high. I don’t think coming up will be an easy environment to sell in, on average.
Good take away
I wouldn’t bother with a house less than 1.5M with a suite meant for a family. It’s more the upper end homes that attract people who really care and value this is where it matters. See the 1042 Donwood sale (1.73) versus the 996 Owlwood sale (1.43). Both purchased already renovated in 2019 with a 30k price difference (1.165 vs 1.19), the next sold price (2024 and now) reflects a $300k difference, the higher price was fetched now in the Donwood sale though the market is weaker now compared to 2024.
Depends on if you actually have a nice house in a nice neighborhood.
Not really sure about that window of opportunity but if you are only working with 200k down and 180k of household income and want a nice neighborhood then you need to get lucky, especially with the stress test and no rental suite.
I laughed at a line in a recent Ira Willey video where he says many Victorians mistakenly like to wait until late spring to sell their home so their gardens will look good — apparently my wife and I are cliches because that was our thinking.
Do you agree with him that the first mover advantage in Jan/Feb is worth more than a pretty first impression from a blooming front path and yard? (I’ve heard the advice before and accept that it’s right; it’s just hard to let go of the idea that golly MY house is the exception.)
The issue was the house in a neighbourhood I wanted wasn’t available or it was a 15 to 20 bid situation that I would not participate in (that is almost as foolish as being on a wait-list to buy a car). I will say that I ended up with a very narrow window to buy (basically was 60-90 day period within the 5 years). My opportunity presented itself when inventory had modest growth, combined with peak high interest rates, and an announced change in capital gains taxes with real estate (that was cancelled). This shaved about 200k or more in aquisition cost for me during the limited window of opportunity. I still wasn’t the highest offer, but my offer being unconditional and being able to close in 3 weeks (capital gains pressure) resulted in the purchase. So, even with more inventory in the area and the market being stagnant since the 2024 purchase, the comps in the area similar to my pre-reno property are selling about 250k more than my pruchase (likely putting it out of my range). I will admit my approach wouldn’t be the best everyone, but it was right for me.
14% since August 2020 is less than the rate of inflation, so it represents a real decline.
Yes, except for people with a mortgage, if they’re measuring their equity . Who benefit from inflation (nominal gains) via leverage. Because that the amount owing on their mortgage hasn’t risen with inflation.
So someone who started out with $200k down and an $800k mortgage saw their house value rise 14% (since 2020), from $1,000k to $1,140k. Meaning their equity rose from $200k to $340k, a gain of 70%. And of course they’ve also paid off part of the mortgage (so it’s significantly higher than 70% equity gain when that’s added in). .
I’d assume they’re pretty happy about that 70%+ gain. Which is one reason I don’t expect we will hear them complaining (or selling) when they need to renew their mortgage.
14% since August 2020 is less than the rate of inflation, so it represents a real decline.
The reason why Patrick cherry picked 2019 is because he knows that was the just the beginning when PBR completions started accelerating. It has increased significantly every year since.
Mostly, my market frustration was always lack of selection
To be fair your 2020 post did mention your 200k down payment and 180k house hold income as a major hurdle stopping you from getting the house you want while still being fiscally responsible. I think it is likely that the same house would have costed less in August 2020 compared to what you ended up paying in 2024 (?), but likely you were able to take your time with inspections and conditions etc. and didn’t feel rushed. If you tried to buy the same house in 2020, you would have to make a decision quick and that probably would have caused a decent amount of stress and anxiety.
My experience worked out great, in my case, patience paid off because I maintained low living costs and continued to save and invest and didn’t trap myself in the false property ladder concept. In not chasing a market and not over leveraging, I was able to wait for the market to come to me and accessed one of my preferred neighbourhoods. As for gains, please go and dig up one of my old posts where I describe how it is better to view housing as a lifestyle choice rather than an investment and one shouldn’t fool themselves or justify buying any crap they can because they believe owning house should be their only monetary vehicle for the next 20 years. Then they hate their lives because they are trapped in a place they dislike, can’t sell for enough to move anywhere else, and are cash poor with no investments. Mostly, my market frustration was always lack of selection.
Note: “44%” was a typo, prices were $1,150k and are up 14% since August 2020.
(prices are up 44% since 2019)
>>>> You’re too funny Patrick, picking the pre-pandemic benchmark before the housing purchasing rush and low inventories. So, just ask folks that purchased in 2021 how they are feeling about upcoming mortgage renewals or what their realtors are telling them what they might be able to list thier property for if they want out. Especially any of those that spent a million in Happy Valley or Sooke.
===-==—
As I recall, you could have bought in 2019, but waited and I guess you missed out on that pre-pandemic low price point. You spent years on HHV talking yourself (and others) out of buying, in posts like this (August 2020).
Your motto was “ Just because you can buy doesn’t mean you should……” https://househuntvictoria.ca/2020/08/24/does-it-make-sense-to-buy-a-townhouse/#comment-72829
Now you made that post in August 2020, when average sfh was $950k, and it is now up 44%. https://www.vreb.org/media/attachments/view/doc/2025_historic_average_selling_price_graphs/pdf/2025_historic_average_selling_price_graphs.pdf
Anyway, as I recall you’re happy that you waited, even if you did miss out on some gains. And I expect that most of the other recent buyers are happy too, because that’s the typical experience, even if the house value hasn’t risen that much in the early days. For example, I bought in early ‘90s at the worst time to buy, but I didn’t even realize that as I was too busy raising a young family with other things to worry about.
But as for me picking 2019 as a start point. I can also pick any year prior to that as a start point, and the gains to 2026 are even bigger.
Maybe you (or other recent buyers) had a bad experience because you waited too long to get in? If so, be patient, the gains for you will come over time
Renting may be balanced, but not new construction for sale. The Victoria home builders are already raising an alarm, as they’re already seeing the highest levels of unsold new homes in 35 years. Hopefully that will clear, but if not, they’re predicting a slowdown. Note that the slowdown in building doesn’t come from government action or upset voters protesting. It comes from the builders, who obviously stop building if the homes aren’t selling.
‘The quotes below are from Victoria builders at a “crystal ball” conference in early 2026.
https://vicnews.com/2026/01/15/crystal-ball-housing-forecast-sees-slowdown-coming-to-greater-victoria/
“ “Demand was really slow all through 2025, and that meant that we saw supply really start to accumulate. On the resale side of things, we see the level of inventory of active listings that we consider healthy for the long-term. So we want about the level of active listings we have right now,”said Ogmundson. “We want it with also stronger demand or stronger sales, but this level of activism is kind of where we want things to be to keep prices from rapidly accelerating long-term.” What is somewhat concerning to him is the high level of unsold new units, mostly apartment units, which is the highest level in 35 years in Greater Victoria – something that does not bode well for the slow-growing B.C. economy.
You’re too funny Patrick, picking the pre-pandemic benchmark before the housing purchasing rush and low inventories. So, just ask folks that purchased in 2021 how they are feeling about upcoming mortgage renewals or what their realtors are telling them what they might be able to list thier property for if they want out. Especially any of those that spent a million in Happy Valley or Sooke.
Are we building “too many” PBRs in Victoria?
Probably not yet — but we’re finally in the first genuinely balanced rental market Victoria has seen in a decade.
Vacancy has risen into the low 3% range, rents have softened at the margin, and supply is finally catching up to years of underbuilding. That’s not oversupply; that’s the system working for the first time since 2016
A 3% vacancy is not an oversupply. My opinion the rate would have to be double that with rents falling materially. We’re nowhere near that.
March will be slower too YOY so pretty difficult to end up with a YOY increase when the first three months are already behind last year.
and good luck with government budgets depending on PTT, etc., all of that will he lower in revenue than their forecasts.
^Unfortunately average person doesn’t understand grade ten supply and demand principals explained above and these are the same people voting so long term we are screwed.
So many dumb people right now using the argument that we need to stop building because vacancy is climbing and rents are dropping…..well yes, because we are building a record number of PBRs but they just can’t grasp the concept.
These people will go to the polls, housing starts will drop, we will need immigration again and in 5 to 10 years we will be back exactly where we were a few years ago.
. If you are talking about SFH, the supply hasn’t been increasing and those prices have been flat nominally over the past 5 years. I don’t know what other evidence you need.
I’m not seeing a significant fall in prices in greater Victoria.
https://www.vreb.org/media/attachments/view/doc/2025_historic_average_selling_price_graphs/pdf/2025_historic_average_selling_price_graphs.pdf
Average prices, Measured from 2019.
— SFH prices up 44% ($900k->$1,300k)
— Condos up 30% ($460k->600k)
There are many other factors besides supply/demand that affect prices;. Economy/covid/interest rates/remote work/spec tax/retirement to Victoria/govt/taxes to name a few. I wouldn’t even hazard a guess as to what % of those gains are attributable to supply/demand balances.
My prediction for future prices is the same that it has been since I started posting 7 years ago. Namely, that prices are headed higher, especially for SFH.
The lobby starting to pull back on the old person welfare cheques.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/proposal-to-cut-oas-for-high-income-seniors-could-save-billions/
The recent market already changing forecasts….
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/td-revised-housing-market-forecast-9.7143461
“Anyway, you seem to have an opinion on what the impact of supply will be. And without limiting you in any way, how about you say something about that.” I am a landlord. It’s pretty clear that I am saying that the building of PBR and condos have decreased real prices pretty significantly over the past 5 years e.g. Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Victoria. Some of this is due to demand and some of this is due to supply. If you are talking about SFH, the supply hasn’t been increasing and those prices have been flat nominally over the past 5 years. I don’t know what other evidence you need.
Not exactly, I am actually comparing that sale with another rancher sale in the lower broadmead area within the last 2 years that was purchased pre covid in 2018/19 for a similar price (between 1.15M and 1.2M).
-996 Owlwood, sale price $1.427M in August 2024, previous sale $1.165 in April 2018. No renovations that I can tell, gain is only $262k/22%.
You can see that the Donwood sale significantly outperformed the Owlwood sale even though you can argue that the current market for when the Donwood sale occurred is weaker.
4437 Automnwood also had a sale which was $1.67M in November 2025, previous sale 910k in September 2019 but it had major renovations done so it is skewed.
As more missing‑middle townhome projects come online, they’re going to become a credible move‑up option for condo owners. Once that pathway exists at scale, it will siphon demand away from aging “starter homes” that require hundreds of thousands in repairs.
Those older detached houses have long relied on a captive buyer pool—people who needed more space and had no alternative. Townhomes break that dependency. The result is thinner demand for starter houses from those wanting to move up from a condo.
While a property with an older house with deferred maintenance becomes a negative to a town house developer. They only want the dirt.
>> Let me ask you, what impact has that had on rents and condo prices
Well this is house hunt and 90%+ here are hunting to buy a home, mostly SFH.
I don’t follow rents, there have been posts here that they’re down a little but most landlords here seem to find renters.
As for condos, it’s too bad Leo hasn’t updated his condo sales to assessed value graph. Last I saw it condos hadn’t fallen much, but they’re down more in other cities like Vancouver for sure.
The supply of condos hasn’t been that big, it’s mainly pbr rentals.
Anyway, you seem to have an opinion on what the impact of supply will be. And without limiting you in any way, how about you say something about that.
Patrick, funny how you said “what will affect will that have on SFH, multi-unit prices?” to try to limit my argument. Let me ask you, what impact has that had on rents and condo prices? Give your head a shake Alex Jones.
Building more homes is generally positive—it creates jobs and supports the broader economy. But the effect on prices is limited when the demand curve is essentially flat. Not because people don’t want new homes, but because most simply can’t afford them at today’s price points.
If home prices magically and suddenly fell 20 percent, you’d see buyers flood back into the market and bid prices right back up. That tells you the real issue isn’t lack of desire; it’s the affordability ceiling. Demand for new homes at current prices is thin, and builders know it.
That’s why they’re not ramping up production. They understand that lowering prices won’t necessarily increase absorption enough to justify the risk, and building more units that buyers can’t afford doesn’t pencil out. So output stays constrained, even in the face of obvious need.
How about you telling us what impact supply will have on prices.
Keep in mind, over the last 3 years, we’ve had record housing starts (supply), vast majority being pbr multi-units, but almost zero net additions of SFH in the core (due to tear downs).
So what will affect will that have on SFH, multi-unit prices?
HHV has gone full conspiracy mode and pretending that supply doesn’t matter. Just because you don’t like supply, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t impact prices.
This discussion on economics can annoy a lot of posters on this blog. But fuck it, you make me wallow through Croatia and Tesla posts. So you can all suck it up on this one too.
Take VicReanalyst’s comment about a “strong” sale on Donwood. When someone uses that word, they’re not just reacting to the final number — they’re implicitly making a claim about depth of demand at the achieved price, not merely the price itself.
Once you add the listing history, you’re no longer looking at a single data point; you’re looking at a trajectory, and trajectories often complicate the surface narrative.
Original ask: $1,798,500; reduced after 30 days to $1,749,500; accepted offer 15 days later: $1,730,000
Including this history doesn’t automatically negate the idea of a “strong” sale, but it does change how you interpret it. In this case, demand was clearly thin at $1,798,500, but once the price dropped to $1,749,500, the breadth of demand was likely greater. That said, we still don’t know the bidder count at the end. The final price may simply reflect a one‑on‑one negotiation rather than a competitive environment.
So yes — the listing history can change the interpretation of “strong,” but not in every case. Here, it mainly shows that the property had to move into a lower price band before buyers engaged, and without knowing how many bidders were present at $1.73M, we can’t infer how much depth of demand actually existed at the pending price.
By this point, you’re probably glad you studied engineering rather than economics. It’s comforting to know that there is only one right answer that will be the same today as it will be tomorow.
The details matter here. Yes, there may have been 50 interested parties at the beginning, but that number tells us nothing about how many were still competing at the end. Real estate isn’t an open auction where every bidder stays visible until the final moment. It’s much closer to a sealed‑bid process with a reserve, where you don’t know how many participants remain or what they’ve offered.
In most property transactions, there are effectively at least two parties at the end: the vendor and the eventual purchaser. What we don’t know about Property B is how many bidders were still active when the price was actually set. The field could easily have collapsed from 50 early inquiries down to just the vendor and a single buyer negotiating the final terms.
That’s the critical unknown. Without knowing the terminal bidder count, we can’t assume the final price was shaped by broad competition rather than a simple one‑on‑one negotiation.
>> In the extreme: if all 50 people all submitted throwaway bids at $500k, would it be reasonable to say that it had higher demand than the other home?… You couldn’t muster a response to my scenario
Joe, I thought the info I posted explained the official economic theory clearly, but since you expected a response to your scenario….
You are correct that, in my example, it might be POSSIBLE “in the extreme” that a house with only 1 bidder had more demand than a house with 50 bidders.
But we don’t know the details, so have to work with probabilities. And the probabilities indicate that the answer is they DON’T have the same demand. Because economic theory says the probability of demand rises with the number of bidders, so it is much more LIKELY that 50 bidders means more demand than one. Which is why economic theory doesn’t consider the demand to be the same. It seemed to be that you based your opinion that they have the same demand on the “extreme” (and unlikely) cad that you described above.
Most everything in economics works on probabilities. For example, lower interest rates worsen inflation. It’s easy to think of a scenario where that doesn’t occur (recession), but the overall likelihood is that lower rates would cause inflation.
btw) the comment I made that you could win a Nobel prize in economics was a joke -not meant to insult. Because , economics is the “dismal science”, and it seems they hand out Nobel prizes every year, more than go the “real sciences”. Typically they go to economic “theories” that aren’t necessarily true. So as I see it, one person’s opinion on economics is as good as the next. Which is why I ended my original topic post with “At least that’s how I see it.” https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134825
The mute button is a wonderful addition to HHV 🙂
What do you know about economics? You couldn’t muster a response to my scenario and then just dumped everything into ChatGPT, which is trained to tell you what you want to hear.
If house B had 50 bidders, there is no way it sells for the same price. Ever been to an auction?
strong sale at 1042 Donwood, 1900 sqft rancher went for 1.73m, 260k over assessed.
Hence my point that it’s a demand side battle.
If Condon had walked his paper down the hall to Tsaur Sommerville, the conversation would have been short and technical.
Condon’s model assumes inelastic demand. But today’s market behaviour—rising days‑on‑market, rising vacancy, and the return of concessions—shows that demand has become elastic, essentially a flattened curve. When the market is clearing through time and terms rather than price, the old inelastic‑demand conclusions no longer apply.
In other words, the market-place has changed, and Condon’s past conclusions are no longer relevant to current market conditions.
And my opinion has been this is due to credible substitutes coming available such as PBRs
Fix the rental market and the other markets will follow.
That link you provided is weak, in that it’s not a housing expert “debunking” Condon. Just a blog post from an “independent economist”, which isn’t published in a journal, let alone peer reviewed.
Thirty years ago, Condon was like density advocates are now, convinced that adding density would make houses more affordable. So Vancouver did it and tripled their number of houses since 1970s.
And here’s Condon describing what happened next …
https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2024/07/19/Patrick-Condon-Why-Housing-Costs-So-High/
“ Patrick Condon: I wrote this book [Broken City], originally, in a state of emotional cold fury. I was and am furious about how all the efforts made by me and others over the course of three decades of adding well-planned new density to this city failed to make housing affordable as we had hoped.
You see, what brought me to Vancouver originally was its reputation for “city building done right.” The urban life opportunities created at False Creek South and Yaletown were already famous in the 1990s when I arrived — famous for providing new medium- and high-density housing, with rich amenities at your doorstep, for average wage earners and their families.
I enthusiastically embraced the idea that if you got the density right, and got the amenities right, the home prices would be affordable as a result. That strategy became known as “Vancouverism” and is the visible legacy of hundreds of citizens, staff members and elected officials working to what was, in retrospect, a shared vision of a sustainable 21st-century city.
But as time passed and home prices spiralled more and more out of reach for average wage earners in defiance of simple notions of “supply and demand,” I felt betrayed. I know others my age and background in this city who feel the same sense of loss.
It’s not widely known but Vancouver has added more housing than any other centre city in North America. Since the 1970s, Vancouver has tripled its total number of housing units. If adding housing supply and new density to a city leads to affordable housing as many now contend, Vancouver should have the lowest housing prices in North America. It has the highest!
So this book is my attempt to understand why this didn’t work out, and what can be done about it.“
Just watch.
>>. The price is the same but the demand is different.
Yes. Seems like we’re on the same page. Thanks for the discussion.
When you say the “same” do you mean both houses are equally in demand? We often see homes sell at the same price but that doesn’t mean they are equally in demand.
Such as the demand for a million dollar condo or a million dollar house?
Two homes can sell for the same price while having very different levels of demand. The price is the same, but the depth of interest behind that price is not. Home B would have stronger demand while home A would have thin demand.
The price is the same but the demand is different.
Haha. Also lol
No one knows less about housing but says more than Condon. His theories rest entirely on a baseline assumption that land value scales linearly with density, which has been proven wrong dozens of times with real world data.
Just one of many: https://michaelwiebe.com/blog/2025/09/condonomics
We actually aren’t building that much thought. This year we maybe build the same number of units in BC as 20 years ago; however, a lot less overall square footage as majority now is small purpose built apartments versus SFHs 20 year sago. On a national level see last 10 years below compared to 1970s.
Problem is if we stop building the inventory gets absorbed and then it takes years to bring new product to market at the current pace of construction/permit approvals.
Also, long ways for affordability to go. My friend rented out a couple of more of his brand new below grade 1-beds in Vic West with no parking at $1950 and I asked him today what is the feedback? As I thought these would rent for less and he said feedback is the purpose built rentals on Esquimalt Rd at asking $2,100 for their 500 sq.ft. one beds and the $150 makes a difference to people. Only if we sustain a high vacancy can rents come down a bit.
That being said as someone who owns rentals and is about to hoping to start a missing middle rental project in the next year sure let’s stop building and will see how that plays out in five years. That is why I am not unloading my rentals quite yet like most mom & pop landlords. Construction will slow (it already is), immigration will have to re-start again and will be in the same crap place we were 5 years ago.
Housing starts by year
2025 – ~259,000
2024 – ~241,000
2023 – ~223,000
2022 – ~262,000
2021 – ~271,000
2020 – ~218,000
2019 – ~208,000
2018 – ~214,000
2017 – ~217,000
1979 – ~237,000
1978 – ~267,000
1977 – ~245,000
1976 – ~273,000
1975 – ~217,000
1974 – ~228,000
1973 – ~254,000
1972 – ~258,000
1971 – ~234,000
Fwiw, I have an app that I just sent the house A/B question separately to the 4 leading LLM’s (ChatGPT 5.4, Claude 4.6, Gemini pro 3.1 grok 4.2)
And they all gave the same answer, namely the house B with 50 bids has more demand. Which doesn’t mean that it is the “right” answer, but it makes it very likely that it’s the correct answer from the published conventional economic theory.
But, if you can justify that the demand is the same, you could be breaking new ground, and who knows, that could lead to a Nobel Prize in Economics.
Here’s an example of the answer, from Gemini 3.1 pro – the others were similar….
No, the demand is not the same. House B has significantly higher demand.
In economics, demand is not just the final sale price—it is the total number of people willing and able to buy at various price points.
Here is why the demand differs even though the final price is identical:
• House A (1 Bidder): There was exactly one person in the market willing to pay $1 million. If that person hadn’t shown up, the house might not have sold at all. The demand is extremely low.
• House B (50 Bidders): There were 50 people who wanted the house. Even though only one person won at $1 million, the other 49 bidders were likely willing to pay prices just under $1 million (e.g., $990,000, $950,000, etc.).
Because supply in both cases is exactly the same (one house), the final price was capped by the winning bid. However, the volume of interest (50 people vs. 1 person) proves that the overall market demand for House B is vastly greater than for House
In my opinion, demand can only be measured in conjunction with price. If both houses sold for $1mm, then the demand for both houses at $1mm is the same. The 50-bidder scenario indicates demand at a price lesser than $1mm (otherwise, the house would have sold for more than $1mm), which demand may also exist for the house with 1 bidder.
In the extreme: if all 50 people all submitted throwaway bids at $500k, would it be reasonable to say that it had higher demand than the other home?
>>> The “able” part is present‑tense purchasing power, not hypothetical future wealth, not lottery winnings, not aspirations.
If a house auction is held. And the first house “A” auction has one bidder and sells for $1 million.
And the second auction for a different house “B” has 50 bidders and sells for $1 million. Is the demand the same for each house ?
Economics says the demand for the house “B” with 50 bids is higher, because there is depth of demand. And so if another house appears that’s like house “B”, it will likely be more in demand than another similar house “A”.
Because there’s likely 49 interested bidders left for the next house “B” and maybe none for the next house “A”.
The “able” part is present‑tense purchasing power, not hypothetical future wealth, not wishing for lottery winnings, not aspirations.
