3866 W 13th Ave; V883938
3775 sqft; 52.5 x 122 ft lot; 5bdrm, 4bthrm; built 1990
Ask Price: $2,098,000.
thinktom (local realtor) at RE Talks 2 May 2011 11:45am –
“Our clients were going to write on this until we found out how many offers were already presenting. At noon today, 10 offers so far. All offers must be confirmed by 3pm [2 May 2011]. Until properties like this slow significantly, I don’t see too much pressure coming off detached Vancouver East and West. I don’t see prices shooting through the roof still, but this is a sign that demand is still there.”
—–
No news yet of final sales price. Will update once available.
Until then, a lottery for percent over ask: 25%?, 30%?
Regardless, under these circumstances, the ‘winner’ is likely to get a really lousy deal. See: ‘Winner’s Curse’ – vreaa
UPDATE:
Sold 3 May 2011; Sale Price $2,700,000
$602K (22% over ask).
A little less than we expected (perhaps the market is softening!)
Good luck to the ‘winners’. – vreaa
UPDATE 2: This subsequent exchange at RE Talks 4 May 2011 –
thinktom : “The Point Grey home sold for $2.7 million. Crazy. Our clients were willing to do $2.1M”
eyesthebye: “Your clients were willing to do just $2,000 above asking? I think they need to start looking east.”
[Yeah, like Halifax. Or New York State. Or Florida. It’s embarrassing to compare this with what you can get for $2.7M in those places. -ed.]
Vancouver Real Estate Anecdote Archive 
Note how the “winner’s curse” is usually associated with uncertainty over an asset’s value. Indeed nobody really knows what houses’ values are any more, beyond spot price, because prices have been untied from revenue streams for close to a decade and counting.
Went to the weekday “sneak peak” on this property. It was quite busy. What surprised me even more though, was how busy that area was in general for new construction/reno. There were concrete pumpers, roads closed, landscape crews building on numerous projects in a 2 block vicinity.
This “architecturally designed” home is code for terrible angles that can’t be saved. Winner’s curse indeed.
I live in this general area – moving at the end of the month. The house we’re in sold for $150,000 over asking to a “developer” (family trying to make retirement) after one day on the market. There is no reason for the craziness but yet it keeps on – soon every older house on the west-side will be replaced with a three-suite, laneway house development on all the smallish lots – not a pleasant thought since it means the end of neighbourhoods as we know them. There is no privacy or light in the back yards now since buildings are much higher than in the past – the laneway houses cut out any possibility of sunlight from the other end. These new houses are not for families to live in, they are built to the max solely so that people can afford the inflated prices. It is a strange mindset people have adopted since in the past houses were to be enjoyed, not merely places to stay and pay a mortgage.
@rmac we can lament about the changing landscape of nostalgic and exclusive neighbourhoods but last I checked Vancouver, especially its west side, is a popular place to live yet city planners have forced denser development onto transit corridors and the downtown peninsula, refusing for the most part to touch the areas where prices are now skyrocketing.
I am extremely bearish on housing prices on a city-wide level but it is worth taking pause at what could be happening in specific areas of the region. What you and others are witnessing could be somewhat of a “blowoff” of these low-density neighbourhoods succumbing to the invisible hand’s need to produce denser living arrangements in the core of the city. This has been held back for the past generation by building codes, especially on the west side, which are protected tooth-and-nail by residents who want to maintain the neighbourhood’s “character” by employing the usual NIMBY tactics and strategies, not least via their high voter turnout during civic elections.
These days the west side’s exclusive and serene brand of low density is now coming under immense pressure. Builders have started going to town on density increases, partly because that’s the only way marginal buyers can afford the prices, but also because the philosophy of many new residents is towards treating a home as an investment first and foremost, and that means maximizing a lot’s utility at the expense of luxury. To this end, many of these recent construction projects have non-permitted suites, to which the City has been known to turn a blind eye in lower-income neighbourhoods. East side building strategies leaking west of Ontario St. face an additional challenge: knowledgeable, wealthy, connected, and intelligent neighbours who can make a non-complying house an absolute misery for its owners.
Let’s face it: the west side of Vancouver is due for adding density, and the prices of underutilized lots and their rents justify this, at least in part regardless of the presence of a bubble. Building codes are merely staving off the inevitable, that for a city like Vancouver to be counted among the world’s elite, it needs to get out a bit more and look what elite cities look like in terms of efficient land use planning.
Higher commuting costs will add to the pressure. Inefficient use of land in central locations (close to the jobs) just pushes the unprivileged further out, resulting in long commutes, pointless from both economic and environmental points of view.
rmac – wow,that’s so interesting. We want move into a neighbourhood (currently in a strange part of E.Van), and we’re having trouble finding any. My husband grew up in EV and the dream was always to make it to the West Side (kinda like B’way!). Now that we can, it’s not looking all that great. The lots are tiny and crammed and there’s construction everywhere of impersonal, ugly homes with no attention paid to collective street feel. It’s really frustrating.
I had a question about “illegal suites”… (a little off topic, but I saw a reference to them in an earlier reply). What would most of you estimate would be the percentage of income derived from illegal suites for a homeowner doesn’t get claimed for income tax purposes? Is there any way for municipal and federal governments to cross-reference illegal suites with undeclared rental income?
