False Creek Condo Drops Ask Price 56% Over 9 Months


# 206 1477 FOUNTAIN WY, False Creek, Vancouver West
1400 sqft 2BR condo
Original ask: 9 Mar 2012: $568K
Last ask: 1 Jul 2012: $320K (-44%)

– from “My mom has to get a certain price before she will sell. We are waiting for prices to turnaround.”, VREAA 3 July 2012 quoting from Vancouver Price Drop 2 July 2012

UPDATE posted by katrina at VREAA 11 Dec 2012 12:50pm -
“Same address was listed yesterday afternoon (Dec 10, 2012) at $250,000. Heard the building is undergoing rainscreening for the next year.”

Sure enough, from a realtor site, listed 10 Dec 2012:

206 1477 Fountain Way

That’s a drop in ask price of $318K, or 56%, since March 2012. -ed.

21 responses to “False Creek Condo Drops Ask Price 56% Over 9 Months

  1. Notwithstanding it many ‘self-evident charms’, the real dealkiller is the one word suspiciously missing from the Realtor’s proprietary site [but not from MLS]…. “Leasehold”.

    • Aaaah!
      Well spotted.

    • Yeah, that’s what I was thinking immediately, when I saw the address. I would never buy a leasehold property. What is the point? It’s like a really expensive rental.

      • Aldus Huxtable

        Check out Beach Ave for some great leaseholds that are running low on time… that was my first exposure to leaseholds about ten years ago, wondering why the property in that area was so cheap.

    • Real Estate Tsunami

      With most of Vancouver being under water (if you believe the global warmers) in 70 years, all properties should be considered leaseholds.
      Leased from Mother Nature.

    • Real Estate Tsunami

      Check out today’s Ditchmond Review.
      “Court upholds levy against lease holders”.
      Sussex Square at Granville & Railway.
      On the hook for 12 mill of assessments plus legal bills.
      Ouch!

      • IIRC, the people in that complex were trying to argue in court that because they were only leaseholders, that it wasn’t much different from renting, therefore the landlord was responsible for the repair costs.

        The landlord might have also been the original developer, and the property manager, but it’s been a while since I read up on that case.

        It seemed like a pretty weak argument, and I guess the court thought it sounded just as crazy as I did.

    • Real Estate Tsunami

      Further to the topic of property rights.
      There are no Freeholds in China, only Leaseholds.
      That’s one reason why they are so keen on Canada’s RE.
      There I said it. Now call me a racist.

  2. Assessed $463K.
    Any idea of the special assessment status?
    A well-managed 30 year old building should have a sizeable contingency fund.

    Re leasehold: When we sold the Champlain townhouse, the realtor said there was only perhaps a 10% hit for leasehold Vs freehold. As long as it’s city land, after the Musqueam debacle people are a little more cautious in those situations.
    Yet more evidence of short-term speculative fever thinking. As if we needed more.

  3. Ohh yeah , right, leasehold. that means you’re going to have to be on a lease term instead of a mortgage to pay it off, and then youre going to sign another lease if you dont want the strata to force the sale after 5 years.

  4. One would think the discount for leasehold versus freehold depends greatly on the terms of the lease. i.e. Nothing (rationally) wrong with paying land rent if you have certainty of the payments.

  5. OK – so VREAA was right and I was wrong – I’d predicted UK-style drops of 15%. Guess not. Looks like YVR is cratering, especially (as Garth T predicted) condos in outlying areas. I still have the impression there are vendors of SFHs in outlying areas who didn’t get the memo: I’ve seen some prices stay static on the N Shore for more than a year now…

  6. The city-owned leased land properties are safe enough. Very long leases, reasonable rates, immense political problems if they try to greatly jack the rates. Generally a 50 year or longer term. Not at all the same as rental or private leases.

    • Reasonable rates? Didn’t the city increase the rates by about 700% few years ago?

    • The City has, as bubbly mentioned, required vacation of certain leasehold sites to allow for redevelopment at the end of the lease. It was in the news a couple of years ago; one of the VV councilors, bless his soul, told leaseholders to do their DD next time they think the City has to renew the lease. Straight up boss move.

      • Yes the Councillors were quite blunt in their “you’re screwed” attitude to the leaseholders. Given Vision’s mania for developer-driven density, I can see them wanting to take back the land once the leases expire.

    • Royce McCutcheon

      Re: leaseholds, I’d like to learn what the owner’s obligations are with respect to structures existing on leased land if the lease expires. If someone buys something on the leased land and doesn’t renew the lease down the line, can they just walk away? Who ends up responsible for the structure if that’s the case? Does anyone have a good reference to learn more about the topic of local leaseholds (official documents, thoughtful discussion, etc.)? Just curious.

      • Presumably the lease contract has details regarding the disposition of the structures at the end of the lease.

        Depending on how the lease is written, I would assume that the final result could fall somewhere in this spectrum:

        -Landowner buys out original (new) value of structures
        -Landowner buys out current (depreciated) value of structures
        -No compensation for structures
        -Landowner demands compensation for cost of demolishing structures.

        I’m pretty sure the City of Vancouver will buy out the structures at their depreciated value, based on some of the articles that I read back when they jacked up their lease rates.

  7. Has rainscreen issue – – – wow – – quite low cost but really what are you getting?

  8. I live relatively close to this apartment block and thought that the rainscreening was done last year. It was under tarps and decks had been removed, landscaping was nonexistent being used as storage for scaffolding and various bits of equipment. Perhaps the unit owner couldn’t pony up whatever the assessment was – the fact that the lease is only until 2036 might also play into the “low” cost. The city has also made it clear that denser neighbourhoods are what is desired and so is under no obligation to continue the lease past its due date.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s