In economics, demand refers to what people want and are willing + able to buy—not what they end up settling for. In the case where they settle for a condo, they likely still want a SFH, so the demand for the SFH is still there, likely to be filled in the future.
At least that’s how I see it.
The housing shortage crisis is over, affordability crisis is trending in the right direction. We will end up overshooting housing supply and end up with too much now given the current direction on immigration. Don’t see vacancy going below 3 anytime soon.
Of course this all hinges on how Patrick is defining “demand.” If you measure demand by actual purchases, then strata clearly comes out ahead — more strata units sell in Victoria than single‑family homes. If you measure it by affordability, the conclusion is the same: far more buyers can realistically qualify for strata than for SFDs, so effective demand is stronger on the strata side.
If you define demand as pure desire assuming money is no object, then sure, SFDs would win. But that’s not how real markets work. In the real world, demand is constrained by what people can afford and what’s available, and by those measures strata demand is stronger.
I haven’t found any data that supports the idea that 70% of buyers in Victoria are specifically seeking single‑family detached homes. That might feel true within the HHV community, but HHV isn’t a representative cross‑section of the broader market.
Condon’s article was from 2017.
I love thesis statements with no argument attached.
Condon was correct in the period he was analyzing, but his conclusions don’t apply to today’s market.
That’s an interesting metric, Patrick, and much closer to what I was looking for. Thanks. I’m surprised at how little SFHs there are given my layman’s impression of Victoria being a majority suburb, but I probably tend to overlook multifamily housing.
Every metric has its flaws, however, and I suppose a confounding factor with this one may be that census metropolitan areas are drawn somewhat arbitrarily and may not always give the most accurate impression of the housing mix.
At the risk of sounding overly contrarian, my view of the data is that it is probably largely accurate.
> . A better metric would be housing mix relative to demand, but I don’t know what that would look like.
The demand is for SFH. Overall 70% of househunters are looking for SFH. On HHV it’s 90%+ looking for SFH.
And as for the mix, Victoria unfortunately has close to the lowest % of SFH in Canada at 38% . And the SFH stock is falling fast, thanks to removing SFH-only zoning, prompting SFH teardowns. Any HHVer looking to buy a SFH may well be outbid by a developer planning a teardown.
Vancouver is way ahead of us, now only having 28% SFH. And, as documented by ubc professor Condon, Vancouver have already built an “abundance of housing”, namely apartments. And no, Vancouver home prices didn’t fall. That’s the future for Victoria.
==-===
UBC professor repeatedly argued that Vancouver has already added a very large amount of density over the past few decades, and he uses that to question the idea that “just adding more density” will fix affordability.
What Condon says about added density
A commonly cited point from Condon is essentially:
• Vancouver has already undergone significant densification since the 1980s–1990s, especially in the downtown peninsula (e.g., Coal Harbour, Yaletown, False Creek).
• This period made Vancouver one of the few North American cities to substantially increase inner-city density, often celebrated as “Vancouverism.”
https://www.planningreport.com/2017/08/14/learning-vancouver-housing-affordability-myth-supply-side-densification
“It became increasingly obvious that adding supply [in Vancouver] in this way was not reducing, but actually increasing, the cost of housing. Adding supply at the high end had the nefarious consequence of increasing the apparent investment value of real estate throughout the entire city. It not only created supply that was unaffordable to the people who live here, but also had the perverse effect of raising the cost of all housing throughout the city.” – Patrick Condon
======
True that
By itself without the context of how the rate has been changing it isn’t meaningful.
Better to look at how the rate is changing along with the vacancy rate. We’ve moved from crisis‑level tightness toward a more typical tight market, and at this point it’s reasonable to think Victoria is approaching something close to balance. We’re in a tight but easing market.
I’m no expert on the data, but dwellings per 1,000 people would not seem to be a useful metric for either perspective. The dwellings could be all 1-bedroom apartments in one city and 4-bedroom homes in another. The difference would not show up in the data. Relatedly, there could be 1000 dwellings, with the 900 of them being 1-bedroom units occupied by 3 people, and 100 being 4-bedroom homes occupied by 1 person. The inverse could be true for a different city. The difference would also not show up in the data. Dwellings per 1,000 people is not a useful metric, in my opinion. A better metric would be housing mix relative to demand, but I don’t know what that would look like.
..
So you don’t have data to back up your call for us to build an abundance of housing. And your response to my post with data, is a data-free ad hominem attack telling me that I “don’t know anyone that isn’t comfortably housed”?
Anyway Leo, just talk data and facts. How will the people that aren’t “comfortably housed” now, be somehow “comfortably housed” when the new $1.2 million townhouses on Ash you refer to get built? Is that going to trickle down? Shall we keep going until anyone in Canada can move to Victoria and be “comfortably housed”?
People can be just as comfortable renting as owning. We’re making good progress with all the PBR. People with very low incomes or other problems should get social assistance with housing. For others that can’t afford to rent, they should get roommates or move to cheaper locations.
Rental vacancy rate is 3%+ and rising. Rents are falling. The housing affordability “crisis” is over. We need to move on to more important issues, like improving the economy.
Yep, if someone is looking for a place to rent or buy there’s more than enough selection , not seeing the crises here . Even much better selection in Vancouver and Toronto .
>>> ou are misinterpreting the data. Victoria has fewer people per dwelling, likely because of an older population and smaller household sizes. In Victoria, there are about 2.1 people per dwelling, compared with about 2.7 in Kelowna, likely reflecting a higher share of families with children in Kelowna.
People per dwelling is the same metric as number of dwellings per 1000 people. It’s just the inverse. So you stating 2.1 people per dwelling is just restating my data, which was 470 dwellings per 1,000 people. Because 1000/470 =2.1
So your numbers above add nothing new, just restating the numbers in my post.
Anyway, Victoria has the most dwellings already built for its populatuon, 470 dwellings per 1,000 people
So people calling for an adundance of housing (building more than needed for population increase) , are calling for the people per dwelling to be lowered even more. That’s simple maths.
This is where it helps not to be fully isolated from the reality many people are living.
You look at some data that confirms your priors and because you are comfortably housed and don’t know anyone who isn’t you don’t think any further.
People per dwelling is majorly confounded with dwelling type and demographics and isn’t a measure of relative housing abundance.
You are misinterpreting the data. Victoria has fewer people per dwelling, likely because of an older population and smaller household sizes. In Victoria, there are about 2.1 people per dwelling, compared with about 2.7 in Kelowna, likely reflecting a higher share of families with children in Kelowna. This does not mean Victoria has more housing available overall or that housing is or should be more affordable as a result. It is primarily a demographic difference and secondarily type of housing available. Smaller homes ie more condos – fewer people per home. The stat is who lives there and how they live and not how much housing exists.
Huh? Greater Victoria already has an “abundant” number of places to live. Specifically, more than any other city in Canada, at 471 dwellings per 1,000 people. Yet Greater Victoria has close to the highest home prices in Canada. So much for the idea that abundant number of places makes for affordable housing prices.
I think municipalities are doing a good job in a very complex and difficult situation. It really is the province that has dropped the ball and are making things much more difficult for municipalities trying hard to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Leave oak bay alone !
Because planning is a bankrupt profession that has completely forgotten that you can’t make a livable city without first and foremost making sure there are abundant places to live. There is no hierarchy of priorities. What to do with a tree or where we will store garbage cans on the property has equal priority to whether the place exists at all. And many councillors like that approach just fine. They believe that if a project is delayed for 2 years but comes back with fewer units that are now painted their preferred colour or have nicer articulation to the street is a success and means they are doing their jobs.
We emailed Victoria planning about why they were against taller buildings and they sent back a bunch of quackery about how tall buildings are bad for you. It’s like the chiropractors are in charge of housing.
Yes, but only if you mean let both be built. Otherwise we’re just building the same system we already have but with different rules.
The current rules didn’t come out of a vaccuum. Someone built something, neighbours complained, they put in a new rule. Some councillor didn’t like something, planning puts in a rule. Some planner has a great idea, puts in a rule. Over decades all the little rules add up to one big conflicting mess that has a lot of unintended consequences. There’s only one way out: severely limit the ability of the city to apply restrictions. Any attempt to replace rules with rules that we currently like better will not change the system.
People that do nothing productive confuse being busy with meaningless things with actually getting something done. They tend to create more meaningless work and processes and wonder why they have no time, and then have to hire more people to handle the unproductive processes. Then they get a simple task to complete, but they can’t do it because they spin on all the processes they put in place that stop anything from getting actually done.
That is the main benefit of owning a SFH…..
Choices have always had consequences, it’s just that the stakes are much higher now compared to before. Not so easy to coast into a random government union job with a history degree and still be able to afford a average or below average SFH.
It hasn’t been “rejected”. It’s been sent to staff review for consideration re: City policy/guidelines have to be considered. It may be approved.
“ Under the site’s existing zoning, the application may be permitted; however, it requires staff review against city policy/guidelines and a decision of the Director of Planning. This information is being shared to keep the community informed.”
The question isn’t really whether they are both fine. They question should be why the one the developer has costed out and paid to have plans developed for is being rejected despite meeting all the legal requirements. Based on what objective criteria or design guidelines? If there are some, fine. If it is personal design preference of an individual who has zero at stake and their preference makes it more expensive to build and sell and maintain for no rational reason, not okay.
Tbone c’mon man, sell your $1.7 million 4 bedroom SFD, move into a condo and travel the world. Dont be hoarding up all the houses that young people with families need. You and the missus don’t need all that space anyways. What’re you keeping in there – your pokemon card inventory?
I agree they are both fine, but if both meet bylaws why are the city staff subjectively pushing the one that is worse for the neighbors in terms of privacy, worse livability for occupants and more expensive to build and maintain.
Let the ones that the neighbors are going to be way happier with be built.
100% true.
Lots of projects without parking -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29316558/1-1789-emerson-st-victoria-jubilee
and then you propose a project with garages (not visible from the street) plus visitor parking and city staff don’t like it. Then you build what the city staff want and the neighbors freak out at the builder/developer.
I think the problem with the City process is that the staff seem to have motivation to justifying their jobs by creating unnecessary steps and changes and it is subjective in many cases – like to the point of being ludicrous. There is no incentive for efficiency. Remove the subjectivity. You should see what happens when you have a heritage designated house and want to make some changes and have to hire a heritage consultant – I would never ever buy one. I think preapproved designs for accessory buildings and clearly set landscaping requirements would help. At least you can cost this out accurately.
I am definitely not. I think you are in the minority there. Access to natural light and sense of privacy and personal space are important. Being directly overlooked into my windows by a multiplex built after I bought would be a problem for me – I’m home a lot in the day. Good thing is that you can have three stories and it doesn’t have to be a problem on a lot of sites. I have three stories next to me and we don’t have windows on that side so no big deal for either party. I also appreciate the fact that what is next to me is unlikely to be torn down and rebuilt into a less ideally situated multiplex in the near future.
Speaking of being overlooked, the design at the old “save the trees” Wisteria Row location on Foul Bay is the worst. Headlights from cars shine right into the living area 24 7. I feel like I’m invading their privacy every time I drive by. And this unit doesn’t even have off street parking. But was approved by the City of Victoria: https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29404512/3-909-redfern-st-victoria-fairfield-east?view=imagelist
“The issue is there are way too many boomers taking up child rearing properties waiting for the apocalypse.”
Wow, this is your take away from the story. I feel sorry for you. How about starting from the choice she made to take out a student loan to pursue a degree in history. Choices have consequences.
They’re not equivalent but they’re both fine. We shouldn’t be limiting height below 3 stories on any lot and I’m a window libertarian. Let people put windows where they like. If you don’t want them to look in your house put up blinds or walk around naked
“[…] so people aren’t as incensed about it as they were 4 years ago.”
https://macleans.ca/longforms/a-renters-nightmare/
I wonder why this persons parents arent selling their house to her. Assuming that she needs it more than them, why arent the three of them financing a condo for mom and dad and her finding love and having kids. The issue is there are way too many boomers taking up child rearing properties waiting for the apocalypse.
From a neighbor impact you think they are equivalent? One has a wall of windows facing both neighbors and is a story higher?
One of the many things I’ve been using it for is for is to read covenants/rights of way/easements/title charges and it has improved a lot in the last year.
Problem is I still have to put it into context for my clients. Right of way is not big deal in some situations, but if the client wants to build a garden suite over the right of way than it is important.
In my business AI has a place, but the most time consuming tasks it isn’t useful with. For example, right now I have a client that has seen a condo four times (twice on a Sunday) and now he wants to show it to his parents for a 5th time.
>>> What articles?
Uhh.. like the one at the top of this page. Or just a simple post in the comments.
You seem to be talking about a DP in COV. I didn’t read your post so have no comment on that, other than to wish you well .
My post was talking about a BP in Saanich taking 2-3 months, which is impressive to me. And Marko is saying the same thing, so take it up with him if that doesn’t look correct to you.
Marko: “Saanich is approving BPs in 2 to 3 months.” https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134475
Yes.
What articles?
Both are fine. Market will figure it out. If design 1 sucks, then it will sell for cheaper.
You can get AI to develop full plans and drawings then just hire architect/engineers to review and stamp them for a discount. AI will do a better job than your average run of the mill residential build consultant.
You can tell AI to write in a more human tone, you can upload your own writing style and tell it to mimic it. Claude is also better at writing more human than chat gpt
People are becoming allergic to the default AI way of writing and don’t feel like it’s worth reading something that someone didn’t put effort into writing. I don’t use AI to write either for that reason, even though AI writes much better than I do. AI is doing 97% of my coding though.
Patrick, Saanich is so bad at permitting that they delayed the rezoning of their own firehall. They could have tendered the thing just before or early in COVID and it would have probably saved atleast 30% of the final cost. Think about that for a second, their planning department is delaying it’s own projects causing massive overruns and no one bats an eye. And now you expect them to treat some developer’s project with urgency?
Tbone, I think we do differ a bit . I am a believer in technology but I find with the human part of the equation to be be for the most part worst than ever and not getting any better . Canadians are in particular not a productive bunch. The biggest headache in my business is with employees and suppliers , off the chart too much work lol
I am not saying end to end by AI but use AI to do the grunt work and then have a human review at the end. Alot of this is being done in my world, I’ve had $1000+/hour lawyers tell me they use AI to do first drafts of commercial terms and clauses. We’ve started using AI for all the grunt work related to market research and also using it to clean up various data. Human review and input is obviously still there but AI definitely reduces the grunt work. I’ve also noticed a consistent and substantial improvement in AI performance over the past year.
Not very many actually. Real estate agents are worried about liability so the majority outsource strata document review to companies like https://condoclear.ca/ (the buyer pays for it, approx. $600) and how frustrating that can be when they don’t know the basics about the strata issues.
Recently I did a podcast on my channel where I talked about negotiating contracts on strata titled properties with agents on the other side that haven’t read the strata documents.
I started using AI for a lot of things but then pulled back right away. I was using it to format my strata document reviews, but I’ve even stopped doing that and I just send my personal crappy format notes. I think clients want to know that I am actually reading the docs versus pumping it through AI.
A real estate agent in Surrey was recently on a podcast and was saying how AI generated listing evaluation via email are way better than what he puts together himself but he noted 5 he has sent so far not one person has replied for him to come take a look at the property in person versus his typical conversion rate is 80% with the crappier one he puts together himself.
I think there is a play to be had by providing genuine human interaction while everyone moves to AI.
I am sure the average Oak Bay resident will be super happy to have a three story multi-plex approved next to them without a human to complain to as to why it was approved. Then a robot will come do the various inspections.
Just to clarify, personally I would be in support of AI approving my townhome rental project as it meets all the bylaws and requires no variances; however, not sure that is going to be reality anytime soon in Victoria.
“I think this is as good as it gets for moving projects along . I get builders frustration but this is the process and it will most likely get even more complicated going forward . I for one wouldn’t be pulling my hair out , not worth the aggravation”
Gotta take the other side of this one as well. The tech revolution around agentic work flow, think OpenClaw, will (is) fundamentally change the way permitting and development in general is approved. I imagine a day in the not to distant future when human to human interacting throughout the development approval process is negligible.
At this point in my life while I like to vent about it as it is next level ridiculous, it is aggravating me less and less. I am not depending on this rental project financially. If it goes ok, great, if not doesn’t change my lifestyle.
Yes, because the entry level clerical job person will be rushing to fill a position at an old folks home.
I think this is as good as it gets for moving projects along . I get builders frustration but this is the process and it will most likely get even more complicated going forward . I for one wouldn’t be pulling my hair out , not worth the aggravation
“People are so dumb it’s beyond belief. Now a lot of people are bringing up the argument that we should stop building because the CND population is falling. How dumb do you have to be to think that will last especially with our population demographics and massive deficits.”
Gotta take the other side of that argument Marko. Humans are and will continue to lose agency as a source of productive labour. This is no longer theory, it is happening now and showing up in labour statistics and we are only at the very beginning. Large pools of unemployed humans collecting UBI can be tempered by not permitting large scale immigration.
@ Patrick
“ I’ve always pointed out that much of the delays getting permits is from the applicant’s side.”
My guess is you are the first person that would need to watch the YouTube series.
Do you think us builders just pull a box of crayons out and sketch something up and complain it takes months and 100k +
The DP permit I was talking about was with a well known architect AND mechanical Engineer,structural engineer,civil engineer,electrical engineer,landscape architect.
Do you think I/we don’t have any friends in the industry that go through the same bs.
But no, it must have been the purple crayon I used that day.
You would think they can use some common sense and see what their friends and family live in?
My take on it is they are pushing some ideology/idea they saw at a conference on how things are done in Amsterdam or some other place.
Finally, why just not let the market decide what people want to live in. If people want to live in units on the third floor without a garage and without an elevator than those will sell/rent better than townhomes.
but yea, the real life experience shows in other parts. When you don’t have to pay and install a sprinkler system in a multiplex you just don’t think about that cost.
I 100% agree with you Marko, especially with the 3 bedroom units. Part of the problem is they do not have real world experience with what people actually want to live in.
I did a 36 part YT series when I built my house 10 years ago and I am seriously considering it for this multiplex if I have time just to expose just how incredibly difficult and expensive they make it to build housing.
After the city staff told me they didn’t like my townhome idea I started asking around what they were actually looking for.
Example 1, this is what city staff are looking for (look at the plans) ->
https://tender.victoria.ca/webapps/ourcity/Prospero/Details.aspx?folderNumber=DDP01118
Example 2, this is what city staff don’t like (look at the plans) ->
https://tender.victoria.ca/webapps/ourcity/Prospero/Details.aspx?folderNumber=DDP01121
For some reason city staff don’t like garages so in the first example you’ll note open air parking under the building, but here is my overall take.
What city staff are pushing is
i/ A disaster for the neighbors compared to what they don’t like. Neighbours will completely lose all backyard privacy versus with a front-back townhome design you can design windows front to back to maintain neighbor privacy.
Honestly, what immediate neighbour would look at 1. and 2. and say yes I want 1. next to me instead of 2.? Maybe HHVers can weight in, what would you rather be next to you?
ii/ Livability in what the city staff wants is so so much worse. Look at those 1. plans….you walk from you parking spot up to you third floor 1,500 sq.f.t unit? That’s not good for seniors or families. Where do you store or kayak or anything for that matter? 2. plans, the ones the city doesn’t like, are 10x better in terms if livability in my opinion.
iii/ What the city wants is so much more expensive in terms of costs (requires architect, sprinklers, etc.). My friend just finished a 20 unit multi-plex with sprinklers and now the back-flow valve in each unit has to be tested every year so organizing access to 20 rental units every year plus the cost is certainly annoying.
Needless to say I was shocked by the initial feedback on my proposal. I thought 100% proposing 3-bed townhomes with garages and limited impact on neighbors would be supported. I also designed a visitor parking spot on site in addition to every townhome having their own garage. One of the comments was literally “we don’t like garages” but they like three bedroom units. In our CND society I would think a family of four living in a three bed townhome would prefer a garage over surface parking.
Back to VicREanalyst the DP process doesn’t mean city staff are going to push something that neighbours actually want next to them, in the case of the COV it is quite the opposite.
Yea, I’ve been reading the same comments. People are so dumb it’s beyond belief. Now a lot of people are bringing up the argument that we should stop building because the CND population is falling. How dumb do you have to be to think that will last especially with our population demographics and massive deficits.
Oak Bay brought back the DP for multiplexes and I know a number of builders rushing their multiplex applications to Saanich right now as realistically Saanich is going to bring back a DP shortly due to all the public upheaval.
Leo, you (and other HHVers) been complaining about saanich building permit times for years. I’ve pointed out on HHV the good things saanich have been doing such as being one of the first BC cities to have the digital permit hub which speeds things up. https://buildingpermit.gov.bc.ca/jurisdictions/corporation-of-the-district-of-saanich. And I’ve always pointed out that much of the delays getting permits is from the applicant’s side.
— And now Marko quietly admits that “You also have muncipalities like Saanich that only require a BP, no DP so that also speeds things up.” And “Also, Saanich is approving BPs in 2 to 3 months.” https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134475
So Leo, that’s quite good saanich housing news. Are you aware of it? If so, how about mentioning it in one of your articles. I think you’ve been silent so far. I was expecting a post from you like that”wow… kudos to saanich for now approving building permits in 2-3 months, and they don’t require a development permit. “. That would seem like important HHVer news.
Yes.
I know it’s a radical idea, it’s only exactly the same thing we do for single family homes every day.
Marko, you should record a YouTube series from start to finish on the missing middle DP/BP process.
You really can’t make this shit up dealing with the COV.
Took me two years to add two units to an existing building that needed a couple of minor variances.
@ sidekick
Not a problem, I believe Leo can give you my email.
So straight to building permit without consideration for form and character? Sounds like a good idea if you want public upheaval from all the neighbors.
I think it’s all about political power. We’re not reforming our way out of the system until the scales tip and the people that aren’t benefiting from the system have more political power than those that are.
We’re close to that point and the fact that some levels are making some reforms is a nod to that growing political power, but not quite there especially now that the rental market got a bit better and prices stopped climbing so people aren’t as incensed about it as they were 4 years ago. I think it’s going to take the rental market getting bad again and prices going up again. Right now the urgency isn’t there.
ok, that’s pretty good!
This is also pretty funny. OTOH, how stupid are they really if they get to live in that beautiful part of the world just working part-time and renting out property?
@Marko, how many realtors do you think are just uploading strata documents to AI and getting a summary generated instead of actually reading them?
Staff being efficient, rational likely means putting jobs at risk. Council being rational and reasonable runs the risk of not getting elected again. Welcome to Canada :).
I wonder what it would take for this process to change? How bad would housing starts and job loses in construction have to get before the insanity stops.
You’re off the thread. Go back and read it again.