Peter Pan’s off topic question has crossed my mind, too, how much tax revenue is lost due to cheater suites, or whatever they are. How do they calculate costs for a community? The owner is paying tax based on a single family dwelling that contains just that, a single family, but you could have two or three families putting pressure on community schools, roads, resources. It makes no sense to me. It don’t understand why municipal governments would completely ignore the money available, not taxing commensurate with the number of bodies living in a building. You think you’re moving into a family neighbourhood because of all the detached houses, but in actual fact some are very high density neighbourhoods, especially in Langley and Surrey. There’s something seriously wrong.
Much like the Home Renovation Credit allowed the Governments to find out who was getting paid for traditionally “under the table” transactions, would a small “Rental Allowance Credit” for tenants allow the Feds to determine who was receiving rental income? I think a smart political party would adopt this type of policy… Support for 30% renters, plugging up illegal “tax leakage” from the system…. The feds would probably recoup more than the value of the tax credits in homeowners having to declare previously “under the table” rental income. Feedback?
How much tax revenue? Probably not much at all because if owners did declare the income — which is typically below $10K and not worth CRA’s time to go after — they could write off expenses against the income and there is no impact on the capital gains tax exemption to boot. The take for the government wouldn’t be that high at all.
Say $12K/year in rent, minus 20% in expenses yields $9.5K net. Subtract CCA and other expenses, another $1.5K, we’re left with $8K, then a % of the mortgage, say another $3500, now we’re at $4.5K net, taxed at marginal rate, leaves maybe a $2K tax bill due. Probably not worth the effort.
Don’t feel too frustrated. I can all but guarantee you there isn’t much in the way of capital cost allowances being set aside for renovating basement suites, even if it were written off against rental income.
This “ThinkTom” clown knows perfectly well that this listing will sell close to 3 million.
He would also know that Spice Lucks, the listing agent, always prices her houses extremely low so she can boast about how she had 900 offers and sold 300% over asking.
What a bunch of scumbags.
Listed at BC Assessment value so the dummies can fight over it and overpay for this house. Probably will sell for 2.6-2.8M. Wait 1-2 years and pick it up at 1/3 of today’s price.
Here is the info. from BC Assessment site:
3866 13TH AVE W VANCOUVER V6R 2S8 $2,089,000 2 STY house – standard 09-200-001683034300000
Jesse – it’s not the increased density that I think is the problem on the west-side of Vancouver – it’s the spotty development rather than some sort of planning that I find annoying. Everyone can agree that densification is necessary but allowing random building to go on, rather than say a nice little enclave of townhouses (like the 70 year horseshoe shaped development at 1st and Bayswater) is ruining the neighbourhood. Every house now seems to have at least one illegal suite and with the city allowing newish houses to dig out their basements to increase square footage the crappy building will just go on. The city turns a blind eye to the inspecting these suites and many are downright dangerous to the tenants – only one means of access and, in the case of my neighbours, NO windows. They just dug down. This is not development, it is gouging people who need a place to live. Yes, densify but enforce code and ensure the landlords respect the laws of the land.
@rmac, if they enforced the by laws they would have significant backlash. The City, by turning a blind eye, is in for the long haul. I don’t disagree with you that grey-market dwelling construction is causing unfortunate consequences for city planners and residents alike.
If we look at the density of other large “world class” cities Vancouver is in a league of its own. Most competing cities have smaller lots, rowhouses, and other higher-density dwellings, while Vancouver’s west side has large lots that the City refuses to subdivide in the name of appeasing residents. Townhouse developments, in my view, are substandard compared to what the market generally wants, which is freehold non-strata lots. On this front there is close to zero suggestion from city planners that this is even in the cards, undoubtedly because it is uncomfortable to deal with. Instead we are left with secondary suites and landowners becoming part-time and reluctant landlords.
Maybe if there is a significant housing crash the City might wake up and start thinking about smart market-driven growth, and stop pandering to the old guard. I won’t hold my breath, so look for continued “erosion” of west side “character”.
[NOTE: Post updated with sales price ($2.7M) and comment. -ed]
God I feel sorry for you guys. That house might go for… maybe 500K if were in my neighborhood (in Halifax) , and only because I live in a really nice part of town.
I love reading these stories though… they make me feel so good about leaving Vancouver.
You’re welcome, the pleasure is all ours…
No…wait! scrap that!… it’s bloody unpleasant having this lunacy happen in one’s own town.
It’s bloody unpleasant to have to leave one’s home town…
That said, my Mother just visited us up here in Fort Nelson for the first time. She was just amazed how this small town is so reminiscent of her childhood in North Burnaby. Back then Hastings was gravel road and there were acreage farms on Broadway. It is amazing how things change over 40 years…
On the note of illegal suites, all suites in Burnaby are illegal as there is a bylaw that prohibits secondary suites in SFH residences. That would mean that identifying illegal suites would be as simple as checking the local paper around the first of the month. Burnaby recognizes that they exist, but will only do something about it if a direct neighbour lodges a complaint.