Vancouver indvidual property sales details

[timber2012]

2617 Pandora St.

Sold for $827,500.

Purchased for $800,000 in June 2011. Essentially threw away the property transfer tax as the commission gets them to $800K net.

[gse36]

1949 w37th 50x120 sold 1918k
was 2288 before.
assessed 2331.
another long time home owner.

Surely he didn't get the memo about waiting to get the price his neighbour got.

or maybe he's charitable. b/c god forbid people choose to leave $300-400k on the table!

i'm still hanging onto my nortel stock b/c i saw some people sell it for $200 back in 2000. i want more than 200$ to compensate for my waiting/holding

[eyesthebye]

This house is in original condition, no upgrades

6076 INVERNESS ST
MLS® V960036
44x122 lot
2166sqft house built 1957
asking $888,000
SOLD for $855,000 on 12-July after 13 days on the market

Fantastic custom built bungalow that sits on high side of street! This European custom built original owner home offers 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms! This house features 3 large bedrooms on main plus full bath. The living room is huge with fireplace as well as dining area. The kitchen offers lots of space and a large eating area that leads out an awesome flat back yard. Downstairs is full height, huge rec area that can be developed and part of upstairs. Also down is a self-contained 1 bedroom suite. This is an ideal home to live in now and develop later. Amazing lot; high side of street and flat back yard.

[Geyser]

That's a pretty powerful argument in favour of the existence of a massive bubble! Scary!

[timber2012]

That's a pretty powerful argument in favour of the existence of a massive bubble! Scary!

How so?

[eyesthebye]

That's a pretty powerful argument in favour of the existence of a massive bubble! Scary!

How so?

+1
how?
Prices are high because we're in a bubble?
That means high prices anywhere in the world are due to bubble values?
Or are there locations that produce higher prices due to the higher demand for it's property?
Odd rationalization.
Geezer also failing to realize the the subject property is 5400sqft.
Land is value.

[vanpro]

That's a pretty powerful argument in favour of the existence of a massive bubble! Scary!

How so?

+1
how?
Prices are high because we're in a bubble?
That means high prices anywhere in the world are due to bubble values?
Or are there locations that produce higher prices due to the higher demand for it's property?
Odd rationalization.
Geezer also failing to realize the the subject property is 5400sqft.
Land is value.

Until the bubble bursts and land value/prices also plummet (btw: when prices fall, land plummets in price faster and more severe than overall property prices) - see for example, even in Japan where land is super scarce relative to population etc...land prices have plumetted steadily since 1992:

http://www.japaninc.com/article.php?articleID=1237

"Osaka's property prices have declined steadily since the end of the bubble economy. In 1992, the average asking price for office properties in the city zone was over JPY16,000 per tsubo (3.3 square meters). In September 2003, it was down to JPY9,650, according to data supplied by Ikoma Data Services.

The slide in land prices has been even more severe. According to Ichiro Kumazawa, chairman of the Osaka Real Estate Appraisal Association, if pre-bubble land prices in 1983 are indexed at 100, the corresponding index in 2002 was 56.3 for commercial property. In fact, he says, prices are equivalent now to 1972 levels if adjusted for increased economic buying power. In short, most of the last 30 years or more of property speculation has gone up in smoke. "

[timber2012]

Then we have 4354 W 11th which sold today for $1.48M which I guess is land value.

Similar land value sales of a 33' lot in PG from the past year or so:

4317 W11th - Aug 16/11 - $1.61M
4217 W11th - Mar 21/11 - $1.665M
4533 W14th - Apr 23/11 - $1.62M
4153 W14th - Feb 24/11 - $1.65M
4437 W15th - Jun 27/12 - $1.55M
4420 W12th - May12/12 - $1.608M
3616 W15th - Apr 13/11 - $1.8M
4694 W14TH - Jan 16/12 - $1.72M
4311 W15th - Mar 4/11 - $1.63M

I can go on and on. I guess we all get the picture.

Land in PG has gone down a good 10% in the recent past according to this sale.

"Land is value"... but land can also go DOWN in value as shown above.

OH yah... what happened to the theory of my neighbour got X... I should get X. That's hocus pocus.

[gse36]

Then we have 4354 W 11th which sold today for $1.48M which I guess is land value.

whats interesting is that it took 7 weeks to sell from its asking price of 1.499.

1.499 was pretty cheap too, so 7 weeks to sell something cheap may suggest the demand side is much lower. they were either getting no interest, or getting lowballs. in which case they had to wait and wait for the right buyer to come along.