Uhhh, you do realize that the gap for upgrading homes have been getting bigger and bigger right? Meaning need to come up with more cash to upgrade even accounting for the gains on the sale of your current home. What was a 500k upgrade is $1M now.
Yup, can hear the marbles from here.
smh
Any SSMUH process that isn’t straight to BP is already broken.
It’s a huge problem that there’s about zero consensus between staff and council on what they actually want built. it goes both ways. Sometimes a developer will sail through staff and then get a unanimous rejection from council (just happened in Esquimalt, also Colwood). Or staff don’t like it but council does. Insane process.
Just did this exercise. Rental property or more expensive SFH? After all the math it came out in favour of the SFH, but it has to be one where most of the value is in the land. The further you get up the price range, the more of the value is in the building in most cases, and then you will have to account for the fact that the appreciation rate won’t be the same.
Totoro, most owner‑occupiers aren’t true “market participants.” They’re effectively chained to a sequence of transactions, and the equity from their last sale is the only bridge to the next rung of the housing ladder. Treating them as if they have the same flexibility and optionality as institutional buyers is a category error.
At the same time, there’s a growing recognition that large landlords and institutional holders operate under a completely different set of incentives and constraints. That’s why scaled limitations on portfolio size—and yes, potentially targeted taxes on REITs holding homes that are fundamentally suited for owner‑occupancy—are increasingly part of serious policy discussions. The goal isn’t to punish landlords; it’s to acknowledge that concentrated ownership of starter‑home stock imposes real social and market costs that individual households simply cannot absorb.
To me, there’s also a fundamental difference between owning ten condominiums and owning a ten‑unit apartment building. One removes rungs from the ownership ladder; the other supplies rental housing. Treating them as equivalent obscures the real structural impacts.
We have a family member going through this with the City. Ludicrous process and super expensive and time consuming. You are literally at the whim of what the personal tastes of the staff members are. And the studies…
One day cap gains will be taxed on primary residences to some degree I bet. However, right now it seems like if you already have capital, and you are not going to leverage RE much, a more expensive primary residence seems like a good place to put it.
“the government in Canada makes it so difficult to be entrepreneurial with bureaucracy and taxation.”
I’d definitely agree with this and add to the list of those who make starting a business difficult the banks and landlords.
I agree with you. I always say that renting/short-term rentals has made people on the Dalmatian (where my family is from) coast stupid and they were already lazy prior to tourism so now stupid and lazy. A lot of people on the Dalmatian coast rent their apartments for 3 months of the year and don’t work for the other 9 months. They don’t even bother dropping their AirBnb rates in the offseason as that means actually doing something 🙂 It doesn’t take a genius to rent property.
The problem is the government in Canada makes it so difficult to be entrepreneurial with bureaucracy and taxation. I just had preliminary meeting with the COV regarding doing six missing middle townhomes and the feedback from staff was well it meets the bylaws and doesn’t need any variances, but we don’t like and if staff don’t support the DP you need to go to council.
and the list of consultants is long. I specifically bought a property with no trees yet I still have to pay an arborist $2,800 to do an official inventory report of non-existent trees. Then I have to pay a consultant approx. 20k to liaison with the city and all the other consultants otherwise things just don’t move.
I am starting to think I should just run the numbers on building a luxury home and pocket the two million tax free in 20 years on appreciation instead of going through the pain of this multi-plex plus the taxation on the rental income/capital gains after.
Not too far off from cashflow neutrality on rentals.
calling landlording entrepreneurial is like being in the boy scouts and calling yourself a war hero. Thank-you for your service.
Since when are entrepreneurs risking their money for the betterment of society? I think you have a twisted concept of entrepreneurs.
LOL at calling rent seeking landlording entrepreneurial. Take that same money Frank and actually do something for society and then you can live by the entrepreneurial spirit motto you claim to stand behind. Landlords are nothing but another taxing authority. Developers actually building homes – those are the entrepreneurs.
Risk was high in 2022. Today, that risk is mostly out. Would take a big negative event to drive prices substantially downwards at this point. The usual fare of trouble in the Middle East and sluggish employment is not going to move the needle much.
Seen quite a few relists without meaningful price reductions, those will sit stale.
Victoria Real Estate Board
March 23, 2026
Month Mar Mar
Year 2026 2025
New Unconditional Sales 395 613
New listings 1,111 1,487
Active Listings 3,194 3,024
Predicting about 570ish sales for the month and 3,300 active listings.
Despite all the headwinds market hanging in there treading sideways.
Investing in real estate isn’t entrepreneurial? Give your head a shake.
Lol @ Frank thinking that becoming a landlord is entrepreneurial spirit. Really shows the mental gymnastics going on.
That makes sense, so I can’t really extrapolate the success of a 30 day min Airbnb to a 90 day min as then you compete with all the ex-Airbnbs do 90+ days fully furnished. Thanks for the feedback.
@Viclandlord – would love to pick your brain on the furnished rentals. Any chance we could connect over email?
@Marko
We decided to try the furnished route to diversify a bit and have options over having all long term tenancies. We have 4 at the moment
Oakbay village X 2,cook street village,fernwood.
The market was flooded after the Airbnb changes as everyone that was offering short term rentals seemed to try the midterm route.
We may actually add another unit when we finish the units we are working on.
I had some asbestos removed on a teardown house in Fairfield 11 years ago and I believe the owner of the company at that time owned this house (sold in 2016) so hopefully the asbestos has been removed 🙂
Hang in there Barrister at least until the next HHV pub night.
Maybe in a seller’s market you try selling tenanted, but not right now. I’ve really pivoted with my advice to clients in the last two years and I am strongly suggesting mutual end to tenancy before listing tenanted properties.
I find you really have to explain to tenants their options. Property goes to market with strangers coming through their home and then they will get 3 months’ notice when it sells, but we don’t know when it will sell so they could get notice in September that they need to move out Dec 31st and they receive one months’ compensation.
The alternative is they sign a mutual end to tenancy 60 to 90 days out so they know exactly when they need to move, they receive two months’ compensation, for example (negotiable), and they don’t have strangers coming through their home (I typically recommend in the case of mutual end to tenancy seller waits for tenants to vacate and then you list). They also go out and can look for an alternative rental in a weaker rental market right now.
Of course, many sellers don’t listen to this advice as they don’t want to pay the tenants + lose rental revenue while they wait for the property to sell; however, the alternative is the property doesn’t sell or you take a huge hit on market value.
I know this would be a nightmare to own but sure is tempting https://www.redfin.ca/bc/saanich/4423-Tyndall-Ave-V8N-3S1/home/168437728
I’m with you on that Frank. If homeowners were fully informed about these problems upfront, maybe a lot of them would decide renting isn’t worth the risk or responsibility.
But how would the government even go about making sure homeowners know all this ahead of time?
These tenancy rights might be part of a larger plan to discourage individuals from becoming landlords. Changing capital gains, which was reversed, was another attempt to discourage investors. Well, I think it’s working. The government is destroying the entrepreneurial spirit, something this country needs more of.
Thanks for all the advice on the North Saanich house, I decided to give it a pass. All the possible maintaince coming up was just a bit too scary. Thanks for the help.
For those that know him my grand dad had another small stroke last week but seems to be facing it with courage.
Super big hassle to move out and back, but I have done exactly this, although only had to stay six months back then. It was worth it. You can fix up the rental and prep it for sale and stage it. I would not try to sell a property with a long-term disgruntled tenant in it myself. In our case we rented our home to a friend below market and left it furnished. I would check in with your family and make sure everyone is on board for this cause leaving your home is not easy.
Frank, I hear this sentiment from a lot of landlords. Just this Saturday, a homeowner was venting about why he had to give so much notice and provide free rent when he wanted his basement suite back. I asked him the obvious question: “Are you planning to move into it now?”
He said no — he’s just going to leave it empty.
I didn’t have the heart to explain what the Residential Tenancy Act says about bad‑faith evictions.
He evicted a young immigrant family so what are the odds they don’t know their statutory rights?
Are you not kicking the can down the road? What if the new tenants don’t want to leave in a year? Quite the predicament. I should look seriously at selling at the next opportunity (vacancy). You basically don’t have control over your own property.
Looking for advice, have a tenanted SFH, well under market rent, long term tenants 10 plus years, been pretty good but have still fixed and replaced every appliance (more than once on some), both toilets, heat pump etc. Selling tenanted in this market w/ LTB current regulations is near impossible. And tenants not interested in key money to move. They know the market and feel no threat to move.
Thinking of moving own family and staying the minimum 12 months and leasing out principle for 1 year at market rate which is significantly higher.
Repairs to that house will at least benefit when family moves back in.
Pros and cons?
That makes sense, all the purpose built rentals hitting the market are 1/2 the size so I can see a lot of interest in something like that.
Do you rent it fully furnished just so you have more product mix in the building?
It would be interesting to get input from a few restaurant owners. That business is brutal. Expenses are astronomical, staffing is a nightmare, and the fact that a disgruntled customer can trash your business with a negative review. No thanks. I forgot- long, long hours.
Condo. You know the one.
@ Marko
The unit would most likely rent for a little less than $ 2300/month unfurnished as it’s the only unit that does not have a balcony, and the bedroom window faces the parking lot.
The Wi-Fi we pay for already as we need it for the building intercom and security cameras. The hydro bill is max $ 60 for two months with a heat pump.
In the 3 years we may have had 1-2 months of vacancy, and it’s been rented from $ 2600-2850 with the last lease lasting 14months.
VicReanalyst, I was simply iterating what Marko had posted. He’s observed more renovations happening in Oak Bay, and I agreed with him.
Are you calling Marko out for making things up? My point was aligned with his observation, not contradicting it. Even though he’s blocked my comments, I still read most of his posts — he raises points that are actually worth exploring.
Your replies, on the other hand, tend to drift into Gish‑galloping and ad hominem detours that don’t add much to the discussion. They might be more entertaining if you put more thought into them.
Just calling out your b.s. posts. Some posters do it once and then mute you, I like to call you out consistently.
VicReanalyst you are right into the rage posts today. I think I had that post up for under 5 seconds before I chose to do some editing.
Another absolutely b.s. take. Lots of older millennials and Gen X’s in Victoria with mortgages under 300k, house hold incomes above 250k with healthy retirement and other savings and/or positive equity and cashflow rental properties. Lol these are the main group of people spending $ and upgrading their homes whether it be renos or buying new houses.
Lol by my parents house someone who owns the adjacent lot next to him is building a massive garage on that lot for all his cars with a suite up top for his kid,could have built a SFH instead but nope. The structure will be like 70% garage and 30% suite. Also couple streets away there is a complete SFH rebuild where they paid almost 1.6m for the original property last year and the rebuild looks like a million dollar job on top.
and is your one furnished one bed utilities included equivalent to the $2,300 unfurnished plus utilities in terms of the actual unit itself? (i.e., is the premium for furnished/utilities $300 per month?)
@ Marko
We advertise our furnished rentals on used Vic,facebook marketplace,Craigslist and Kiijii.
People from here don’t use Craigslist & kiiji but they do when they are moving from Alberta & Ontario
We always do a minimum of 3months with most turning into 6-12 (buying a house/condo/job placement
Because renovations and luxury cars are highly visible, the spending of a relatively small group can create the impression that “everyone” is doing it.
Even when the median household feels squeezed, the top 10–20% often experiences the opposite as they have strong asset gains, stable emoyment, and access to credit. This is the “K” economy that I have been writing about.
This trend is going to be most visible in high‑end neighbourhoods with older homeowners. At a certain point, people realize they can’t take their money with them, and it feels wiser to enjoy it now rather than hope there will be a later.
This dynamic is already reshaping buyer behaviour, and agents have been calling it out. Some properties are getting almost no traction, while others are seeing a surge of interest. The contrast in neighbourhood spending — who’s renovating, who’s upgrading, and who isn’t — is directly influencing where buyers choose to put their money.
For some readers, these choices may look counter‑intuitive or lacking in ‘common sense,’ but that’s because you’re viewing the situation through your lens, not theirs.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0d0dtYmTCxE?si=uyM8N7Jo6so2Ioe0
I’m also seeing more landlords offer concessions instead of reducing the asking rent — especially if they’re planning to sell in the near future. A concession is temporary, but a rent reduction becomes permanent, and that lower number flows straight into the NOI. When an owner is preparing to market a building, they’re highly motivated to keep the rent roll looking as strong as possible.
From a valuation standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Buyers and lenders underwrite the actual income, not the story behind it. A free month, a parking discount, or a move‑in credit doesn’t show up as a lower contract rent, so the financial statements stay clean. The face rent remains intact, the NOI looks healthier, and the cap‑rate math works in the seller’s favour.
However, a bank appraiser views this very differently. They will document any concessions in the report and adjust the stabilized income downward to reflect actual market conditions. That lower effective rent feeds directly into the NOI, which in turn reduces the amount of financing the owner can qualify for. In other words, keeping face rents high may help with marketing, but it doesn’t fool the lender — the bank underwrites the income the building truly earns, not the version crafted for a sale.
I have a friend and we meet up for lunch every two months and we use to do Boom & Batten but a couple of times we showed up it was full for lunch so now we just meet at 5th street bar and grill instead as there is always space there without a reservations.
Watching the news you would think the world is ending but definitively a lot of money in Victoria. As I drive around in my 45k Model Y I am always amazed at how many Rivians (120k+) I see on a daily basis. Like what does everyone do for a living and where is the money from. Or driving around Oak Bay and seeing all the 500k and up renovations on every corner.
Even my street, literally every week someone is renovating a kitchen and the kitchens are relatively new. Can’t see renovating my kitchen for another 20+ years.
I rent out all units with high speed Internet and TV included. Was able to negotiate a bulk deal discount with the provider.
Generally, landlords can expect an average tenancy of about two to four years, with shorter stays in urban high‑rise buildings and longer stays in family‑oriented or rent‑controlled properties. Most turnover is driven by life‑cycle changes — job moves, relationships, growing families — which is why younger tenants tend to move more frequently than established households.
I’m noticing that more landlords are now investing in upgrades — fresh paint, general repairs, new appliances, and small cosmetic improvements — with the goal of achieving stronger rents. This is a rational response to how competitive the rental market has become.
Lmao, the post is about how lots of people are out their enjoying life in Victoria because their finances are solid and that “losers” just cannot accept that reality because they expect everyone to be broke like them. This is my no different than how bears simply cannot accept the reality that RE prices have skyrocketed pass beyond affordability of the average worker and tries to find ways to justify a crash will be coming soon.
If your building is within true walking distance of the downtown core and you’re still charging separately for parking, it’s worth reviewing your rates. I recently toured a downtown high‑rise where the underground stalls were underpriced by roughly $125 per month. That kind of gap isn’t unusual — many operators underestimate what secure, walkable, structured parking can actually command.
We had the one HHVer with the suite in Colwood that went vacant a couple of months. Did you have more than 30 responses on a condo or a SFH?
I had turnover last year after a number of years on a studio downtown and while there were responses, not many quality perspective tenants. I was just about to let it go vacant for a month when a really good tenant rented it on the 26th for the 1st.
Beyond that I now have four units with those four tenants there longer than four years. They are below market but I really don’t mind, I simply hate turnover and having to show places, etc., and I don’t trust professional property management as much as I trust myself to pick a reasonable tenant.
Reality is far worse than what the media is reporting.
Just curious as to where you are advertising the furnished unit? FB marketplace? I was wondering if it would be worth while trying AirBnb long-term (90+ days) as I am getting a lot 60 day stays +/- on my 30 day min Airbnb listing. Not sure how many people go on AirBnb and search for 90+ days.
Nice to see this… a small step, but hopefully the first of many needed towards opening up STVR, and other needed housing (“second” homes , foreigners allowed etc.). This will not only bring more tourism, but help the economy in other ways. As well as encouraging more homebuilding.
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/esquimalt-opens-partial-door-to-short-term-rentals-12036111
/Esquimalt opens partial door to short-term rentals
The proposal is to permit short-term rentals in a room in the operator’s main home, or the whole home”
We actually leased 3 units this month.
1/Den 2500 plus utilities & parking (previous rent 2600)
1 Bed 2300 plus utilities (previous rent 2300)
1 bedroom furnished utilities included 2600 (previous rent 2800)
Definitely less interest,but they were still rented within the 30days. We probably could have held out for the previous rents, but I was going away and didn’t want to deal with it.
Surprisingly, we had multiple people not go ahead because we did not have any more off-street parking spots available. When we finished the building 3 years ago, we were charging 50/parking and still had 3 empty spots and now we charge 100 and don’t have any
Maybe a one bed condo or a basement suite? Possibly the case in Langford. I don’t think this is the case for two beds or SFHs that are priced okay and in a nice area in the core. We had more than 30 responses in 24 hours.
Lol, thanks man
Thursty, as long as your kids are happy in whatever path they choose. The real danger is raising someone who grows into the kind of grumpy old man who spends his Saturday lobbing insults at people who aren’t as wealthy as he is. That would be genuinely pathetic.
Anyway, congratulations on successfully reproducing.
Groot , my kids are doing well , but no they’re not going to be the top of the picking order as they aren’t built that way .
VcReanalyst, we get it — you’re rich. You don’t exactly let an opportunity pass without mentioning it.
We live in a democracy and most people voted for this.
Who are you or I to say they were wrong?
Lmao they are not though.
Lots of people well off in Victoria, most losers just can’t accept that unfortunately.
.
I asume you would like to see your children do better than you in life? That’s why you should care.
Groot so rich people and poor people , why would anybody care ?
A few hundred realtors are involved in making a sale each week, they can afford to splurge on a restaurant. The other 1000+ realtors that were not involved in a sale are at home munching on KD. Maybe it’s a KD economy.
No it didn’t, Thursty. The earliest usage goes back to right‑leaning financial publications during COVID—long before the mainstream press pretended it had just been invented. And of course there were already V‑, U‑, W‑, and L‑shaped recoveries in the vocabulary.
The first time I personally heard a recovery described with a letter was during the aftermath of the 2008 crash, when Ardo Hansson, then governor of the Bank of Estonia, laid out the possibility of a W‑shaped recovery. That framework was already standard in central‑bank and IMF discourse. The K‑shape was simply a later extension of the same metaphor once analysts needed a way to describe a split trajectory rather than a single unified path.
And yes—we’re still in a K‑economy, and likely will be for years. The divergence between asset‑holders and everyone else isn’t a temporary distortion; it’s structural. Those with financial assets will continue to outperform, while households without that buffer will keep feeling the squeeze in very ordinary places—like whether they can afford a weekend meal out.
The shape hasn’t changed; people are just starting to notice the angles. Not everyone will notice a significant change if you’re on a well funded pension and are mortgage free you will likely experience very little change. If you’restruggling to meet your financial commitments today- well I would suggest booking a dinner now rather than wait till next year. Otherwise you might find yourself on the wrongside of the glass window watching VicReanlyst quoffig down his Beef Wellington.
I believe we are past the “K-shape” and well into the new reality of the rich and the poor.
No such thing as a k economy, it’s rubbish invented by a lefty economist . Just another excuse for a lack of any financial success lol
Undercutting the competition by a few dollars isn’t exactly a breakthrough strategy. Everyone does it, and they’ll do it to you too. And no, trimming the rent by $25 or $50 won’t suddenly deliver a higher‑caliber tenant. You’ll get the tenant your building, operations, and reputation deserve—price doesn’t change that.
A packed restauant on a weekend mostly reflects social norms, leisure patterns, and the fact that weekends are when people have time to go out. It has nothing to do with the strength of the economy or that the patrons must be wealthy.
By the same logic that restaurant being almost empty on a Thursday would show the opposite.
This is something one would expect Pierre Poilievre to say.
My observation as well, and I am not the only one -> https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/1rzd8zi/given_the_economic_situation_how_are_so_many/
K-shaped economy ?
I think there are a number of micro-markets that do okay. There was a 950 sq.ft. rental at Regents Park @ $2,700 per month and rented quickly with lots of interest. I think because most of the newer product that is 2 beds is 700 sq.ft. +/-?
My friend finished a rental project and I thought he would really struggle with 10 brand new basement suites with no parking in Vic West. I told him I thought maybe $1,800 but he already has two inners rented out at $1,950 and the end units at $2,000 so I was way off the mark on those and I think it might be because they have doors directly to the exterior and people don’t want to be right downtown currently? He is happy with the uptake so far.
Also, had a client buy a teardown SFH for future missing middle project I thought maybe $3,800 and rented for $4,200. Simply not that many entire SFHs for rent.
The largest weakness I am seeing right in the rental market is the generic one-bed units downtown, like this type of unit has come down at least $200 to $300 per month in the last 24 months -> https://cloverresidential.com/rentals/502-1097-view-st/ and they continue to trend down.
100%, I always go a bit lower and it’s paying dividends right now as I don’t have any turnover currently. I would imagine right now it would be a lot more work to rent to a quality tenant as there are so many options. Plus more likely to have to absorb a month or two of vacancy right now as well.
I am not judging the restaurant business champ.
I agree, but we’ve have loads of interest. But it is a nicer than average place and centrally located, and probably a bit under market, although $50/month more than two years ago. I think it is like like the current housing market, lots of competition for something better than average, but average or below average sits. My view is it is better to rent a little under market and be able to choose a responsible tenant.
Judging the restaurant business by how busy it looks on a weekend is about as useful as judging the housing market by a single cheap walk‑up in Quadra Village. It’s a dumb way to assess a business.
A walk-up in Quadra Village???. This must be your least favorite kid. The asking rents are low in that neighborhood for a reason- life expectancy!
A more realistic rent for a two-bedroom in the city core averages between $2,300 to $2,400. That’s somewhat down from the peak but still higher than pre-pandemic.
The vacancy rate would have to double before the rental market would be characterized as weak where there would be continosly declining rents.
The rental market has definitely softened but it is still stable.
What’s actually weakened isn’t the rental market itself—it’s the overly optimistic rent projections baked into the pro formas for new PBR projects. Developers underwrote peak‑cycle numbers and assumed continued upward momentum. The market hasn’t collapsed; it’s simply failed to meet those inflated expectations.
Lol yet all the decent restaurants are packed every weekend.
I agree, but was there anything in particular that drove that home recently? For me, I saw a 2-bedroom near Quadra Village for $1850, which surprised me. Seemed fine except it’s a 4th floor walkup. (Proline, if anyone’s looking.)
My 21-year-old kid moves back to town in a few months, so I say keep those rental prices dropping.
I think most people are inflated-out. Higher energy prices have pushed them over the edge. Lower rates won’t put any money back in their pockets, they’re broke. This could be the last nail in the coffin of our failing economy. Things could get ugly.
>> Increasing interest rates will bring the price of energy down??? Why add fuel to the fire?
Lower rates would be adding fuel to the (inflation) fire.
Rental market is really getting weak now.
Increasing interest rates will bring the price of energy down??? Why add fuel to the fire?
Yes, yields up worldwide from the “energy shock” imported inflation. I think we’ll hold steady on rates, but the next move is likely up.
The heat pump thing is hilarious. As I was going through determining the system I was going to put in my place, I had many aquaintances pushing the heat pump options because that’s what they had installed. The loss of any real rebates made the decision pretty easy not to do it. After I had my high efficiency gas furnace installed (along with a fireplace and hot water on demand) that came in many thousands less than just getting a heat pump only installation, the stories rapidly changed from the same aquaintances. Then they started stating their regrets and lamentations about going with the heat pump option (even with the big rebates that were available at the time of their installs). The stories of cost of maintenances, the number of service calls needed, and one that didn’t get more than 6 years of life out a heat pump and needed an off warranty replacement. The kicker is they kept hanging everything on that the heat pumps had an AC capability, but across the board they complained about how shitty the AC was on the units they have. The funny thing is, on the hottest day in Victoria last summer, the temperature in my house didn’t go over 23.5 with just running the furnace fan. The big savings monthly on hydro for getting rid of the electric hot water tank for the gas on demand is only topped by the heat being 1/6 the cost of the old oil system to operate (that includes whatever the gas cost for the on demand hot water on the gas bill).
Same, only thing I did was upgrade the thermostat to a wifi enabled one that allows me to adjust temperature when no one is home. Usually set it to 18 when no one is home and back to 22 about half an hour before someone gets home.
Maybe not less when you adjust for size. All I know is that we have almost zero maintenance and it is cheaper than other places I’ve lived. At this stage in my life I would be happy to pay more for less HVAC maintenance and turns out you get it by paying less.
Our tenant gave notice recently. We love her, and were happy to hear that she was finally able to afford a (very) small condo now that prices have come down. She is a big beneficiary of the falling condo market. She was priced out before.
Stay away from the 2000’s glass condos as the envelopes are beginning to fail and rectifications are costly. This is info from my engineering contacts.
I agree, a few high quality buildings/stratas DT Van I’ve followed over the years and one beds down to $599,900 that were $725,000 – $750,000ish a few years ago.~~~
~~~
do you mind sharing what factors are considered as quality buildings in DT Van. or address of these buildings.. Thank you Ser.
Solar panels are interesting in how they may affect value and loan collateral.
If you have a loan for solar panels the lender may require that be paid off before closing a sale to clear any competing claim on the property.
If the property goes under foreclosure the lender may inherit an obligation they didn’t underwrite.
But what about buying a home with solar panels? That’s where buyers and sellers divurge much like they do with inground swimming pools.
Heat pumps required for AC which we value a lot. If it weren’t for that I’d agree. Baseboards + solar + good insulation will be worry free for a long long time.
Wild moves in the 5 year bond yield. Chances of rate hike in April now up to 20%, not completely off the table.
I’m not a huge fan of closed-cell. People seem to think it’s a solve-all product, and it isn’t really. Just look to the UK to see all the issues they’re having. Open cell is better, but I still don’t see any advantage unless it’s a ‘patch’ job. I like sips, but haven’t used them personally. Have used type-2/9 EPS a fair bit for under-slab (which is common in the PH world). I’ve heard that spray-foam is very sensitive to proper installation, and there’s no shortage of poor installations. Then there’s the fire rating stuff, environmental impact, etc. etc.
Only one wrong is the appraiser….
Sidekick , what is it about open or closed cell foam that u don’t like, I only use sips and it’s a great way to hit R values for step code
Yes that is what I meant, so you are at ~220 a month with fortis and hydro. Not that significant of savings compared to me after adjusting for house size.
Lots of different products available which leads to construction paralysis for some home buyers. The fact is there isn’t one single optimal solution.
The builder says one thing, the installr another, the architect a third, an of course the real estate agent has to weigh in with theirs.
Each viewpoint is shaped by different incentives, experiences, and risks. None of them are wrong—but they don’t align, and the new home buyer is the one left trying to reconcile them. That’s where the paralysis sets in.
We did live in an older home, but where we are now was built in 2003. Better insulated. Our gas bill drops to less than $40 a month in the summer so it is pretty darn cost efficient for utilities overall.
That is my fortis natural gas bill. Cost for the gas was 16 dollars – rest was fees and taxes – still cheap.
Did you mean does it include hydro? Hydro was about $100 for the same period. 1400 square feet. Four people – 3 work from home.
It is a lot less than it was for this time of year when we had an oil furnace or heat pump. And the biggest difference is the lack of maintenance costs, including system replacement.
Windows work well enough for our house re. ventilation. No issues with condensation or mould or stuffiness. We have great bathroom extractor fans as well.
I don’t much about HRV/ERV but we looked at an 80s house with this system and it seemed like it needed work and had developed an interior leak somewhere maybe from a drain. I wasn’t keen to take that on. You’ve got all that venting and condensate drain pipe and mechanical stuff to maintain. And noise.
And as I recall you live in an older home?
This is what I’ve been bringing up for the last 15 years when you get into newer homes (even the low end ones) the hydro/gas bills are relatively low that the obsession of efficiency doesn’t make any sense to me. Let’s put in 50k in more expensive systems/components that require more maintenance to bring down the annual utility bill from $2,000 to $1,500.
Sure if you can afford hydronic with a min-splits and an ERV go for it but having lived in baseboard plus bathroom fan scenarios it’s just fine, imo.
Don’t get me started on efficiency!
In my opinion, stay away from bulk spray foam Frank.
HRV/ERV is the tool for ventilation – windows aren’t great (for ventilation) in a number of scenarios (cold, air pollution, actual air flow).
Is that including your fortis bill? Mine is almost triple that, baseboard and 2 electric fire places.
I just checked our Jan 15-Feb 15 bill. It was $111.33. This includes gas fireplace (main heat), hot water, stove, and dryer.
100%, a lot of issues I see in homes are lifestyle and lack of common sense related like showering for 30 minutes and not turning on the fan, etc.
There is a confusing variety of insulation products out there. Is spray foam being utilized or is it too expensive?
I just open the windows to get fresh air. We have screens. And we have an air purifier if needed. Super low tech low cost approach that has been reliable for more than 20 years with no component changes. My husband cleans the gas fireplace annually and we have to change the thermostat batteries. That is it.
With the mandatory blower test, etc., really well. Even the entry level homes.
All this talk about heating systems, I wonder how well new builds are insulated. That’s another can of worms.
In my place with hydronic & mini-splits the developer also put in ERVs. All three systems can be controlled from one screen and on an app from your phone. In terms of comfort it’s pretty good, but once things start going wrong it’s going to be a insane. I also wonder if the hydronic in the unit above me leaks one day then what, we going to jackhammer the concrete slab?
My first condo was literally one baseboard (interior bedroom had no baseboard) and a bathroom fan and it worked just fine. Super cheap to heat in the hydro bill was less than $35 every two months (modern building, units to both sides and up/down), no maintenance, and for air circulation I would turn on my bathroom fan and leave a window open when I went out.
I really believe baseboards are underrated given the cost of labor these days and having to service/repair every other heating/cooling option. The comparisons I see out there never seem to factor in that baseboards are maintenance free for 50+ years.
Yes that’s an issue with hydronic in-floor heating, you basically want yet another system to move the air. We have an HVR system that does that to an extent, it seems to be a pretty simple, reliable thing that works. I think I would also put that in if going with baseboards.
If you have good insulation and gas fireplaces you won’t need baseboard heat except as a backup for a really cold snap. Our heating bills are extremely low and I keep our place warm in the winter. I can’t remember the last time we used our baseboards. We’ve had forced air furnaces and heat pumps too. As someone who is sensitive to noise, the baseboard/gas fireplace combo has worked the best for that reason as well. I really hated being woken up at night by HVAC.
Some of your heating preference will depend on how sensitive you are to noise. I have had oil forced air, electric forced air, base board, radiant ceiling heat, and now a couple of rooms with hydronic floor heating with a heat pump. Both forced air systems generate a low level white noise that drove some family members crazy. The ceiling heat was surprisingly uncomfortable as it felt like I always had a temperature (hot head and cold feet). One by one the panels in the ceiling failed and are VERY difficult to repair. The floor heat is a great heat and I love warm feet but as some have mentioned, they do not respond quickly so you tend to leave them at a constant temperature or at least not set them back as much at night. Be careful with areas with a lot of windows as it can get cool at night. I don’t really like the complexity with multiple pumps, sensors, and the heat pump but the day to day costs are good. The base boards are quiet, trouble free, reliable, and long lasting but expensive to run if you have poor insulation and I have been informed they mess up furniture arrangements. I have visited people with mini splits and did not find the heat particularly comfortable. The noise bothered my wife and I did not like warm air blowing down on me. In other words, there is no perfect system.
I prefer central air. Move the air around to prevent rooms from getting stuffy at night, and run the fan continuously if it’s smoky out to clean the house.
in-floor hot water is the best system especially if anyone in the family has allergies.
I agree for the most part. I do have a couple of small 1st world gripes thought. For example, I find that in the bathrooms it can’t generate the same warmth in the tiles as an electric mat.
One setup that I personally prefer just slightly more to hydronic + mini-splits is radiators + electric floor mats in tiled areas + mini-split in every room. That is the setup I have in this condo I bought 10 years ago -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S1e2KXogsA and I prefer it just a tad to the more recent hydronic condo purchase.
I don’t think either of two units have ever been on sale since completion; however, not a lot of privacy just with 989 units looking down on them. Will get worse once Harris Green is built out as then any south side privacy will be gone as well.
In-floor hydronic is generally the best heat you can get. Failure rate on the pex is low (but don’t go whacking nails in your floors), and usually the pipes are laid out in a ‘reverse-return spiral’, which lets you turn off a circuit without cutting off a whole section/room. Can be powered by heat pumps these days for decent efficiency.
I’ve installed it a few times, and would certainly consider installing it again. Lots of different ways it can be installed – even walls and roofs.
Speaking of condos, has anyone been to the podium level units at 960 yates (legato)? Those seem to have pretty big outdoor spaces.
I agree, a few high quality buildings/stratas DT Van I’ve followed over the years and one beds down to $599,900 that were $725,000 – $750,000ish a few years ago.
sounds similar to many appraisal reports as well
Yes, it was part of the house when it was built. We bought 5 years ago & the house is I think 26 years old now
I plan to be here another 6-7 years. Hoping it holds out that long. In the meantime, I need a new roof. Not because there’s anything actually wrong with the existing one, but it has become a stupid insurance issue…
If you have a SFH here and trade for a condo in Vancouver there is no guarantee you will ever get back to a SFH back here in the future. I would keep the SFH here if you have one and rent it out. Condos are getting crushed in Vancouver, the Oakdridge development is not going according to plan and I have lots of insider info on that.
~~
yes, actually we have been renovating it in the past 10 yrs after we brought it around 630k in Gordon Head area…
Just finished off those additions of two bed suites in the backyards lol– the plan is to hold it and rent it out and save the garage+shed for ourself for storage. We also max out on taking a huge LOC/Equity loan of it with National Bank at prime rate… so we are ready to buy around 950k-1M(+-) at Cambie. There are really nice ones around 900-1200/sqft, the strate fee is also around 50cents-75 cents/sqft.( I had some new condo here it was 0.40/sqft for strat fee… so that’s something I did not know or budget it correctly..)
it’s always nice to have hard equity/asset in this market turmoil… having another condo in YVR is my plan as in my late 50s, we hope to settle in YVR instead of staying within YYJ( unpopular opinion).
over the years, I have gained so much knowlege about housing here in YYJ and know what to look for when I buy new condo…..
appreciate everyone’s inputs and guidance( some of you guys really know your shit well…)
Good time to buy a condo in Van or T.O right now . I think there are some good deals to be had . I have been poking around West Van for a condo myself as i find myself over there a lot on business.
Try this site.
https://www.gvrealtors.ca/market-watch/monthly-market-report.html
If you have a SFH here and trade for a condo in Vancouver there is no guarantee you will ever get back to a SFH back here in the future. I would keep the SFH here if you have one and rent it out. Condos are getting crushed in Vancouver, the Oakdridge development is not going according to plan and I have lots of insider info on that.
There are some decent YTers I like from Vancouver, but not in touch with blogs/websites. Seems like the good content is moving to YT these days.
was thinking to moving to yvr due to work relocation( most of the teams are slowly back to office and during covid some of the satellite office got merged into HQ@YVR..)
is there any blog/website that have some deep knowledge of vancouver residential RE? In the market of owning a two-bed, two bath apt in Cambie area( can be Oakridge or Marine or somewhere between)..
there families have moved to yvr within the last year so far ( late 30s and early 40ish, teen kids) for better paid jobs in my circles- kids went to the same school here and we are hoping to regroup once we relocate/resettle to yvr this year…
I have hydronic in my condo in Croatia, with mini-splits in every room. You can keep the place cool while keeping your feet warm 🙂
pricing on hydronic in-floor heating system has dropped a little… was $12.2/sqft for a 4300 home( in 2023, 2024)… Someone else just quoted $11/sqft, Same spec, labour might have gone down a little…JFYI
both quotes are from local trades.
Was the system in the house when you bought it? And how old is it?
We have the hydronic in-floor heating system, and I was also hesitant on this account, and came to the same conclusion – if that thing ever breaks in terms of a leak in the piping, I’m not going to be cutting into the slab to figure it out & fix that one section, just waiting for the next section to go. We’d have to bite the bullet and replace the system with something else. At least the alternatives now (heat pump) give you some payback in terms of running costs. The hydronic system (electric) is very expensive. But we have a big house, and we keep it toasty.
I will say, in terms of day-to-day living, it’s very nice heat. Super nice to have the floor warm wherever you go.
One other downside, the system does not react quickly to thermostat adjustments. We have big windows in the living room and the room tends to cool off in the evenings, and the system is not very reactive.
On the whole we’re actually pretty happy with it, but I get the hesitation & for sure it wouldn’t be for everyone.
100% agreed on this front, useful for buyers as well when it comes to purchasing into condo buildings so it’s brought to their direct attention that elevators are 30 years old, etc. That is why I am reading through over 100 depreciation reports per year for my clients.
However, it helps to understand how they are put together. For the most part it’s a lot of spreadsheet modeling and cutting and pasting.
Let’s say the building has a 40 year old roof. What advantage is there in hiring a “good” engineer, or other qualified professional, versus an “average” qualified individual to write the depreciation report? Neither is a roofer, they are both going off models. Neither is an elevator technician, etc., etc.
When it comes to the actual roof assessment, repairs, or roof replacement by a roofer, that is a whole different story. In that scenario you want someone that is actually good at their craft (roofing).
Depreciation reports are pretty useful in that they made strata council pay attention to unfunded contingent liabilities.
Before the requirement there were buildings that turned a blind eye to foreseeable big expenses. This causes hardship to residents who can’t afford large special assessments. For many people a monthly increase in strata fees is way easier to budget for. I’ve reviewed a few, and agree that they are pretty generic, but they do give a heads up on expected lifespan for major components and obvious looming issues. Helpful when you are looking to buy and can match up the costs to the contingency fund.
In terms of house components, I’m a fan of simple. I get tired when I see a house with things that were considered great at the time like cedar shakes, in floor heating, heat recovery systems, or built in vacuums. I’m quietly thrilled with our electric baseboards, gas fireplace, and gas hot water tank – only the hot water tank has needed replacing in 25 years. We use fans in the summer and window ac when needed, which is not often. I pay more attention to how well insulated a home is as a priority.
People like heat pumps, but we replaced one in a home and it was not cheap and they need maintenance. Same with mini-splits. They don’t last forever and need annual maintenance plus the aesthetics are not ideal.
Those windows, especially skylights, are scary. If you’ve ever seen the mechanical room for an infloor system, it looks like the inside of a submarine.
Not sure if it would make sense for Barrister to repair, just de-commission and install a mini-split system. Maybe do electric mats in bathrooms/kitchen.
I wouldn’t be thrilled about the prospect of taking on an in-floor heat system. Not sure if it would be a selling feature or not. One thing you can be sure of is repairs would be very expensive. Has the house been on the market long? Buyers could be avoiding it. Are they revealing yearly heating costs?
I replaced all the original windows in a 1991‑built home with modern vinyl thermal‑break units, and the difference was huge — far better year‑round comfort and noticeably lower heating costs. If memory serves, the building code shifted later to require thermal‑break frames, so homes from that era often still have the older, less efficient designs.
Those older frames tend to run cold in winter, which means interior humidity can condense on the sash or frame. Over time, that moisture can lead to hidden mold growth around the sill or drywall. Some people are extremely sensitive to mold and can develop respiratory issues severe enough to make the home effectively uninhabitable for them.
A recent interior paint job would cover up many signs of black mold. You can also have the home fogged before you move in. This is a surface-level disinfectant treatment. It cost me around $1,400 and I could not go into the home for a full 24 hours. A bit surreal when you looked through the windows as it was like having a cloud inside the house. Worked out well and I would do it again.
I am not smart enough to be AI. It is a house on Highview and there is rotted decks, rotted fence, rotted pergola and the inside looks like fresh paint but I worry about so of the things like double glazed windows and the whole heating system. Am i worrying about nothing??
AI?
I’m with Marko on the depreciation reports. I can’t claim any special expertise on building systems. But I have read many depreciation reports and the information seems extremely generic and with so many qualifiers that they just aren’t that useful. I mean they are a little bit useful. Hopefully they keep a really clueless strata council from making zero contingency plans, but questionable if needed every five years and I’d certainly look at price as the main criteria
Marko makes sense to me. I have tried googling it but I looked at a house in North Saanich with in floor hot water heat. Does anyone know how long this system works? Probably not logical but do the plastic tubes that run under the floor wear out or leak often?? How many years are they good for and are they hard to fix. Is there someone here that I could talk with about this?? The house was built in 1992, the RE agent said that they replaced a “few” of the windows. It has a lot of windows, how long in reality do double glazed windows last in Victoria?
Thanks if anyone has actual experience with this stuff.
Can you please explain to me how one trained professional can be better in a partical sense versus another trained professional in determining how long a sewer lateral main will last in a bare land strata? It’s a spreadsheet estimation not worth paying top dollar for.
Actually don’t as you are back on mute.
You write a ton but there is literally zero substance to it. It clearly shows you have zero understanding of real life concepts on top of all the misinformation you have posted on here over the years.
Canada reports first yearly population decline since Confederation.
I wasn’t giving anyone advice. I was describing what I would do, and that’s entirely consistent with everything I’ve said before about hiring a competent home inspector. My position hasn’t shifted; the principle is the same in both contexts.
And I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the work of qualified professionals. When you wave away their expertise because it’s inconvenient or doesn’t fit a preferred narrative, that doesn’t undermine them—it reflects poorly on you. These people are trained, accountable, and working within established standards. Treating their work as disposable or interchangeable isn’t just inaccurate; it comes across as unprofessional.
What did you expect from someone that’s been calling for a crash since 2009?
Or base Tesla Model Y 45k after EV rebates. I am over 60,000 km on mine with zero maintenance zero problems so far. I think the only tangible thing I’ve done is add $10 of windshield wiper fluid. Also, I highly recommend going with the base model (super efficient) with base wheels/tires. On my Model S I had to change my tires ever 60,000 km (which was a lot of tires at almost 300,000 km when I sold it) and with the Y base tires I think I can get 100,000 km out of them. My insurance is low $700s per year.
Problem with other EVs is they all usually have ridiculous service requirements. With Tesla with no servicing your 8 year battery warranty is still valid.
I had to unmute Groot for a second and thank god for the mute button as I am borderline done with HHV. He obviously is completely clueless and using AI to provide horrible advice.
Just so you know the real life component of depreciation reports. When a firm does a depreciation report they aren’t experts on any of the components. For example, they will go up on the roof, take a picture and note from their spreadsheets that type of roof has an average life expectancy of 40 years and will confirm with strata the roof was replaced 16 years ago and then in the depreciation report they will note 24 years left and will run a computer model as how much it will be approx. to replace that roof inflation adjusted in 24 years.
Here is the thing, the roof might last 15 more years, or it might last 30 years.
Also, when you take it one step up to actual engineering report you have to recognize this isn’t completely black and white either. There is a building on Quadra Street where one engineering firm recommended a complete envelope replacement and a different engineering firm recommended a 10 year targeted maintenance plan at 1/20 of the cost of the envelope replacement.
and use some common sense, what are the assets for your bare land strata?
Do you really want to pay an arm and a leg for a fancy capital expenditure spreadsheet? You might have an issue with your strata sewer line next year or it may last another 50 years without issues.
This is what you’ll find in a typical depreciation report pertaining to a bare land strata, essentially a whole lot of nothing
“This component considers the underground sewer lines measured along the common road, to each
bare land strata lot, +/- 750 Linear Feet.
Estimated replacement cost of this component +/- $87.55 / Linear Foot, however the likelihood of full
replacement is very low and considered unreasonable to plan for. As such, an allowance of 20% (+/-
150 Linear feet) has been allocated to this component every 20 years, with the next occurrence in 10
years, for periodic maintenance / repair / replacement to this component if needed.
Please note that if any unanticipated repairs exceed any accumulated funds then additional funding may
be required from other sources.”
Gas prices…. Another reason not to live in the westshore if you need to commute to town regularly.
If you’re unfamiliar with depreciation reports, it’s natural to assume they’re all identical—like cans of soup on a shelf. They look similar from the outside, so the instinct is to compare them on price.
But a depreciation report isn’t a commodity. It’s a capital‑planning instrument—one of the few tools a strata has to avoid long‑term cost shocks and protect owners from preventable special assessments.
That’s why I wouldn’t choose a firm on price alone. The real differentiator is whether they’ve worked on buildings like yours: same age, same construction type, same climate exposure, same scale. A depreciation report is only as reliable as the experience behind it.
I don’t perform depreciation reports myself, but I do complete reports when condominiums have already levied a Special Assessment. I’ve seen the impact on resale value when planning fails. The cost of a weak depreciation report doesn’t show up on the invoice—it shows up years later in marketability, owner stress, and emergency levies.
I wouldn’t choose a firm on price alone. The real differentiator is whether they’ve done projects like ours—same age, same construction type, same climate exposure, same scale. A depreciation report is only as good as the experience behind it.
You don’t choose a depreciation‑report provider to save money. You choose one to avoid future litigation, levies, and governance failures.
Thanks Groot and Marko. Much appreciated.
No change in the rate today. 2.25%
And what’s goingto happen with interest rates?
https://youtube.com/shorts/4cprmb4xyto?si=8oxbauHt2TQwvucl
Depreciation reports for bare lands stratas are a bit of joke, imo, yea you have to replace your common lighting light post in 24 years based on some random projection. Just go with the cheapest proposal (that is qualified to write one).