[jesse1]

"Land is value"

And what's the point? Ah right

Retailing $2.99 on Amazon

[Geyser]

FWIW, my comment was a knee-jerk reaction to what appears to me to be a ridiculously overpriced purchase in a tumbling market.

This old house is described as "all original, no upgrades"
Pso if you want to bring just the interior up to a decent modern standard you will need to toss in another $100,000 bringing the total to $955,000

After that you would be the proud owner of a tatty looking old house with a nice interior but located in a scruffy location in the southern reaches of the Eastside within spitting distance of Knight Street. The house has a similar relic on one side and an even older "rabbit warren" style home on the other side (possible rooming house?). Across the street is a church, with all the issues that implies, on the block behind the house is another church, around the corner is what appears to be government low income housing and opposite that is some kind of commercial works yard - nice!

If anybody thinks dropping almost a million bucks for an old house in a location like that is anything short of nutty please archive my comment and let's revisit it in six months, at which time I expect to be able to say "I told you so".

[eyesthebye]

This old house is described as "all original, no upgrades"
Pso if you want to bring just the interior up to a decent modern standard you will need to toss in another $100,000 bringing the total to $955,000

the new owner is looking long term.
He's renovating the house of the cheap and separating it into two suites.
He won't live in the home - but will collect rent from the two suites.
Does it make sense from a price:rent ratio?
No, but the owner has a long term plan to redevelop and bought for
the potential in THE LAND

[Geyser]

The land? He has "surface rights" to a little patch of dirt squeezed between to decrepit old houses in the wrong end of town.

So, he pays to divide the old house into two suites and then bleeds money subsidizing renters for what, a year or two? Then he pays for the teardown and site clearing, then he will spend how many hundreds of thousands to build a new house which he hopes to sell for what - 1.5 to 1.7 million? In that neighbourhood? Across from the church, adjacent to the low income housing, the commercial works yard and spitting distance to Knight Street? Really??? Does this guy inderstand basic math?

Given the current situation it could well be that in a year or so the average house price in that location could have dropped to $500,000 or lower, and that's assuming the more dire predictions (-50% to -70%) don't happen. If the average price reverts anywhere close to logical, fundamental values, and if he is dumb enough to redevelop the lot, he stands to lose what? $500,000? Perhaps more?

He's a braver man than me (I can think of a less flattering description). As others have already pointed out, land prices can crash too.

[eyesthebye]

The land? He has "surface rights" to a little patch of dirt squeezed between to decrepit old houses in the wrong end of town.

So, he pays to divide the old house into two suites and then bleeds money subsidizing renters for what, a year or two? Then he pays for the teardown and site clearing, then he will spend how many hundreds of thousands to build a new house which he hopes to sell for what - 1.5 to 1.7 million? In that neighbourhood? Across from the church, adjacent to the low income housing, the commercial works yard and spitting distance to Knight Street? Really??? Does this guy inderstand basic math?

Given the current situation it could well be that in a year or so the average house price in that location could have dropped to $500,000 or lower, and that's assuming the more dire predictions (-50% to -70%) don't happen. If the average price reverts anywhere close to logical, fundamental values, and if he is dumb enough to redevelop the lot, he stands to lose what? $500,000? Perhaps more?

He's a braver man than me (I can think of a less flattering description). As others have already pointed out, land prices can crash too.

braver man than me too Geezer. Maybe that's why I'm not rich and he is.

[vanpro]

The land? He has "surface rights" to a little patch of dirt squeezed between to decrepit old houses in the wrong end of town.

So, he pays to divide the old house into two suites and then bleeds money subsidizing renters for what, a year or two? Then he pays for the teardown and site clearing, then he will spend how many hundreds of thousands to build a new house which he hopes to sell for what - 1.5 to 1.7 million? In that neighbourhood? Across from the church, adjacent to the low income housing, the commercial works yard and spitting distance to Knight Street? Really??? Does this guy inderstand basic math?

Given the current situation it could well be that in a year or so the average house price in that location could have dropped to $500,000 or lower, and that's assuming the more dire predictions (-50% to -70%) don't happen. If the average price reverts anywhere close to logical, fundamental values, and if he is dumb enough to redevelop the lot, he stands to lose what? $500,000? Perhaps more?

He's a braver man than me (I can think of a less flattering description). As others have already pointed out, land prices can crash too.

braver man than me too Geezer. Maybe that's why I'm not rich and he is.

Got any evidence to back up the claim that "he is" rich?