I read 100s of depreciation reports every year and in my opinion the easiest to read by far are those by RDH Building Science.
Canada and just about every country outside the Middle East and Africa. Canada is bad but not the worst in this respect. Even France and Scandinavia with super family friendly policies are only slightly better than Canada.
High costs and government policy might be part of the problem but there’s a lot more to I than that. It’s more like the sacrifice and PITA aspect of having kids is at odds with our culture.
Niemi LaPorte & Dowle Appraisals
They are in Burnaby but do the island as well
Spring listings are hitting hard
Question for this esteemed group: anyone have good experiences and/or recommendations for Victoria / Saanich / Saanich Peninsula engineering or architectural firms (or appraisal and/or surveying firm) that take on the required depreciation reports for all strata corporations (now includes 5 units and up, bare land stratas no longer exempt)? I have a property that is part of a strata that needs to get going on this.
[The BC Government has a good web resource here for background: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/strata-housing/operating-a-strata/repairs-and-maintenance/depreciation-reports . Includes a list of the various qualified professionals who may prepare reports for strata corporations.]
That’s better I thought the terms were a bit harsh.
Exit
“exist” or “exit”?
Good thing demand is even less currently
Except there is far more market risk in building PBR, you usually won’t be able to exist prior to rent stabilization. If you try to do it sooner then expect to take a discount.
If you’re a devloper of multi-family then you’re busy building purpose built apartments. I suppose when PBR construction slows down then most of the developers will return to building strata condos. The money today is n PBRs not condos.
Completely anecdotal but 7 new buyers have contacted me so far this month looking for condos between 400k and 800k. Mostly single younger professionals, a couple younger couples, and a retired couple re-locating from Alberta.
A ton of condo inventory for now, but I am really curious as to how this plays out in 10 years with strata construction starts dropping off. SFHs will probably be out of reach for the majority of people which will put even more pressure on condos/townhomes but we are shifting construction to purpose built rentals.
Feb report for BC is out ->
/https://www.bchousing.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/New-Homes-Registry-Report-February-2026.pdf
SFH basically a collapse (30% lower YTD) compared to last year which was the lowest year for SFHs since WWII.
As for strata it could be the second worst year in the last 23 years, only second to 2009 when everything grind to a halt. The YTD is down big time for strata starts and I don’t anticipate it improving throughout the year.
Purpose built on track to meet last year which makes sense.
Overall I think we will have substantially less housing starts in BC than what the BC government is projecting.
I agree
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134426
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
“fought for freedom, democracy and human rights, etc” These are elements of Canadian culture. In addition to women’s rights, bacon, maple syrup hockey, poutine, saying sorry, being polite, working hard, being honest, being proud of legitimate contributions our nation makes to the world and many other things that make Canada Canada.
Unfortunately too many people think we can import an infinite number of people who don’t share Canada’s values or aspire to be a part of it’s culture and still maintain Canada as Canada.
We cannot, as you can see in various European countries struggling with this same thing. Diversity isn’t anyone’s strength. It never was. That being said, racism isn’t a strength either because values aren’t skin deep.
A country’s strength comes from shared values and unity in pursuing them, which can only come from a unified culture where people trust each other and work together toward a common goal. In Canadas case, this was always prosperity for all. But in the case of billions out there, it is not.
Canadians make Canada great. Immigrants who share Canada’s values and want to become Canadian make Canada great. People who have no interest in pursuing the things that make Canada great and tear down the things that make Canada great only hold us all back. and should be kept out of Canada.
Either way, Canada makes it WAY too hard to have kids here and the easier it is to have kids in Canada, the more discriminating we can be at the border on who we let in. The optionality on immigration is a fundamental position of strength and inherently desirable compared to where we are now where we simply need to let in too many people to balance the books.
An unacceptable position created by poor planning from my perspective.
Government is a reflection of the people that elect them.
The pressure on trades and materials to produce 100,000 homes in one area, would result in higher prices. Even if land prices were near zero. Not to mention current inflationary pressures and ridiculous permit requirements. It simply costs too much to build a house. Our government doesn’t seem to understand this, like everything else they don’t understand, because they’re all morons.
If the demand for SFH remain strong then inventory will get soaked up and you are back to square one. When demand gets hammered, that’s when the downward pressure really starts. If things are selling well, more listings doesn’t mean price stabilization. Look at all the royal bay row houses getting snapped up during the run up to the peak or even worse happy valley, they couldn’t keep up with demand. Different story now, not much new product is coming online yet prices are softer and things are sitting.
It won’t happen so there’s that. You can hypothetically clear cut central saanich and do massive planned communities but you will just create another Westshore, won’t do much to alleviate SFH price pressure in the core. End of the day real estate comes down to demand for a given location because supply will ultimately be constrained given geographical boundaries.
This is so silly. The demand that is created is demand at a lower price. Therefore, the house sells for a lower price.
And to use an extreme example: what if 100,000 single family homes were dropped into Victoria tomorrow? Do you believe that prices would stay the same?
Given your logic it won’t make a difference if housing starts drop 50% or increase 100%.
And then prices rise again.
Interestingly enough despite the slow market and uncertainty lots of high end sales this year. $11.2 million dollar sale in Central Saanich today.
Yes demand would be induced if prices fell so the net effect is still lower prices than if supply hadn’t increased.
No because then that induces more demand, you need people to go bankrupt and crash the market and fundamentally change the way RE is viewed if you want to see some significant affordability. That will provide an entry point for those on th sidelines with some $. There is also no more supply of SFH in the core, so there’ that.
What? Whatever the demand may be, if supply increases it helps whether it is to lower prices or decrease the rate of appreciation.
100% it would make a difference at it would be cheaper to bring product to market; therefore, more competition and more product would come to market, but it will never happen. Average person unfortunately doesn’t have enough critical thinking skills to figure this out.
I’ve had such a rough start with a COV in terms of building a multi-plex I’ve been in touch with a consultant and for schematic design, consultant coordination, development permit, building permit submission and municipal review, and building permit coordination and approval you are looking at about 20k for a multi-plex. If there wasn’t so much red tape there wouldn’t be a need for a consultant. First of all, why does COV require a complicated development permit process while in Saanich you go straight to BP? Like who makes up what is required and what isn’t.
Also, city staff simply don’t answer your emails if they don’t know so you are essentially forced to use a consultant who knows them.
The problem is there is a very long list of completely useless red tape that adds 100s of thousands to a project for no reason (doesn’t make the product better in any tangible way).
In 2010 I submitted a couple of documents for this building permit and we literally only had one consultant on the build (structural engineer) -> https://maps.app.goo.gl/M82HEei3upkXMNmh8
We sold the brand new near 3,000 sq.ft. home for $799,900 (two bedroom suite in it so it was affordable to the buyer), we made 125k on the build, everyone happy.
Now a never ending list of consultants civil engineer consultants, arborist, ventilation, etc….because of the lack of consultants and BS we only spent $5,000 total on the new sidewalk/driveway/curbs/asphalt on that 2010 build. Last house we built in the Oaklands area in 2022 same sidewalk/driveway, etc., was more than 10x the cost. An engineer had to come test the concrete for a sidewalk and write a report, like what da? Things have got a lot worse since 2022 such as useless soil sample testing (another 10k cost).
“All that means nothing if one is not committed to curtail demand.”
whatever level the demand is at, wouldn’t it be better to lower the cost to purchase land and build houses?
All that means nothing if one is not committed to curtail demand.
Leo – “Yes, but there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about the decades long trend of single family becoming less and less affordable to the average family. You might as well say it sucks that gravity exists.”
I suspect removing all ALR zoning, all tree protection bylaws on private property and a concerted effort to reduce red tape and expensive requirements for developing land can make a measurable difference. Also, capping a lifetime capital gains tax on a primary house could make housing less of an investment.
If everyone says that rising SFH prices are impossible to counteract – then they will be.
Frank, ya the issue of monster homes in Richmond and Surrey and such has been a bit of a touchy issue and it’s still happening . For the most part those are all sitting on ALR land with large multi generational families and municipalities are for the most part are looking the other way . Different rules for different folks I guess lol
Groot, not too sure we are an economy any different than the past . There’s always been rich folks and poor folks and that is not a big deal
Victoria Real Estate Board
March 16, 2026
Month Mar Mar
Year 2026 2025
New Unconditional Sales 261 613
New Listings 771 1,487
Active Listings 3,092 3,024
I am predicting 580 for the month at this point. On the whole it is slow out there, but despite the slow market seems like every other property my buyers are interested in goes in multiples.
Still on pace to finish the month with approximately 3,300 listings.
That is a contested treaty btw so technically not safe. Was shooting the shit with a few big law lawyers in Vancouver that we use and that was their comment.
~~~
nowhere is safe in terms of the treaty. the whole land within Canada owns by first nation… and I have no issue with that( unpopular opinion)
The question I have is: Who allowed the building of monster homes? Did neighbors have any say? Richmond was particularly affected, but I also saw them in Burnaby. So now we’ve gone full circle and monster 4-6plexes are being built in traditional neighborhoods. Someone should inspect the current condition of the 90’s monster homes and their affect on adjacent homes. They also had monster concrete fences circling the property. It was hideous.
Welcome to the “K” economy.
The price gap between condos and detached houses in Canada has grown dramatically in recent years, especially in Ontario and British Columbia. A 2023 national study found that in 14 major Canadian cities, houses now cost more than double the price of condos, with the largest gaps concentrated in the very markets where young buyers purchased small units during the pandemic with the hope of “laddering up” later.
That widening spread has collided with a second trend: slowing condo resale demand, driven by high carrying costs, investor sell‑offs, and a flood of new supply in some urban cores. The result is a structural trap for many owners of 500–700 sq. ft. units who assumed their condo would be a stepping stone to a house. Instead of appreciating in tandem with the detached market, many entry‑level condos have stagnated — or even lost ground — while house prices continued to accelerate.
The article specifically speaks to what were then called “monster homes” in the 90s, just as Frank said. If that’s not convincing enough, here’s an entire UBC student’s thesis written on the subject. Interesting history!
“The Monster Houses revisited: Race and Representation of Urban Change in Vancouver”, published 1998.
https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/831/1.0088657/1
Tiananmen Square occurred in June 1989, I took possession in May. Prices skyrocketed, the days of a $120,000 home in my area were gone forever. Interest rates were 12%. I would have been priced out of the market. Sold two properties in 1993, one to an agent, the other to an investor from Taiwan. Bought in Victoria in 1994. Those are facts.
Per the article….. Like I said, the grinders came earlier, real money came later.
“ Thousands of Hong Kong Chinese settled in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 90s because of uncertainty about what would happen….
In 1994, at the peak of the migration, 48,000 people moved to Canada from Hong Kong, with 16,000 settling in B.C…..
Upon arrival, some immigrants bought and knocked down smaller homes in neighbourhoods like Kerrisdale, Shaughnessy and the West Side to build what were then described as monster homes”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hong-kong-handover-20-year-anniversary-vancouver-1.4186864
While we debate whether these new units are “affordable”, one thing is clear… they’re not selling fast. Greater Victoria has highest level of unsold new units in 35 years. (Since 1991). Many of those don’t make it to the MLS listings, so aren’t reflected in the HHV stats posted here. That’s leading RE industry reps to predict a slow down in new builds.
https://vicnews.com/2026/01/15/crystal-ball-housing-forecast-sees-slowdown-coming-to-greater-victoria/
“What is somewhat concerning to him is the high level of unsold new units, mostly apartment units, which is the highest level in 35 years in Greater Victoria – something that does not bode well for the slow-growing B.C. economy. Real estate analysts and industry representatives suspect that the years of rapid development in Greater Victoria may be coming to an end. “
I don’t know about other neighbourhoods, but lived in West Van from the 70’s on. First significant wave of Hong Kong people significantly running up our real estate prices did come in the 80s – it was a huge impact. But those weren’t the ones doing gentrification, tear-downs and monster homes, they were just buying existing homes. That other stuff did come later.
Those were grinders, not the real money folks that came in the past 20 years, especially since 2010. Influx of Mlmainland Chinese money is what pushed Vancouver into what it is now.
Nice try, not the one with money. The ones that came earlier were grinders.
The gentrification of previously affordable neighbourhoods in Vancouver started in earnest in the mid-late 80s so I am with Frank on that one. On Hong Kong specifically the push from there also started WAY before the handover as folks made plans for a Canadian landing pad and then moved back to Hong Kong to actually make money
They started in the late 80’s. I was there, you weren’t. Get your facts straight.
Lmao 35 years ago? The first wave didn’t really come until 1997 after the hong Kong handover.
That is an assumption, it may very well be true but current immigration and birth stats say otherwise.
Yes, in a very narrow sense (price is always where supply meets demand).
That being said supply is restricted while population grows (which is 100% will), demand will always outstrip supply and push prices up. SFHs are still what the majority of people want to live in.
That’s not really a realistic situation in BC. It’s more like 10 house for sale and demand from 100 households who want them.
The real situation is demand will grow (as the population will grow). The supply will continue to be further restricted which will lead to higher prices long term.
Lack of supply explains why someone paid $2.9 million for the house on Ash.
35 years ago they were tearing down single family homes in Vancouver neighborhoods and building monster homes for wealthy Asians. These houses were around 6000 sq. ft. and consumed the entire lot. I wonder what condition those properties are in today. It was quite hideous, I wonder who allowed that to happen. Richmond was impacted the most. Turned me off from ever wanting to relocate to Vancouver.
Maggie,
Thank you for this absurd accusation that something I posted was somehow ‘racist”. Because an outrageous statement like that allows me the opportunity to not only deny it, but to repost links to both my post and the subject (non racist) documentary. Hopefully that allows more people to see it, and make up their own minds.
— My HHV Post: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/01/04/december-steady-market-wraps-up-the-year/#comment-133242
— The Documentary (that Maggie doesn’t want you to see) https://youtu.be/TSRn8BzpvLcn
Doesn’t matter, still come down to demand. If there’s only 10 SFH for sale but only demand for 5 then what do you think happens to prices? You are not going to be able to really increase the supply for SFH in the core so it’s only demand that will move the needle.
Just to give you some numbers
20 years ago in BC we were building approximately 15,000 SFHs and 25,000 other (townhomes, condo/apartment, etc).
Last year (2025) in BC we built 5,500 SFHs and 41,000 other.
This year (2026) I am going to do a wild guess and say 4,000 SFHs and 35,000 other.
Doesn’t even account for SFHs that were torn down (I am guessing way SFHs torn down last year than 20 years ago).
It’s fairly simple numbers, long term SFHs are going to be very expensive imo.
and I don’t think the problem can be corrected. The exact same people complaining that they can’t buy a SFH to raise their family in are the exact same people that are opposed to clear cutting and in favor of regulations that have lead to a complete collapse in SFH construction.
The problem is with SFH construction trending down the last 50 years and now essentially completely collapsing (further compounded by SFHs being removed to make way for missing middle) means a small and smaller % of overall housing inventory is SFH.
If 50% of available housing inventory is SFHs then a SFH is going to be a lot more affordable in relation to incomes than if 5% of housing inventory is SFH.
Lmao racist? Gtfo, they better start digging soon. What the woke left don’t understand is that most of the Asian (East and South) immigrants in BC have had enough with all this reconciliation b.s., and they are a major voting block in BC.
Patrick’s deep concern for young families is touching. If my tears ever abate, I may forget that only a few weeks ago he was promoting racist documentaries on YouTube. Watching a flower bloom like this engenders hope and inspiration for all who embrace the human spirit.
Demand is not the cause of SFH becoming more expensive?? Lol what is then?
>> Sorry are you trying to argue that $1.2M isn’t more affordable than $3M?
No. The $3m is just a made up comparison/number on your part, and no one but you is referring to it. I was responding you describing affordability as “affordable to the average family”. Specifically you said “ decades long trend of single family becoming less and less affordable to the average family. “. And in that context, a $1.2 m strata townhouse isn’t affordable… period.
Yet here we have you describing a $1.2m townhouse as a “win for affordability” . Really? Two years ago, when you were promoting the great things that could happen with missing middle, were you really thinking how great it would be to see a “$1.2 million townhouse” ??
There is now a substantial price gap between condominiums and single‑family homes in the core. Last year, the median condo sold for about $545,000, while the average SFD was roughly $1,268,600. Those are citywide figures, but for couples hoping to stay in above‑average neighbourhoods—or closer to waterfront, parks, and other amenities—the gap is often even larger.
For most young households trying to move up the property ladder and remain in the city, that next step requires taking on significantly more debt. Housing is the largest fixed cost in a family’s life, and when the “move‑up” rung demands a $700,000 leap, many couples delay having children and overall sales activity slows.
These are averages, of course. Some couples earn well above the median and are shopping in higher‑income areas. But for the typical buyer, the distance between entry‑level ownership and a family‑sized home has widened to the point where it shapes both life decisions and market behaviour.
Sorry are you trying to argue that $1.2M isn’t more affordable than $3M?
There’s older townhouses available in Gordon head for $700k. If we build new townhouses today we get older townhouses tomorrow.
Real simple stuff
Population growth literally negative right now.
Also this trend has been consistent for 65 years. Immigration is not the cause of it. If we go back to the same 1% growth we’ve been at for decades it will continue just the same
Don’t agree, that’s a demand side lever and reducing immigration is huge.
I am more surprised that someone would pay $3M for a SFH on ash road lol.
Hopefully they will motivate them to work harder and make more money so they can get a SFH…..
I’ve brought this up many times and you’ve given a perfect example.
3 – 1559 Ash Rd townhome: $1,175,000 asking price.
3 bed, 4 bath, 1,990 sq.ft. (realistically a family of four can live in it).
1547 Ash Rd (adjacent SFH) sold for $2,900,000
4 bed, 4 bath, 3,370 sq.ft.
Pretty much as I noted earlier in the thread a missing middle product that can accommodate a family of four is generally 1/2 the price of a brand new SFH in the same area.
I do think there is still an opportunity (for the next 2 to 5 years) for first time buyers to buy entry level homes under 900k, just not on big lots.
100%, people are really focusing on the completely wrong things when it comes to forcing seniors out of large SFHs or being against missing middle because teardowns are being replaced by missing middle. If there was no missing middle eventually the teardowns would be replaced by large SFHs for the 2%ers.
Comparing a brand new house vs. a brand new townhouse re. cost is not really useful. Affordability is qualification based, not unit based. So the best thing to compare would be whatever is available at 1.2 million. Right now that would be comparing a brand new townhouse to an older SFH.
FWIW the housing market is becoming more affordable due to poor market conditions. So I guess there is that.
In terms of how to make things more affordable, I think that means density increases plus faster permitting and a lot more coops or non-profit housing would also help. I’m just not sure increasing density everywhere is the answer. Might be better to zone it near transit and amenities within each municipality and allow the municipality to do this provided it is a certain %. I think it is okay to keep some SFH with suites zones for the long term.
Well at least we agree that missing middle is a badly done half measure. They should have had requirements for affordability, as Condon recommended. And to me, the $1.2m Ash townhouse isn’t an example of affordability “because it’s new.” For average family, it’s simply unaffordable.
What if the normal families want a cheaper old SFH, and don’t want to pay ~$1m for a new unit ina 4-plex, with minimal parking/green space ?
Why do you love the idea that we’re removing the stock of older affordable SFH by tearing them down, so that the only option for the “normal family” is to pay big bucks for one of these “new” units. Seems like we’re removing the lowest rung on the SFH ladder, so that families need to forget about their SFH dreams.
It’s the perfect reason. Previously only someone that can pay $3M for a house could have a new home in Gordon Head.
Now 4 normal families can outbid that rich person for the same lot to have homes there
That’s a good thing and a win for affordability.
Thats no reason to ACCELERATE the demise of SFH affordability, by upzoning so that missing middle developers can outbid would-be FTB looking to buy low priced starter SFH.
As prof. Condon has found from his studies on the topic. All this upzoning does is increase land prices, so that the homeowners end up paying just as much for a “unit” as they would have previously for a SFH.
Brutal development
Yes, but there’s absolutely nothing that can be done about the decades long trend of single family becoming less and less affordable to the average family. You might as well say it sucks that gravity exists.
So what do we do, just accept that the large majority of families won’t be able to ever get a house (essentially already true) or think of a different way to build housing for people that’s more affordable but still suitable for families?
As for the price of new townhouses, people always make the mistake of comparing new to used. Yes a brand new townhouse is often the same price as an old house. But like for like the townhouses are substantially cheaper.
The 3 lots on ash are a good example of how missing middle can allow a totally different bracket to access a neighborhood. Before missing middle the two lots were rebuilt into single family, selling at just under $3M each. After missing middle there’s 4 new homes at $1.2M on one lot. Obviously those homes are less than the $3M detached but it’s within reach of a lot more people while $3M is just for the top 5%.
Do nothing and every single family neighbourhood trends towards only for the 5% while everyone else has to go in an apartment. Missing middle is still a badly done half measure, if they did it properly there’d be a lot more places being built and lots of variety of more affordable housing for families in areas they’re currently already priced out of for good
Lol good luck with the commute in that case.
>>> Take Gordon Head as an example. For years, if you wanted an entry‑level home there, your only choice was a tired 1970s box that needed six figures of updates. Now, for roughly the same price, you can buy a new townhome in the same neighborhood
Right, but what’s new is that now someone wanting to buy the “tired 1970s box” as a starter SFH, could well be competing with missing middle builders, so they end up unable to buy the SFH. Most of the househunters here on HHV are looking for SFH. Now instead of them being able to buy the “tired SFH’, they’re expected to pay the same and settle for a townhouse.
Let’s see how many of our HHV househunters here are actually happy about that -trading their SFH dream for a townhouse crammed onto a small SFH lot. I know that the “density advocates” are happy, but they already own their own SFH, with front/back yards, gardens and garages.
I can see these missing middle units being a good solution for single people or a couple without children. But not for families with kids. BC already has lowest fertility rate in Canada (1.00). We should be building more SFH, by clear cutting and making new neighbourhoods, not tearing down the remaining affordable SFH stock.
Wow, the SFD spring break listings blitz for the core today.
Marko, you’ve got the answer right there. Change the plans from “garage” to a “kayak storage”.
Guaranteed approval.
Yes lefty’s are doing they’re best to excuse the treaty away , but it still sticks if we want it
That is a contested treaty btw so technically not safe. Was shooting the shit with a few big law lawyers in Vancouver that we use and that was their comment.
Well we have the Douglas treaty in Vic so we are safe, sucks to be Van .
Oblio, some readers may assume this condition is new, but it isn’t. It has always been part of the standard Assumptions and Limiting Conditions included in every appraisal report. The only difference here is placement: instead of remaining buried in the back pages, it’s being brought forward where it actually matters.
When an appraisal may be affected by potential land claims, Best Practices is to highlight that risk in the Executive Summary—right where the value conclusion appears. That ensures the reader understands the context before relying on the reported value.
For example, when I appraise waterfront properties where there may be First Nations archeological significance, I don’t leave that buried in the boilerplate. I bring it to the reader’s attention in the Executive Summary. It’s not a new condition; it’s simply responsible reporting.
If there’s a plausible chance of archeological significance—shell middens, cultural artifacts, or known settlement patterns—burying that in the back pages would be a disservice. Flagging it early doesn’t assert that a claim exists; it signals that the valuation is contingent on the absence of such claims and that further investigation may be required. It protects the reader, the client, and the appraiser.
There’s also a subtle but important point here: moving a standard condition forward doesn’t create a new liability. It demonstrates that you’ve exercised due diligence in recognizing assignment-specific risk. Courts and regulators tend to reward that kind of structural honesty.
Bad jobs report today -> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-03-13/canada-jobs-numbers-show-economy-off-to-rough-start-in-2026
but in other news today the federal government has enough money to dish out $5,000 rebates to prop up car sales and profits for a US company -> https://driveteslacanada.ca/model-y/tesla-model-y-rwd-now-eligible-for-canadas-5000-evap-rebate/
Oblio, most people don’t realize that the majority of BC Assessment’s appraisal staff are also members of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. AIC is the professional regulatory body; BC Assessment is simply their employer. The education, accreditation, and ethical standards that govern the profession all flow through AIC, and most assessors earn their credentials through that pathway.
BC Assessment is, in fact, the largest employer of appraisers in the province. So when Allan refers to “1,200 appraisers in BC,” that figure includes BC Assessment staff. And just as a law student ultimately appears before the Law Society, an assessor pursuing their designation must appear before an AIC tribunal. Employment and regulation run in parallel, not in conflict: BC Assessment provides the job, but AIC grants the professional standing.
<Oblio you’re referencing 1,200 BC Assessment empoyees.
Wrongo. It is your business so I thought you’d know the finer details, but I was wrong.
I cited a news story about Allan Beatty, president of the Appraisal Institute of Canada – British Columbia (AIC-BC) which does not represent staff at BC Assessment.
I just can’t wrap my head around complete waste in society, but I guess big picture it is good for business. A huge percentage of my clients are government employed. As much as I dislike BC Housing and the non-sense owner builder exam I’ve represented quite a few people that work for BC Housing. Nice people, can’t blame them for taking a job there. A couple of my condos are rented to government employed individuals, great tenants.
Also, the regulations create for so many creative business opportunities I’ve come across. Like you have consultants now that help you with BP/DP applications as the process has become so ridiculous in many municipalities and is beyond the scope of the designer or architect.
I don’t think missing middle housing is going to make new single‑family homes any cheaper—and that was never really the point. What it does accomplish is restoring an entry option in neighborhoods where the old starter‑home stock has disappeared due to gentrification.
Take Gordon Head as an example. For years, if you wanted an entry‑level home there, your only choice was a tired 1970s box that needed six figures of updates. Now, for roughly the same price, you can buy a new townhome in the same neighborhood. Missing middle isn’t competing with new detached houses; it’s filling the gap between condo ownership and buying a renovated or newly built single‑family home.
In other words, it reintroduces a way for families to buy into established neighborhoods without having to take on a major renovation project or stretch to the full cost of a detached rebuild. It’s about restoring access, not discounting single‑family construction.
>>> I think it will make everything else that isn’t a SFH cheaper though.
I don’t see those cheaper prices coming for any housing types. Vancouver had huge increases in density and that sure didn’t lower prices. I agree with UBC Professor Patrick Condon when he warned the Victoria “missing middle” density advocates that….“ the very worst thing you can possibly do is to upzone for missing middle units without any affordability requirements. If your hope was that new supply would lower costs I guarantee you will be disappointed. Very very disappointed. And land speculators will be laughing all the way to the bank.
https://www.focusonvictoria.ca/issue-analysis/66/
Yes, back in the 1970’s and into the 1980’s you could throw up a Gordon Head box in three months at a fifth of today’s cost. Leave the basement unfinished, except for the entry, and hand toss some grass seed. If you had a landline and a phone book you were a home builder.
A lot of those homes are still standing.
I don’t think anyone is under the illusion that missing middle will make SFH cheaper. I think it will make everything else that isn’t a SFH cheaper though.
I am listing a SFH in Saanich and when I emailed Saanich for the property file on the home they replied right now its a 4 to 6 week turnaround (and you can’t drop in physically anymore to pull the file).
Which begs the question what is the point of all the regulation/documentation when it isn’t readily available to review when needed down the road.
There u go 50 year mortgages makes housing cheaper , if japan can do it so can we
A 50‑year amortization doesn’t make housing more affordable — it just lowers the monthly payment. And once monthly payments drop, buyers can qualify for larger mortgages. With more borrowing power, they bid more for the same homes.
In a supply‑constrained market, that extra capacity doesn’t stay with the buyer. It gets capitalized straight into prices.
So yes, payments go down for a moment. But within six months, prices rise to absorb the new borrowing room, and we’re right back where we started — only with even longer debt tails and no improvement in real affordability.
During Japan’s late‑1980s real estate bubble, lenders rolled out 50‑year and even 100‑year “three‑generation” mortgages.
These loans were explicitly structured so repayment could continue across multiple generations — parents, children, and grandchildren. They were marketed as affordability solutions during a period of explosive land prices.
When the bubble burst in the early 1990s, property values collapsed by 60–80% in Tokyo, contributing to the “Lost Decade.”
https://www.fiftyyearterm.com/articles/basics/japan-multi-generational-mortgages
The appraiser is defining the parameters of the appraisal. The appraiser does not want to be sued five years from now for millions in damages if a land claim issue occurs. The appraiser is making it clear that the value estimate would not apply if a land claim issue surfaces.
This is not evasive; it’s standard professional risk management. An appraiser cannot—and should not—be held liable for future legal events that were outside the assignment’s purpose and outside their expertise.
The moment someone suffers a financial loss, they go hunting for the deepest pockets and the cleanest insurance policy. And in most real‑estate disputes, the appraiser is the only party with a professional liability policy that’s both accessible and well‑defined.
An issue with Greater Victoria is waterfront sites that may have native significance. What makes these files so deceptively tricky is that they look like ordinary residential waterfront assignments, but the moment an Indigenous archaeological site is confirmed—or even suspected—the entire risk profile shifts. You’re no longer valuing a simple fee‑simple cottage on the water; you’re valuing a property whose future use is partially governed by heritage legislation, archaeological permitting, and a regulatory process most buyers barely understand.
That type of appraisal report is well outside the scope of a mortgage assignment.
Successful, it’s what folks keep cheering on. It does create a lot of well paying jobs . It’s the banks job to make homes affordable, maybe 50 year mortgages would help alot
Thursty – I think your philosophy of more taxes and regulation have a lot of supporters throughout the region. We used to build a lot of SFH will little regulation and now we have successfully transitioned to few SFH with lots of expensive regulation. Things are looking very promising for future generations 😉
Marko, ya too funny , but oh well the exam is probably well supported in the general population and not going away . I’m a big supporter of more tax’s and regulation in housing as it’s just good for business
>>> In the last week two of my first time buyers outbid in multiples by builders on entry level houses (builders buying for missing middle projects).
The fourplexes in Saanich priced around $1 mill per unit there is about $800k +/- profit from the numbers I have access to. At $900k per unit that would fall down to $400k +/- but still profitable.
If there is absorption at close to a million then I anticipate land (teardown) prices in the next couple of years will come a bit especially as builders dial in missing middle concepts that work/sell.
———
“Missing middle builders outbidding FTB family SFH owners”…. That reads like some sh*tty news for HHVers here looking for a starter family SFH. Because you may well be losing in a bidding war with missing middle builders. Who will then build 4 units, and you can buy one of them for $900k and be a strata “owner” of 1/4 of the property instead of the whole thing as a starter SFH if you outbid them. With a single parking spot if you’re lucky.
Other than making developers rich/happy, I don’t see this as good news for families looking for a SFH. To all the “density advocates” that have helped make this happen …. “Is this really what you wanted to see, and are you happy now”??
It seems to me that this landslide is showing with private appraisers too:
It took just one sentence in one appraisal this week to illustrate the growing impact of Aboriginal title on private property evaluations in B.C.
“We assume the subject property is not subject to a land claim and they are valued as if unencumbered,” said the relevant passage in an appraisal of a “run of the mill” commercial property near a transit line in Metro Vancouver.
Brad Jones, chief development officer for Wesgroup Properties, posted a screenshot of the “limiting condition” on social media, saying he’d not seen language like that before…He did say there was nothing about it “that would make you think there could be title risk.”
–Vaughn Palmer
Sure you can get rid of the owner builders exam. Then we would be back to what was happening before when spec builders were using this exemption as a loop hole. For some new home buyers that might make the costs lower. Or it may just increase the non licensed spec builder’s profit margin.
Having a non licensed contractor build your home and not having to pay for the cost of the home warranty program might lower your construction costs. But would it lower the re-sale price?
And that answer would be “it depends”. It depends on buyer risk perception, a seller or buyers market, buyer’s lender or insurer flags the property.
I only seen one move at 900k by Glanford.
In a time when SFH starts have completely collapsed not to worry, the government is making sure no one is cheating on the completely useless builder owner exam
Yes around that mark. I am seeing builders pivoting to less desirable locations (cheaper land acquisition) as the sub million product is somewhat moving, the $1.5 Oak Bay product is not moving to date.
Also, Saanich is approving BPs in 2 to 3 months. COV it is a year plus painful process. Oak Bay just changed their process to make it much more difficult going forward.
This is speculation on my part. But I would guess that BC Assessment is having a lot of expensive appeals at the PAAB level due to potential land claims.
When a property has a major latent defect and the magnitude of that defect is unknown, the assessor is forced into a valuation position that is:
-Not observable in the market (because buyers don’t price unknowns cleanly)
-Not reproducible (because any chosen number is arbitrary)
-Not defensible (because the appeal panel can always say “you don’t know the cost, so your adjustment is speculative”)
That’s the death blow at PAAB. The solution to avoid expensive appeals is to legislate the problem away.
Is that assuming land/teardown purchased at <900k?
Thanks for the clarification, it is your business so I suppose you’d know the finer details (in the CHEK / CP article there was no mention of whether they were private of public appraisers…only Allan Beatty, president of the B.C. branch of the Appraisal Institute of Canada).
It sure looks as though the prov gov’t is preparing for the worst in regards to current & future land valuations.
I bought a missing middle lot in the COV last year and finally getting around to the design process. I want to build a small townhome rental project (a fraction of max buildable square footage). I had a designer draw up a site plan with townhomes in the front (frontage would look awesome as the front townhomes would face the street with paths out to the sidewalk and garages would be in the back) and townhomes in the back. I scheduled a meeting with the city and the feedback I get is they don’t like front back townhome concept. Feels “overbuilt, etc.” They don’t like garages, etc.
So I start doing some research and I find a similar concept close by -> https://tender.victoria.ca/webapps/ourcity/Prospero/Details.aspx?folderNumber=DDP01121
You can download the floorplans, basically four townhomes front-back with garages. They don’t like this?
So I start inquiring with a few people about the COV actually wants which leads me to this approved project also very close by -> https://tender.victoria.ca/webapps/ourcity/Prospero/Details.aspx?folderNumber=DDP01118
A large six-plex with parking under the building (city doesn’t like garages for whatever reason like you know people don’t want space to store a kayak or something).
What the city staff want
i/ Complete disaster for the neighbours imo (check out all the windows that will be looking directly into the backyards of neighbours from the third floor)
ii/ Way more expensive to build (requires architect, more consultants, sprinklers, etc.)
iii/ Livability questionable. Third floor 1,500 sq.ft. units with no elevator no garage. What is the target demographic walking up to the third floor to such a large unit?
Wish the COV would just pre-approve some simple designs like what Kelowna has done -> https://www.haeccity.com/wlog/centralane
but apparently they don’t like these pre-approved concepts from Kelowna 🙂
Oblio you’re referencing 1,200 BC Assessment empoyees. BC Assessment and the BC government can legislate how their members value properties in BC. They are invoking a Jurisdictional Exception.
“In appraisal standards, a jurisdictional exception (often discussed alongside the “jurisdictional exception rule”) refers to any law, regulation, or legal requirement that overrides or modifies the normal appraisal standards an appraiser would otherwise be required to follow. When such a law applies, the appraiser must comply with it—even if doing so conflicts with standard appraisal practice.”
-source The Appraisal Institute of Canada
BC Assessment isn’t “ignoring” future land claims out of negligence—they’re required to ignore them because provincial statute overrides normal appraisal standards. BC also legislates how agricultural land is assesssed for taxation.
Too bad the reporters today don’t ask the follow up questions -Why are they not considering future land claims in their assessments? I suspect it is similar to estimating the value of an impaired property with no known costs to remediate.
I think the sale has gone through – any idea what 2148 Lark Cres in Nanaimo went for? Thank you
No didn’t see that one.
In the last week two of my first time buyers outbid in multiples by builders on entry level houses (builders buying for missing middle projects).
The fourplexes in Saanich priced around $1 mill per unit there is about $800k +/- profit from the numbers I have access to. At $900k per unit that would fall down to $400k +/- but still profitable.
If there is absorption at close to a million then I anticipate land (teardown) prices in the next couple of years will come a bit especially as builders dial in missing middle concepts that work/sell.
Strong quick $2M sale at 4758 amblewood. 150k above ask and 300k above assessment. @mark did your clients look at that one?
…and here is one for Groot, related to the same underlying problem:
An organization representing about 1,200 appraisers in British Columbia says some of its members are adding clauses to their reports noting that current, past, and potential future land claims have not been considered in their valuations.
-CHEK
Probably unrelated, but an issue of “update breaking…” could be an example of AI-assisted programming tools breaking something in the comment plugin update. The issue of AI-assisted updates to software breaking things has been big news in software world recently, especially when publicized by Amazon. Lots of companies are seeing problems with AI-written software, especially when it’s integrated into complex platforms where it is breaking previously working functions. While AI can be great at generating new programs from scratch, it seems to cause problems when trying to fix bugs in existing complex software.
As Amazon is discovering and warning about. https://www.fintechweekly.com/news/amazon-ai-coding-outage-review
Including a cryptic warning from Elon to “proceed with caution”
Similar issues are being seen in medical, legal or financial AI systems, where they are failing on complex problems where they don’t consider the full context of the problem.
Sorry, comment plugin update broke comments. Try now.
The talk on my private blogs is the “K” economy.
It’s a way economists describe unequal recoveries or growth phases in which higher‑income or asset‑owning groups advance while lower‑income or financially vulnerable groups stagnate or decline. Far more visible in Vancouver and Toronto than in most North American cities. These two metros are almost textbook illustrations of what a K‑shaped trajectory looks like when housing, wages, and asset ownership pull different groups in opposite directions.
I wouldn’t say that is your average new build.
This makes sense. A lot “with no quirks” +teardown costs is likely close to $1 million, and then building a nice new house and a profit margin is going to get the sale price up to $2 m +. Most new SFH lower than that would have “quirks” or undesirable location.
Never mind, I looked it up, I don’t need one.
What’s “zero-edge”? Never heard of it. Do I need that? I feel left out.
Wow that looks expensive for what you’re getting? Small house, and the lot looks like there wouldn’t be much of a yard? But I guess not a lot of comps for this product.
8 year old SFH on Shakespeare Street (Oaklands) sold today for $2.2 million. Anything in a half decent area, newer, decent build, reasonable lot, is going to be around $2 million and up at the end of the day.
Of course if you go Tillicum, smaller lot, smaller house, etc., there are a few homes under $2 million such as https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29298519/220-kamloops-ave-saanich-tillicum.
but than again there are brand new townhomes under 800k as well in the core which would yet again be 1/2 the price of the $1.6 SFH.
Speaking of downsize options for seniors, 2 bed rancher in Oak Bay -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29380373/587-oliver-st-oak-bay-south-oak-bay
Looking over some pre-approved missing middle plans that Kelowna has in place, we really could use this in Victoria to speed up the process.
https://www.haeccity.com/wlog/centralane
Nan, I agree we need more Canadian born babies. However, if we don’t have them, we will need to have immigration to make up the shortfall, but hopefully in a more thought-out, constructive and skills based approach that incorporates housing needs, etc. Not sure exactly what you mean with respect to what our grandparents fought for in the war. My uncles, the sons of immigrants, fought for freedom, democracy and human rights, etc. Having parents who were immigrants, they certainly didn’t fight to end immigration.
Nan, meh not too fussed. Canadas population is much too small for the size of our country . If folks aren’t wanting to have a family then pumping the country with immigrants is a great way to grow the economy . Pump the economy and we all make money
Here’s one for Marco and his beef with the BC Assessment folks.
A short amendment to assessment law that could have the effect of protecting property tax revenues from drops in market value is included in Bill 2, the Budget Measures Implementation Act…
It states that the B.C. Assessment Authority, which sets the taxable value of all property, is “not required to consider any restriction” placed on the use of land by any entity other than the Crown or local governments…Any restrictions arising from concerns about land claims would lower values. But the amendment would allow assessors to ignore them…
MLA Gavin Dew is questioning whether assessed values on lands where Aboriginal claims are a concern would be “artificially propped up” — along with taxation rates.
-Les Lyene
500k discount for pan handle? I don’t think so, especially not that one, most likely the high voltage powerlines causing the discount but even without those a new house there is not going to sell for around $2M. There is also this one that is trying to get a bid forever. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29421784/146-cadillac-ave-saanich-gateway#view=neighbourhood.
You are probably thinking of new build houses in gordon head or lakehill maybe getting close to 2 million, those will likely need a garden suite in addition to a basement suite to get to $2M or else it will be 1.7M 1.8M ish at most.
Pan handle. There isn’t much under $2 million new that doesn’t have a quirk too it.
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134415
Except that you replace Canada with culture from somewhere else. You know…the very thing your grand parents went to war to defend.
and the main reason immigrants come here in the first place. Canada has a culture no matter what that moron Trudeau said and paid the CBC to tell Canadians.
In case you haven’t noticed, Canada has gone from “free healthcare” to no healthcare in about 5 years…load balancing is important in advanced economies. You can’t just immigrate your way out of bad policy without consequences and having things break.
Do not trivialize and minimize immigration as a substitute for Canadian born Canadians. Immigration is like water – necessary for life in many ways in Canada but too much and the country drowns like it is now.
Canada needs more Canadian babies. More than it needs useless dependents, scammers and criminals from foreign countries and especially before anymore gets spent on boomers.
Think so? There is a new build on regular lot in glanford that just sold for 1.5.
4240 Springridge Cres, Saanich, British Columbia V8Z4Y8 For Sale | HouseSigma https://housesigma.com/bc/saanich-real-estate/4240-springridge-cres/home/ZEXrx301oRDYOklN?id_listing=DO1w3W19Mvjy8Jg0&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user-share&utm_medium=android&ign=
Flip side a new SFH in these neighborhoods is approaching $2 million (if on regular sized lot) and the SFH is going to typically accommodate the same size of a family (i.e. a family of four can live in a three bed 1,500 sq.ft. and a four bed 2,800 sq.ft. home).
I think the sub $1 million (with parking) in the core might move, but the $1.5 million Oak Bay missing middle appears to be hitting resistance for now.
Effectively $1m for 1500 sqft of vertical 3 level living in neighborhoods where $1.2m will buy a decent suited SFH.
Seems like every day there are multiple brand new missing middle projects listed for sale
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29453289/318-bella-st-victoria-victoria-west
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29450489/2-621-broadway-st-saanich-glanford
That is why I am not dumping my rental properties, quite yet. We will need immigration going forward to sustain the economy.
Easy fix for fertility rate is immigration. No need for young couples to have kids when we can import them and they are much more beneficial to the economy, win win
IMO the $1M to $1.5M and $1.5M to $2M price tiers will result in the most substantial difference on the quality of the house you get. Above 2 million it really drops off as the next tier starts at $3M for ones water views.
I think there is decent demand for houses on nice lots in diserable neighborhoods at around the $2M mark. Whether it is buying something in the $1.5M range and then doing a substantial reno or buying something ready to go closer to $2M. The woodburn one looks like it will be immune to missing middle for many years given the condition of the homes around it so the new owners can enjoy that nice backyard worry free.
As I noted, I am against property tax deferrals; however, I really think seniors living in a four bedroom house is crawling up the wrong tree, imo. Won’t there literally always be seniors living in a four bedroom home especially now that kids growing up in SFHs won’t be able to afford much and will be more likely to stay at home longer? (combine that with people having children later in life so if their 30 year old is still with them they are already late 60s/early 70s).
The numbers don’t lie -> https://www.bchousing.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/New-Homes-Registry-Report-January-2026.pdf
20 years ago we were building 15,000 SFHs/year +/- in BC. This year will be down to 4,000 SFHs +/-.
and every single year as you note just more crap such as hand demolition or tree protection bylaws are piled on to further drive the nail into the coffin of SFHs.
This is another idiotic policy introduced just a year ago adding another 10k to construction for no reason -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwe23DJLJ8M
Re-disturbing (aka forcing seniors out of their homes) does not address the fundamental problem of a complete collapse of SFH construction.
The same people that will complain about lack of a SFH affordability to raise their family will protest clear cutting from Langford to Sooke to make way for SFHs. There is no winning imo.
I showed clients that one and that was a nice property for sure! Interestingly enough when I review pending sales every day including today there are quite a few sales I showed with potential interest from my clients (or we lost out in multiple offers). A few of the pending sales from today I went to book showings on already had accepted offers at the time of my request and you end up with this lens of the market is busier than it actually is. Reality is buyers are focusing in on the nice properties that are well priced and simply do not bother with the other couple of thousand of listings.
Also, difficult to explain to buyers. The market is slow, but most properties they end up actually being interested in sell relatively quickly sometimes in multiples.
I think the metric that is most important to track is fertility rate per woman. BC is down to 1. That means half the population in the next generation, 1/4 the next and then 1/8 the next. It is serious. Affordability plays a large role and as Nan has pointed out 1 senior living in a four bedroom house while young couples live in small condos is not good for our society. Not all choices will effect fertility rates, but any that do should be looked at hard. Does the ALR make it more affordable for young couples to live in a house where they might have more children? No… then toss it. Does a high means test for OAS help the younger generation? No… then lower the means test. Same with deferred property taxes. Basically most government spending and policies should be focused on this key number. Does hand demolition or tree protection bylaws make for cheaper housing? No… then get rid of them. Ever heard of Shaker Furniture? Made by Shakers, a religious group that followed abstinence and no children. They are now extinct. Children matter more than any tree or luxury or bike lane. A healthy society would be far closer to the replacement rate of 2.1
3198 Woodburn looks like pretty good value transacting at 1.885.
150 years ago many people were self sufficient and did not rely on government assistance, which didn’t exist. Diabetes was a death sentence, clean drinking water was rare, obstetrics was rarely available, hygiene a luxury, life was tough. These same conditions exist in many parts of the world, a couple billion people struggle today in primitive conditions.
Living in a mortgage free house that you’ve maintained is far more affordable than any alternative. Even a depressing one bedroom apartment with an unreliable elevator exceeds staying put. One thing you should learn about seniors, we don’t really like hanging out with other seniors, it’s depressing.
The world is objectively better, but subjectively worse.
e.g. 150 years ago, most lived in poverty, half of children would die before age 5, life expectancy worldwide was 35. All that is much better now, but people can always find new things to complain about.
Don’t need to be old to be grumpy , lots of young folks flying off the handle everyday lol
I’m supportive of tax deferral under the new terms. It’s still there for those that need it and still more advantageous than things like reverse mortgages. But it’s no longer a ridiculous subsidy.
🙂
I endorse this statement. I’m fighting hard to avoid becoming a grumpy old man.
@Nan, if you think that the concept of “Aging in place” is stupid and that property taxes for seniors should actually be increased, extend your ‘logic’ further and what pathways will you find? Where do you think folks are going to go? Are you aware of the shortage of reasonably priced assisted living and LTC homes? What are the alternatives?
Yup, beautiful house on a beautiful lot in a diserable neighborhood will always be in demand regardless of market provided it’s not too much more than 2 million. Once you get above 2.5 million, things get slow in Victoria unless it’s nice ocean views.
Uhhh you said smaller renovated and unrenovated houses in south oak bay trade at the same price, which is false.
I agree, if property taxes are going to be an issue for you in retirement plan ahead and buy a home with a suite.
To what thought? Land development has been made so insanely expensive all that is being built is very vertical. Very few one level ranchers/rancher style townhomes are being built these days. A couple of newer ranchers (under 2,000 sq.ft.) in Oak Bay have hit $3 million due to lack of supply.
Retirement residences super expensive.
Force the elderly into tiny condos?
Not sure the impact would be this profound.
Also, SFH starts are down 70% in BC compared to 20 years ago (and will only continue to drop). You can only re-distribute limited supply so much.
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2026/03/02/february-sluggish-market-continues/#comment-134321
OAS and Property tax deferral are both nuts.
The OAS as you pointed out is barely income tested at all and billions come from the pockets of struggling young people with income and no assets and into the pockets of income “poor” asset rich old people with accountants gaming the system to maximize their “take”. A typical hate the game not the player situation, the entire OAS game needs new income testing rules to make sure that the old benefitting from the program need money more than the people paying for it it. Assuming incomes are the same as they were in 2010, the ratio of workers to recipients in 2010 was 4.5:1. Today you have a 50% reduction in workers to support, where the ratio has dropped to 3:1. This means that for each person working, they bearing the weight of 50% more retirement income than just 15 years ago and getting less in service from their tax dollar as a result. The right way to fix this is in fairness for the taxpaper and limiting OAS in the budget to a fixed multiple of taxpayers. If that was 4.5 and that was the right number, it would still be 4.5 and OAS entitlements would have been cut already. Don’t like it? You should have saved more, voted for productivity to increase incomes or had more kids but it’s not my job to pay for your bad decisions. It’s the entitlements that need to be cut not destroying the country with millions of low skilled low IQ immigrants to pro up unaffordable political promises.
The property tax deferral has also been a hot topic – generally, I believe this is just as crazy. It was good to see the NDP amidst a tsunami of some of the stupidest policy I have ever seen at least remove a lot of the unfairness from this program. Probably by accident but I digress. Generally, if you can’t afford your property taxes, sell the house. I would even go as far as saying INCREASING property taxes for underutilized properties is in the publics best interest. The concept of “Aging in place” is a stupid concept that makes zero sense in a housing shortage.
“Yes – lets pay old people to live in 4 bed houses by themselves while family formation is plummeting partially because most couples can’t afford enough space to start a family in”
THIS IS INSANITY.
Live in the right sized house and sell your huge house so that young people can raise families in it. If you want all that space for Christmas once year or whatever, (instead of at your kids where you should be), pay higher taxes for the priviledge of overconsuming the rest of the year so government can build more family housing. There is some room for a needs tested property tax deferral for low income seniors but generally, I would prefer to see people who struggle to pay the taxes for more housing than they need simply forced to sell and move to more appropriate housing that could then be supported by property tax deferral if income testing supports it rather than allowing anyone over 55 to reduce their property carrying costs to effectively zero and overconsume housing for free for decades while families struggle in tiny condos.
I would wager that this policy would ultimately be well received by elderly overtime anyway, incentivizing investment away from assets that cost money to those that earn income and most likely reducing the pressure for the OAS to pay for things that no longer need paying for. Right now, the elderly have a disincentive to sell and incentive to stay house poor with almost all their wealth is trapped in property, allowing Kurt Browning to make a mint selling all these folks reverse mortgages, which are also terrible for them. Make holding too much housing a bad financial decision just by levelling the playing field and they won’t do it anymore. While the elderly cut their costs and reallocate assets to the correct things, simple supply and demand would also dictate that prices will come down as hundreds of thousands of houses will move to the market, helping families afford housing and have more kids.
That is exactly why restrictive covenants exist in certain neighborhoods. The developers had foresight.
The problem is we swung from one extreme where people in Oak Bay were protesting small buildings on Oak Bay Ave (took 10 years to rezone one such example) to multiplexes with large massing automatically allowed on residential lots. Common sense thing to do would have been don’t protest the common sense stuff like a small buildings on a street already lined with apartments and commercial, and a blanket rezone 10 yeard ago all lots to allow for two level duplexes. Probably would have averted missing middle legislation.
Yep nothing bad about change , but there’s lots of shitty builders and shitty architects that build lots of crappy stuff. Build something beautiful and people will luv it.
Victoria Real Estate Board
March 9, 2026
Month Mar Mar
Year 2026 2025
New Unconditional Sales 141 613
New Listings 406 1,486
Active Listing 2,995 3,024
Same sales pace as last year so I am predicting around 600 sales +/- for the month and approximately 3,300 active listings to finish the month.
I don’t disagree that things will change. However, OB has operated with really restrictive zoning for about 100 years. Councils were elected and re-elected on an anti-development platform. I don’t think that the provincial move on missing middle was necessarily foreseeable – I didn’t expect it.
Main point is that people get very cranky when they’ve invested their life savings into a neighourhood and put down roots and then a triplex goes up next door looking directly into their windows and back yard. I think that is an understandable reaction. Change is hard and gets harder as you age.
Living an a city/region with population of 350,000 that literally didn’t exist 200 years ago the assumption that things won’t change is not reasonable
VicReanalyst, you should stop your early‑morning rants. If you reread my comment, I’m agreeing with you.
As single‑family lots become a smaller share of the total housing stock, the remaining ones appreciate because they’re now a rarer, protected typology.
The Uplands is a good example. The land is the luxury product. The older, obsolete structures are not — which is why they’re being demolished and replaced.
In housing economics, “luxury” doesn’t mean marble countertops. It means a good whose demand is relatively insensitive to price defined by low demand elasticty. It isn’t a necessity that is bought for its utility but for the prestige it brings.
The older houses in Uplands if they were in a middle income neighborhood would still have utility and possibly be renovated. However these older obsolete houses in Uplands are more often demolished as they are not luxury structures. The land is.
Welcome to missing middle.
Def not the end of the world. But also a seismic shift for neighbours in these areas to the negative.
While you don’t own a view or right to privacy from a new build, the old zoning would have prevented it and people bought thinking that would continue.
I personally don’t mind living in a more dense area, prefer the walkability of semi-urban, but a sense of privacy in yards is something a lot of people dislike and will pay more to get. Hedges take a long time to grow in and in some cases there is no privacy measure that can be done other than cover the windows.
Are you smoking crack?
All missing middle will do is put upwards pressure on SFH. Real estate prices sky rocketing is much more of a demand issue than a supply issue. Look at the pace of price appreciation once demand waned starting fall of 2022. I would hate to be a missing middle owner trying to sell in another down market in the future, it won’t be pretty.
Neighbours are gonna have to have blinds and hedges, like some sort of peasants.
Welcome to missing middle.
Looks like cashing out of the market could prove to be the right call.
They will need some pretty damn tall laurels or cedars. This will just further drive up prices for houses that are largely immune from missing middle developments.
An interesting design for the half‑duplex homes on Island Road—positioned at the lower end of the detached price spectrum for the neighborhood. The exterior presents as intentionally austere, while the interiors show a level of customization that exceeds what the mass‑market duplex stock typically offers.
When a markedly different architectural form enters a neighborhood dominated by turn‑of‑the‑century homes, the appraisal question becomes one of market adoption. Early iterations tend to function as visual outliers, and paired‑sales evidence is thin because buyer acceptance is still forming. Exposure times may lengthen, and adjustments for design variance are harder to support.
As additional projects appear, however, the market’s frame of reference expands. The design language becomes more familiar, comparable inventory increases, and the discount—or premium—associated with contrast begins to stabilize. This is known as a neighborhood in transition.
For owners of the smaller turn‑of‑the‑century homes in this neighborhood, most of the property’s value now sits in the land rather than in the house itself. As the area transitions toward higher‑density and more contemporary development, buyers are increasingly evaluating these properties for what can be built, not for the existing improvements.
Because of that shift, a small older home that has had some updates over the years—newer kitchen, refreshed bathrooms—often sells for a similar price to one that hasn’t been upgraded. The market is placing far more weight on lot size, zoning, and redevelopment potential than on the condition or finish level of the dwelling.
Yes, the neighbours directly adjacent are highly impacted. And the new homes are going to need window coverings. Welcome to missing middle. Time to plant some laurels or cedars.
Less visible from the street but likely looking directly into their backyard.
I think the new owners will enjoy the design. Nice to have modern convenience, off street parking, some yard, and 3 beds at that price point in oak bay. Plus being in the back makes it less visible to neighbours who want no change.
It is fascinating how robotics and sophisticated machinery (manufactured in Germany and Japan) can make us look “productive”. Remember how our manufacturing sector was devastated in the early 90’s when free trade was enacted. The government had to create the GST (great screwed twice) tax to replace the manufacturing tax. Furniture, clothing, etc.. factories were shuttered putting thousands out of work. I wonder why Apple does not produce one product in Canada given our lower dollar and health care system, eliminating the need for expensive medical insurance plans for employees.
Canada Unemployment (6.5%) isn’t high. More of the population are working in Canada (58.5%) than USA (57.6%) .
Canada has a high labour participation rate (65%). That’s 3% higher than the USA (62%). That’s one reason to explain why Canada’s unemployment rate (6.5%) is 2.1% higher than the USA (4.4%). Which means that actually a greater percent of the Canada population is working (58.5%) compared to USA (57.6%). Canada’s labour participation rate is high because of our population growth by immigration. Immigrants are average age 29 and most are part of the work force.
In any event Canada’s unemployment rate at 6.5% doesn’t say anything about our manufacturing output. For that, look to manufacturing output data, which I’ve done in the chart posted. And Canada manufacturing is quite high, especially per capita.
A lot of creative missing middle ideas hitting the market every week. This is an interesting one in Oak Bay. Developer bought an old home on a 8,100 sq.ft. home. Kept the old home and added a duplex in the back and now it’s a three lot strata (the third one being the original old home in the front).
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29441599/2-920-island-rd-oak-bay-south-oak-bay
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29441663/1-920-island-rd-oak-bay-south-oak-bay
One of many issues. Last year I had a tenant give me notice on the 4th of a month that she was breaking a lease (6 months left) and vacating on the 15th as she secured a job in Calgary (so not enough notice even if she was month-to-month). I said I would work with her and sign a mutually end to tenancy for the 15th and give her 1/2 the damage deposit back and she didn’t think that was fair as she had paid for the entire month already. The fact that she wasn’t upholding her end of the lease agreement and I had to scramble to try to find a tenant for the 1st was completely irrelevant.
I don’t understand the point of leases anymore for landlords. Tenant can pretty much leave whenever they want and I mean sure you can go after them but it’s a process; however, on the flipside tenant just continues after the lease ends if they wish. Rents drop, tenant can bail with 30 days’ notice and find a cheaper place (fair enough), rents go up and as a landlord you are are capped. Etc.
I’m back.
If Canada is so industrious, why do we have a 7% unemployment rate?
Sweet deal coming down the pipe for government professionals (PEA). Not much commitment to saving money with this government.
“We produce nothing”
Yah right.
Per capita, Canada manufactures more than China. As can be seen on the attached chart. China manufactures 25X what Canada does, but their population is 35X Canada. So we manufacture 35/25=1.4X what China does per capita. At least that was true in 2019, as recent data isn’t readily available. It’s likely lower now.. Note that Canada is # 15 worldwide out of 185 countries (contradicting your belief that ”we produce nothing”) and EVERY country above Canada has a MUCH higher population. So we actually manufacture a lot for a country our size.
.
Here’s the chart with the numbers…
Top Countries in Manufacturing – World Bank
https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/manufacturing-value-added-world-bank
Most important lesson here is that just like any other investment, no one ever went broke selling for a profit. Should have just took his $200k gain the following year.
He made a rational choice. High vacancy rates making it difficult to find a good tenant is a big thing – biggest issue for a landlord most often.
Great that he has RSP room to set off the gain. And then putting the money into a bigger primary residence makes sense – it is the only thing not under attack – yet. He was fortunate he did not lose any capital. Being a realtor he hopefully saved the seller transaction costs.
However, if you are looking to buy now is much better than it has been for years.
Yup, two ships arrived in Halifax this week and one arriving next week and all being sold without EV rebates!
Also, Tesla has pulled their US built Model 3 inventory off their website this week -> https://electrek.co/2026/03/06/tesla-sends-canadian-model-3-inventory-us-expects-chinese-evs/
Real Estate Agent out of Surrey with a popular YT channel shares why he just sold his rental condo -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUsbHmNTgvA
Worth a watch. Appears everyone is running for the exists right now.
Yep Canadian business got very lazy and we lost our mojo. The U.S was such a easy and convenient market , im happy we are being pushed out of our comfort zone
apparently Canada produces/assembles about 1.4 million vehicles a year, it’s just that our strategy has tied us to the apron strings of the US. Which works until it doesn’t, I guess…
Those Teslas are probably made in Germany. A country that also manufactures Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, etc.. Just shows how pathetic Canada’s manufacturing sector is. We produce nothing compared to countries that are much smaller with fewer resource materials.
I thought they would be asking higher….
I think it’s a bit more complicated than this in my opinion. Let’s say you have nurse “A” who graduates and gets a job on the ward working your standard 4 twelve hours shifts, 5 days off and then you have nurse “B” who graduates and starts taking extra courses and moves up to the ICU and is picking up overtime on his or her 5 days off to drive up his or her income to $110-$150k range. In that income tax bracket he or she would be paying more taxes than nurse “A” and providing a tangible benefit to society staffing ICU. All of a sudden he or she has should pay GST on a $619,900 brand new because nurse “A” can only buy a $500k re-sale townhome?
We aren’t talking $3 million dollar purchase here (which already has PTT of 5%, etc.).
EV subsidy are just plain stupidity. I’ve been saying this since I bought my first Tesla in 2015. There is plenty of demand as the product is so good, the online Tesla forums are full of people complaining about the delays on delivery for their 75k+tax (no EV rebates) Model Y performance -> https://www.reddit.com/r/teslacanada/comments/1rlgjyd/myp_edd_change_this_morning/
I think every ship docking in Halifax right now full of Tesla’s is spoken for and we are talking 1,000s on each ship.
Gee I wonder why family size is shrinking in Canada?
In the US you get to deduct your mortgage interest for your income taxes
Most people that drive through Gordon Head will be familiar with this new missing middle project that has hit the market -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29428416/1-1559-ash-rd-saanich-gordon-head
If the wealthy were taxed more, who says it would find its way to the less fortunate. The government would just spend more money on themselves. Best to leave more money in the hands of people who earned it so they can keep it circulating in the economy.
The easiest way to not subsidize the “high income” people is to income test before giving the GST rebate. Similarly, to not subsidize “wealthy” people, cap the principal residence capital gains exemption – in the US, the cap is $250,000 to $500,000 (single/married).
Gifts from parents is a different story. In the US, IRS allows only $19,-000 per year. In Canada, it’s entirely tax free.
In Canada, lottery & casino winnings are entirely tax free but in the US, they are taxed to the full extent.
Canada seems to reward many unproductive activities with tax incentives, which in part, encourages money laundering.
P.s. I didn’t say nurses were not well compensated. I was just pointing out that a newly graduated single nurse at the lowest pay grade who had student loans and other life expenses, without family help, would need quite a few years to save for that downpayment. And, even so, i would still question whether they should be subsidized to buy a new home. O.K. really done now. 🙂
We’ve all got the anecdotal stories. All the noise and debate aside, my main point is that if they are able to save it that easily, why are we subsidizing them? Just like the electric vehicle subsidy, my guess is that those with that amount of income would probably buy the new place with or without GST. But, I feel like we’re beating a deadhorse so on to other musings for me.
“Did 2926 Colquitz actually sell? It was on the market for about 3 months for 1 million. Always shook my head when I walked by. I mean it’s a nice area but that house looked like a tear down.”
Listing expired yesterday.
I’d say it’s definitely not rare for millennial couples in Victoria to achieve 200k HHI. Just like everything else, only the real sob stories are publicized while everyone else is busy working and living life.
Yeah, I’m not too sure what Arbutus is talking about. My wife (a nurse) and I are millennials and we were both fairly easily able to save enough for a downpayment for a place in Victoria. Nurses are very well compensated. I often time hear these stories and I always wonder what sacrifices, if any, are people willing to make to save $.
I’d say that is more than comfortable in a one bed apartment…. likely taking home 8k a month after taxes and pension deductions so with 2k rent and 2k other spend a month (which is living pretty comfortable for a single person) they should be able to save close to 50k a year assuming no other debts or bad habits…
Our income tax system, at least, is highly progressive – apparently the top 20% of earners pay about 2/3 of all personal income taxes, while bottom 20% apparently pay less than 1%. On the whole, if that’s true, I think it pretty much swamps the argument that those who have plenty aren’t doing enough. And I think if we keep focusing on wealth re-distribution more than badly-needed productivity increases, we create a sort of morass that makes it harder for everyone eventually. I also think ‘eventually’ is kind of now. So my bias is that I have an aversion to that kind of thinking.
I also don’t really see much wrong with an incentive for new housing starts.
All that said, there’s at least one area of tax incentivization of those who have plenty where I agree with you. And that is OAS. Old Age Security payments apparently are one of our biggest, and still growing, federal budget line item, swamping a lot of other spending. The crazy thing about it is that the clawback of OAS for high-income earners doesn’t start until about $90k+ and the OAS isn’t fully clawed back until about $150k or so. And that’s per person – think about how much you could earn as a couple and still not have this OAS fully clawed back. And financial blogs are full of nice advice on how to optimize your portfolio to create wealth while skating within these OAS clawback threshholds.
It’s nuts. I think we could reasonably (i) adjust the clawback threshholds to be much lower, (ii) dedicate say half the savings to roll into GIS so that only the actually needy seniors get subsidized, and (iii) use the other half of savings for other social programs like housing or health care or whatever. I say all that even though I’m a senior. And yet the gov’t keeps enhancing the OAS, all this while demographics are only increasing the problem.
Did 2926 Colquitz actually sell? It was on the market for about 3 months for 1 million. Always shook my head when I walked by. I mean it’s a nice area but that house looked like a tear down.
Anyone know?
—- Next tax target in BC will likely be asking the middle class for more money. BC has the lowest tax rate (7.7%) for middle class incomes ($50-$100k) in Canada . All other provinces are higher, ranging from Ontario (9.15%) to Quebec (19%).
—- In contrast, the BC fed+prov marginal tax rate for the “rich” ( highest income earners) is 53.5%, close to the highest of any province (Newfoundland is highest at 54.8%).
I am afraid this is just a cop out for those unwilling to put in the work to achieve some level of financial success.
Well, you need the out of box thinking when common sense like reducing spending simply doesn’t work.
Those who can’t buy a $619,900 brand new townhome without GST probably can’t buy the $550,000 older townhome with higher strata fees and risk of special assessments.
Also, what are we equalizing? They removed GST from new builds for first time buyers and there is no GST on re-sale units and it’s not like sales taxes don’t automatically apply on used product. Just look at used cars in BC, you have the same sales tax as new cars. If anything, brand new product has now been equalized with re-sale product. In this new home GST scenario there was no tax on used and now there is no tax on new (for first time buyers).
I really don’t see how hard this is to figure out. When I worked in ICU at the Jubilee I defintively met mature nurses in their 20s that took extra courses and responsibility and end up in ICU or CVU in their 20s. ICU nurse is well into the $60 per hr range these days. So let’s say $110k salary (realistically with overtime you can get to $150k) + $80,000 downpayment and you qualify for $620k. As the nurse in the reddit thread noted on his or her salary of $141k one can be comfortable in a one bedroom apartment and you can probably save a decent amount.
Don’t forget about the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) a nurse or other young professional could take great advantage of. It’s one of the best things the government provides.
Is the above easy? No, I didn’t think it was easy working 12-hr nightshifts at the hospital in ICU with people around you constantly dying. Is it possible, it is, in my opinion.
I would be 100% in support of setting the principal residence max exemption to $1 million. Anything over $1 million in appreciation you pay capital gains on.
Yes, “For purchases on or after May 27, 2025, and before 2031, eligible first-time buyers in Canada can receive a 100% GST/HST rebate on new homes priced up to $1 million (up to a $50,000 max). The rebate is gradually phased out for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, with no rebate available above $1.5 million.”
Who knows if the place is worth 3.2M but if it is, that owner has saved themselves a lot of taxes.
Good point. Has anyone thought of asking the people without money for money? This is the kind of out of the box thinking we need if we want to get our deficit down
What do you think needs changing? The part where rich people pay most of the taxes?
Marko, I still think you are missing my point. I don’t disagree that we need and want to increase housing starts and I don’t disagree with your points about affordability issues with older homes. And, especially, I don’t disagree with the unfairness of subsidies that are so much worse. In fact, that is my point. We don’t need to add to what makes the rich richer. I think the whole tax system is antiquated and needs a shake up or at least a move towards helping those who are getting more and more left behind and taking away some of the subsidies that keep giving more to those who have built plenty of wealth. Housing is just one area – another is providing subsidies based on income rather than wealth. Some of the richest people I know have a low annual income and receive some nice subsidies as a result.
I can’t provide you with a real life townhome on the Westshore per your example. But I can provide a real life example of the nurse I know who works hard, is saving to buy someday, has no financial help from family, does not want to have a scary crazy monthly mortgage cost. This will mean not buying new, as far as they can tell right now. I still have a hard time figuring out how the nurse in your example could come up with an affordable down payment on their own, single, in their 20’s, without some help, whether that was with education, no student debt, or whatever. The wage in the first few years is not great. But, who am I. Maybe she did nothing outside of work for 4 years but sit and watch TV. Good for her.
So, o.k., if you want to subsidize the first time home buyer who can afford to buy a brand new home, how about equalizing that subsidy somehow to those who can’t buy new…start taxing those older people with equity who have made 2 million tax free on their homes, take that money and provide a grant to the first time buyer who is buying resale. Does the new GST rebate have a maximum home price? It should, as should the cost of the home to qualify for a resale grant under my proposal. I am so tired of incentives that help those who have plenty.
Could BC Assessment be off by a million dollars? Prices haven’t risen since last July. https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29430978/430-luxton-ave-victoria-james-bay
In my opinion I disagree with you. I think this is a half decent tax relief policy to help prop out housing starts across the country as we need housing supply. Take a look at housing starts in BC data. SFHs starts in complete collapse and strata about to collapse. If we don’t prop up strata housing supply in the long run it will result in more expensive real estate for everyone, poor and rich.
A 30 year old townhome that’s more “affordable” than brand new was a brand new townhome 30 years ago. The new townhomes being built today will become used product in 10, 20 and 30 years.
There are literally hundreds of subsidies that are so much worse. For example, buyer buys $2 million dollar home in the Uplands in 2014. They sell it 12 years later in 2026 for $4 million. They pocket $2 million tax free based on the principal residence tax exemption. Is that more fair or more right than waiving GST for first time buyers on new builds (which create economic activity?).
As far as my straw man arguments…sure. How about providing a real life example of an older townhome on the Westshore that is substantially cheaper than $619,900 and an example of how you would prop up housing starts. I understand your theory, but there is real life as well. In real life a 10 year old car is 25% of what it was new and a 10 year old townhome is >90% of what it was new and if you go with something substantially older (30+ years) which is still going to be >70% of the cost of new it comes with other affordability issues in terms of strata fees and special assessments. What I am getting at buying a new townhome is not a massive luxury purchase, imo.
Also, the nurse I helped buy the townhome moved out of a rental she was renting; therefore, increasing supply of rentals. If she had bought a re-sale she would either be displacing tenants or those owners would need to buy something else.
I think there is good reason to stimulate new construction and probably better to give the break to first time buyers versus older people with equity.
Most of what you say, Marko, is a straw man argument. Sure, this is better than a lot of things, but that doesn’t make it right. And we all know you did everything right. Good for you. I don’t have the answer to provide stimulus at the top of my head, but I just think the focus on first time buyers is bonkers. People on this site have commented on how tax policy unfairly provides a subsidy to home owners, through homeowner grants, etc. This is one more example of a subsidy, in my opinion. and one that targets people who don’t need it. And what is the option to buy if they don’t get the subsidy? Same as everybody else, poor things.
Governments want affordability, but they also want the economic stimulus of construction. These goals are not always aligned.
Tthe units that are most affordable for buyers are overwhelmingly in the existing‑home stock, but the units that governments most like to subsidize are the ones that generate GDP, jobs, and tax revenue. That tension shapes almost every modern housing policy failure.
Nope, school training was in Kamloops. I rented the cheapest possible dorm room. Literally the walls had no drywall. Had to do my practicum at BC Childrens/Royal Columbian and rented a place with roommates in north Burnaby on a Skytrain line which conveniently dropped me off right in front of Royal Columbian Hospital. I worked in construction during the summers before my first practicum. I still had student loans at the end, but twice the government stepped in with various programs where they paid them down a bit and also I believe the interest was tax deductible when I had them. Instead of paying them off I invested money I was saving once I started working.
30%+ of new home construction is taxes/government fees. I don’t think removing 5% for first time buyers is some massive subsidy? The developer is paying plenty of other taxes/fees to build these units (and creating jobs in the economy).
You are making new homes to be out like some massive luxury. If we go back to the GableCraft example of $619,900 for a new townhome, what are you able to buy in terms of an old townhome on the Westshore that is substantially cheaper? That doesn’t have huge strata fees and a bunch of special assessments coming up in the next 10 years?
What are your idea for encouraging housing starts? Do we allow foreign buyers back in?
Finally, on a fairness level this is better than many other things, imo. There is no PTT on brand new builds in BC up to $1,100,000. Retired couple sells a house in Oak Bay for $2 million then buys a brand new townhome for $1,100,000 and they pay no PTT – is that somehow a more fair program? First time buyers buying a $1.1 million dollar used SFH with a suite to rent out would be paying $20,000 in PTT.
No interest on student loan, but it’s still a debt to be paid. Not sure if you lived with parents during your training, but for the student who comes from out of town (rural BC) cost of education over 4 years to become a nurse is huge, especially when your unpaid practicums cut into your summer work opportunities and limit selection of jobs when you are available.
The nursing job my family member has requires a car, it’s 17 years old. The point here is not that it’s not possible to get there with hard work and hustle, but that we should not be subsidizing people who already have an advantage and/or don’t need it to enter the housing market. If someone can afford a new home as a first time buyer, they don’t need a subsidy. Find another way to encourage the housing starts.
I started my Respiratory Therapy training at 18 years old and was working in ICU at the Jubilee by 21 years old with unlimited overtime opportunities as a casual. 18+4 = 22 years old? You have more than a couple of years to save up for a down payment. Do you really need a car if you rent close to work as a nurse? I am sure you want one, but do you actually need one.
As far as student loans I took something crazy like 10 years to pay them off for various reasons. Aren’t student loans interest free these days?
In my opinion, it is defintively doable but I agree, not very common as a % of the population.
From this Reddit Thread -> https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/1qfmjhm/us_rn_14_yrs_experience_considering_a_move_to/
Good to c a good to c some help for young buyers . Let’s keep rolling and bring in some more positive changes. For folks who can’t pony up there are a lot of new build rentals just for them
Ya, I get that the point is to encourage starts, but a targeted rebate for first time buyers is still a subsidy to those who don’t need it. Why not broaden the subsidy to others, for example, if you want to encourage starts. And I would be surprised if that single nurse in her 20s didn’t come from priviledge/get help. After 4 years of training, how does one save for a down payment on a $619,000 new place in a couple of years? Likely no student loan and probably parental help. I have a family member who is a single nurse. After 6 years, yes, makes more than $100,000 with overtime, but after paying rent, student loan, beater 2nd hand car, will take a few more years at least before entering the housing market, even then not likely a new place.
I think the real reason for the GST rebate is to prop up housing starts (so projects have a better chance of penciling for developers); however, it is spun politically as doing something for first time buyers.
In all fairness the feds removed the GST from purpose-built rentals (back in 2023) before they did on new for sale product. Also, throw in CMHC backed financing for purpose-built rentals, etc. There is an obvious reason why the majority of housing starts switched to building purpose-built rentals and not for sale.
Result is vacancy in Victoria is at a 25 year high and rents are dropping.
I had a single nurse in her 20s buy a new townhome in Royal Bay. They had them at $619,900 and throw in no GST, no PTT, and if you rent one of the bedrooms to a roommate it is somewhat doable.
Lots of nurses making over 100k these days. Right now I have a couple that are both yr born starting with a 2 looking at entry level SFHs (they could afford a new townhome if they wanted to). Of course the % of young buyers that can afford real estate is low, but in terms of absolute numbers they are out there and only grow as the population grows.
That is why, in my opinion, we need to keep increase housing starts now that the market is slow to keep the downward pressure on rents and re-sale prices. If housing starts slow you will have a large number of higher earners in absolute terms as the population grows competing for limited supply.
Still baffles me. Housing policies continue to subsidize the rich. What FIRST time home buyer can afford to buy a NEW home? The same one who can more than afford to buy something that isn’t new, the same one who has plenty of income and/or savings and/or family/generational help and wealth. How about some incentives that make the housing market affordable to the not-so-rich buyers, like, I don’t know, a break to income tax for a few years that would be equivalent to the GST rebate? I don’t see how a GST rebate improves the affordability crisis. Younger people I know who would like to enter the housing market don’t consider new builds.
GST rebate for frirst time buyers passess sentate finally – https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/canada-50000-gst-rebate-on-new-homes-2026/
This means first time buyers can now buy something like this and they would pay no PTT and would receive a $40k cheque back from the feds -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/29097165/3-2538-shelbourne-st-victoria-oaklands
If you were to buy a used townhome at $775,000 as a first time buyer while there is no GSTl; however, there is still PTT of $5,500 even if you qualify for the first time buyer exemption up to $500,000.
and beat down too. I had a client recently purchase a 2-bed in a concrete grandfather srt building for 530ish (same floorplan directly one floor lower sold a couple of years ago for $677,000). Not sure which way Kelowna leans politically but I could see a lot of push back if the COV went to opt out. Will be interesting to see how it plays out because I think vacancy will only continue to rise.
The demand is still there, I am now getting requests for my place a year in advance in the offseason…just received this one last night.
South-West Two Bed Two Bath Condo!
Jan 16–Mar 27, 2027 (70 nights)
2 guests · $17,422.20
Yes, we had more showings than what I anticipated.
So far this year quite a number of properties I’ve had listed have sold to out of towners (two sets of parents bought my condo listings for Uvic kids). Jason Binab commented on his IG yesterday that 11 out of his 44 sales last year were CNDs living in the US moving back to CND/Victoria. I only was involved in two such deals last year with my buyers. I also sold a couple of places for people moving back to the US so I was net zero on the CND-US moves 🙂
I’ve been shocked at the uptake in my friend’s rental project. Much more demand than I thought and so far all his townhome inventory has gone to out of town folks relocating to Victoria (policing, nursing, etc., professionals mostly from Vancouver). I think he mentioned one couple he talked to was renting a place in Yaletown. That being said I think his prices are reasonable, $3,500 to $4,000/month depending on unit for brand new townhomes in Vic West.
Anecdotally speaking the attractiveness of Victoria seems to be hold up the market somewhat (certainly better than Toronto/Vancouver).
Did you get lot of interest on that one? It sold pretty quick for a fair price.
Yes I’ve commented on this multiple times, some of those grandfathered str buildings downtown are looking attractive
Speaking of Kelowna -> https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/601586/More-than-2-100-more-units-could-be-eligible-for-short-term-rentals-in-Kelowna-later-this-year
Could we see Airbnb eventually come back to Victoria?
It’s been fairly busy on my listings lately with a couple of accepted offers yesterday and a subject removal on a SFH in Broadmead Monday and one yesterday on a condo downtown.
Also, 64 pendings so far since Monday is decent. Will see what the numbers say this upcoming Monday but I think it’s going to be more of the same…in-line +/- with the last four years.
What type of listings!
We are hitting the heart of the ultra-low mortgage rate renewals, and I would have to think that has an effect on sales. I just spoke with our realtor, and they have over 20 listings for sale and said that activity has dried up the last couple of weeks with hardly any showings happening.
As far as I know using a provincial design doesn’t help you get a BP/DP faster so what is the point? If you have to go through the same painful process might as well design something else that is slightly more efficient.
A lot of these projects on the Westshore don’t pencil, and if you can’t get financing then you can’t start whether you want or not. The few smaller builders/developers I know personally are simply going through their inventory of properties and not aquiring further. The 20 unit first missing middle project in the COV the developer I know is finishing is now moving onto developing a piece of property he bought five years ago (he was renting the teardown for $3,500/month so not losing a ton of money per month during those 5 years).
As far as missing middle projects the great thing about the blanket re-zoning is you don’t have to buy land inventory and spend years re-zoning. I know one smaller developer that had good success with his first missing middle project and just went out and bought three more teardowns for three more missing middle projects. You also have muncipalities like Saanich that only require a BP, no DP so that also speeds things up.
Kelowna benefitted from zoning changes which made infill feasible. They were ahead of the SSMUH curve. I’m saying that design catalogues have had limited uptake. How many SSMUH builds have actually utilized Municipal or Provincial designs since bill 44?
I am very critical of anything government as you can see by my earlier post in this thread. However, as someone who is in the process of designing a missing middle project in the COV I would 110% utilize one of these in return for a 10-day city approval. Multiple architects/designers are telling me except 10 to 12 months for approval with no variances requested. You also need a bunch of consultants (civil, arborist, etc.) and this is the type of email reply you get when you email a competent consultant.
In a broad sense, yes—but not because humans worship wealth.
Wealthy circles are simply one version of this. The same dynamic happens in academic circles, artistic circles, military circles, religious circles—anywhere identity and incentives align.
Just because you have wealth isn’t a guarantee of acceptance.
Dead wrong. Kelowna already did this in 2017 when they legalized quadplexes on 800 lots as a pilot and pre-approved 4 different quadplex designs with a similar model (fast approvals). They got something like 300 new units in just a few years. They know what they’re doing. This is just phase 2 of the same plan that they already proved works.
Back then it was a revolution for small builders that previously were completely locked out of building multifamily homes because they had neither the capital nor the expertise to do a rezoning so all they were building was single family. With pre-approved designs and rapid by-right approvals they can build multiplexes.
Also exactly the kind of policy that cities can deploy in uncertain economic times when the big developers put the big projects on hold. How do you keep builds going? Make small low-risk projects easy to build.
Market adoption is slow for missing‑middle homes because most buyers can’t visualize them. If you’re not fluent in reading plans, the finished home is hard to imagine and the scale of the rooms is even harder to grasp. That gap between drawing and lived experience makes the entire product feel abstract and uncertain.
Once a few are built, the dynamic shifts. Buyers can walk through real spaces, calibrate their expectations, and build confidence in the typology.
This perceptual challenge is most acute in condominium living, where square footage behaves differently than it does in larger homes. In a 475‑square‑foot suite, a 75‑square‑foot difference is transformative: it can create a proper den, expand a bedroom into something genuinely functional, or turn a marginal kitchen into one that finally works. The same 75‑square‑foot swing inside a 2,500‑square‑foot house barely registers; it dissolves into the overall volume.
This is why buyers often feel misled or confused when relying solely on plan renderings. On paper, two compact layouts can appear nearly identical. But once you’re physically in the suite, the difference is immediate and visceral. Proportions shift, circulation opens up, and the home crosses a threshold from “tight but workable” to “genuinely livable.”
Plans flatten those distinctions. The human eye simply isn’t built to intuit how small numerical changes in compact spaces translate into large experiential ones. Until people can walk through finished examples, that disconnect will continue to shape how missing‑middle homes are perceived—and how slowly they’re adopted.
People with money don’t want to live next to people without money…. That’s human nature.
Awesome, another pre-approved design catalogue of slop made by x government that nobody will utilize. The feds made one, the province made one, and various munis have made them. Next stop, neighbourhood level design catalogues that I’m sure will have the same great uptake as the others.
Yes, but it works both ways. Applicants can’t exceed the size limits asking for variances and special treatment. That’s a big cause for delays too, solved by these pre-approved designs. Munis have commented that 90%+ of applications have problems, and presumably this “problems” number is lowered with the pre-approved designs.
A small but important detail about CMHC’s methodology came into focus this morning. For multi‑family projects, CMHC doesn’t record a start until the concrete foundation is actually poured. Excavation, shoring, and all the early ground work don’t count toward new construction in their reporting.
Excavation is not a reliable indicator of commitment. Developers can dig, pause, redesign, re‑permit, or even abandon a site without ever building. Once the foundation is poured, the project is effectively locked in. It signals that financing, trades, engineering, and sequencing are all aligned.
That’s why multi‑family starts often appear to jump in sudden monthly bursts: a single foundation pour can add hundreds of units at once.
Stock plans will strike some people as plain or even unattractive, but taste is subjective. What looks austere to one generation can feel refreshingly functional to the next. Styles evolve, and designs that emphasize efficiency over ornament often gain acceptance once people see how well they work in practice. For many younger buyers, the appeal lies precisely in that simplicity: a home that is affordable, rationally designed, and buildable without drama.
The Vancouver Special shows how quickly public taste can shift with changing economic conditions. When it first appeared—much like the post‑1945 housing boom—it was criticized as plain, repetitive, and overly utilitarian. But it delivered what people needed at the time: a practical, affordable home that could be built quickly and lived in comfortably.
As households accumulated more disposable income, expectations changed. Designs grew larger, more elaborate, and more ornamental. Rooflines multiplied, facades became busier, and square footage ballooned. That appetite for visible prosperity eventually produced the McMansion era, where size and embellishment mattered more than efficiency or restraint.
In my opinion, a mixed‑income neighbourhood is far healthier than a subdivision carved up by income brackets. When every home in a development targets the same price point, the result is a place where people must leave as their circumstances change. A community built with a range of housing types—smaller units, mid‑range homes, and larger options—lets people remain rooted as they age, raise families, downsize, or experience shifts in income.
These stock home plans provide that flexibility.
Stock home plans have always been a strong idea. They’ve succeeded in the past for a simple reason: they reduce uncertainty. Builders gain high confidence in what the home will actually cost to construct, and homeowners get a clear, realistic picture of the expenses they can expect. When a plan has been built repeatedly, both sides benefit from predictable pricing, fewer surprises, and a smoother overall process.
Stock plans would narrow the range of design variation and, in doing so, narrow the range of construction estimates. When every project is a one‑off, builders have wide latitude to frame the job however they like—often by emphasizing complexity, uncertainty, or “custom” elements that justify higher pricing. A standardized plan removes much of that narrative space and forces competition on the one dimension that becomes comparable: price
What an ugly piece of crap. Looks like a barn.
Vicre, better to leave the lot empty and leave the money in the jeans . There’s a good chance they can’t get the project financed right now . If someone wants to go out on a limb right now there’s a ton of projects with zoning in place ready to go.
Kelowna released their new missing middle catalog.
If developers choose one of those 12 designs, they get approval in 10 business days.
Now that’s how you do missing middle. Munis around here wouldn’t even acknowledge they got your submission in 10 days.
https://bsky.app/profile/leospalteholz.bsky.social/post/3mfxcgy7qs22i
For small developers, no development = 100% chance of zero money coming in plus carrying costs for the land. Doing a development they at least have a chance to make some money. For many of them it’s no more lucrative than working a normal job at a larger developer, after all costs and accounting for risk, it is likely similar to a 150k a year job with bonus, benefits and RRSP matching..
Oh good I thought the market was slow but luckily local media is here to set me straight
Question: what effect will the sluggish market have on developments not yet built? I’ve noticed on the Westshore there are many lots still sitting bare that are slated for townhome development. It seems townhome supply exceeds demand, will this cause developers to pause or do they keep going in hopes to sell? Is it better to build a 20 townhomes just to get a project done and recoup expenses, or better to develop nothing now with the risk that what you’ll build might not sell?
Sold a rental property today and struggled through the BC Tenancy Branch Online Notice Generator with my client and at the end it spits this out “The Tenant(s) must move out of the rental unit by June 29, 2026”
like what the, doesn’t June have 30 days? Now the client/landlord has to print off the government generated form, which has an incorrect date due to the fact the government can’t figure out simple programming, and drop it off to the tenant with the incorrect date?
They also keep changing the information that is required for the buyer which is frustrating as when conditions are removed I send the buyer’s agent what we need in terms of personal information from the buyer and then it changes two months later.
Exactly! Usually the nonsense is up voted.
Huh? That seems like a simple truth. Clearly if they delisted they in fact did not need to sell.
Or are you saying that you’re shocked a simple truth got upvoted.
Speaking of Reddit so many out of touch buyers/sellers on there, I came across this a few months -> https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoRealEstate/comments/1ow78rv/every_offer_weve_put_in_gets_rejected_and_the/
Love the first comment “Just like you don’t need to buy, these sellers who delist don’t need to sell. It’s that simple.”
I was shocked to see it was upvoted so high 🙂
You also have agents “buying” (or simply don’t know how to price) listings by suggesting a high price and it’s often works for them in the end. A couple of years ago I told sellers $1.2 million +/- $50,000 in terms of market value. They listed with a different agent for close to $1.5 million and a year later (vacant house too) after many price drops sold for $1,150,000ish but they sold with him, not me.
First of all, in my opinion, re-listing should be banned by the real estate board unless you are switching real estate agents. Lowering the price is just as effective is my opinion, but my clients see other places being re-listed, so I am constantly caught up in the practice myself.
Second of all, this is how real life works, recent example. I was called out to evaluate a property and as part of my listing presentation of the front of my presentation binder I wrote in my suggested listing price, X (below $1.5 million). The sellers call me a month later to come list the property and when I show up and we start doing the listing paperwork they hit me with “we would like to try X + $200,000.” As I was already there with the paperwork I just rolled with it. No interest. We reduce the price $100,000 so we are now at X + $100,000 and the sellers are shocked there is no interest. They eventually take the listing off the market while all this time when I was at the property I can see my binder sitting in the kitchen with my suggested list price clearly written 🙂 Then some Redditor probably assumes I, as the real estate agent, priced the property too high.
Another example, if a seller is asking $999,900 and calls up the listing agent and notes he or she wants to reduce to 899,900 to help faciliate the sale what agent on earth is not going to roll with that? Real estate agents setting prices high is one the stupider theories I come across on Reddit every day amongsts many other ones. It’s like 99% of Reddit doesn’t live in the real world.
Given the instant access to sold data thanks to platforms like housesigma, more sellers are informed of current market dynamics. There will always be unrealistic expectations from some sellers but I suspect the majority would act in a rational manner.
Well to chase a market down would imply that prices are imploding . That’s not happening , things have been pretty much flat .
I don’t think it’s poor behaviour per se, it’s just unproductive. Even though there is no financial cost in having your place listed there’s a huge cost in terms of hassle and mental energy.
Sellers in most cases would be far better off just pricing to market, making the sale, and moving on rather than an endless dance.
Problem is, it is difficult for sellers to understand this for a few reasons.
For those reasons, I don’t think there’s any way to change the behaviour of most sellers. Smart sellers will know to make transactions rarely (transaction costs), but when they do make them, make them decisively and efficiently.
I’ve heard realtors call the behaviour of relisting for a lower price to be “chasing the market down”. I get the impression that they think it’s poor behaviour. What else is a seller who actually want to sell supposed to do? Do realtors think that sentiment can be turned around by stubbornness alone? It seems odd to me that realtors seem to favour not getting paid over getting paid slightly less.
A few properties have caught my eye recently. It feels bad seeing a normal home for over a million and thinking “oh I thought it would be more” or “I wonder why it’s not selling at that price”. I’m curious to see what the higher inventory will make available.
Damn I am good, should be a realtor.