5833 replies to this topic

[Szeven]

Sorry too! I read housing starts and thought SFDs. With the removal of the downtown condos/rental apartments I would bet my ratio on SFD starts is about right still.

[LJ]

Did we know this existed?

 

http://www.housecree...8740146&zoom=11

[LeoVictoria]

Sorry too! I read housing starts and thought SFDs. With the removal of the downtown condos/rental apartments I would bet my ratio on SFD starts is about right still.

 

Here is how the percentages break down:  

 

As of April, there are 2125 units under construction in the Victoria CMA (don't ask me why it doesn't match the 3100 that Mike mentioned earlier) with 1379 (65%) of those being condos, 589 (28%) SFHs, and 157 Row/semi-detached.

 

You can play with an interactive graph here: http://househuntvict...ew-house-smell/

Edited by LeoVictoria, 26 May 2016 - 09:55 PM.

[Mike K.]

Yikes, the source of that data is extremely short.

 

In downtown Victoria alone there are currently 1,068 condos or rental apartments under construction. That's only downtown.

 

Across the region nearly 1,600 rental apartments (not condos) are currently underway and over 800 condos, bringing us up to 2,400 homes. Then you add townhomes, then you add single-family-dwellings. Citified doesn't track individual home construction or duplex units, but generally speaking every multi-unit project or subdivision is accounted for. It's all on the data section.

[LeoVictoria]

Yikes, the source of that data is extremely short.

 

In downtown Victoria alone there are currently 1,068 condos or rental apartments under construction. That's only downtown.

 

Across the region nearly 1,600 rental apartments (not condos) are currently underway and over 800 condos, bringing us up to 2,400 homes. Then you add townhomes, then you add single-family-dwellings. Citified doesn't track individual home construction or duplex units, but generally speaking every multi-unit project or subdivision is accounted for. It's all on the data section.

 

Extremely short?  It goes back to 1972.   You can change the date range on the interactive graph.

 

The data is from CMHC.  Table 027-0048:  

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, housing starts, under construction and completions in selected census metropolitan areas

You can look it up here: http://www5.statcan....ccueil?lang=eng

 

Maybe you are defining "under construction" differently than they are?

Edited by LeoVictoria, 27 May 2016 - 06:02 PM.

[Mike K.]

I mean their active under construction unit tally falls well short of the actual number of housing units currently under construction.

 

I can't believe they're that far out, actually. I've been in the building data business for a decade and CMHC is somehow not capturing nearly 1,000 units that are actively being built in the CMA. Perhaps you're right, perhaps they do rely on a different definition of "under construction," but Citified uses standardized and globally recognized definitions for what = under construction, what = completed and what = proposed/approved. It's very basic stuff, either construction has begun or it hasn't, and it doesn't end until an occupancy permit is granted. Failing that the project is placed on-hold during the construction phase.

[LeoVictoria]

I'll look for more info on their methodology.

[LJ]

There was a story on Global Vancouver about the millennials being able to afford housing in Vancouver, so if they can do it there surely they can do it here at about what, 1/3rd the cost?

 

http://globalnews.ca...ws-hour-at-6-bc

[LeoVictoria]

I mean their active under construction unit tally falls well short of the actual number of housing units currently under construction.

I can't believe they're that far out, actually. I've been in the building data business for a decade and CMHC is somehow not capturing nearly 1,000 units that are actively being built in the CMA. Perhaps you're right, perhaps they do rely on a different definition of "under construction," but Citified uses standardized and globally recognized definitions for what = under construction, what = completed and what = proposed/approved. It's very basic stuff, either construction has begun or it hasn't, and it doesn't end until an occupancy permit is granted. Failing that the project is placed on-hold during the construction phase.

Ok here are their definitions:

Concepts and Definitions
A “start” for the purposes of the Starts and Completions Survey, is defined as the beginning of construction work on a building, usually when the concrete has been poured for the whole of the footing around the structure, or an equivalent stage where a basement will not be part of the structure.
A “completion” is defined as the stage at which all proposed construction work on the building has been performed, although under some circumstances a building may be counted as completed where up to 10 percent of the proposed work remains to be done.
For multiple-dwelling structures, the definition of a Start or a Completion applies to the structure rather than to the individual dwelling units therein.
The number of units “under construction” as at the end of the period shown, takes into account certain adjustments which are necessary for various reasons. For example, after a start on a dwelling has commenced construction may cease, or a structure when completed may contain more or fewer dwelling units than were reported at start.


So a couple clues there. It doesn't count as under construction until after the foundation has been poured, and it can count as completed it seems with up to 10% of the proposed work remaining. That could explain the discrepancy.

In the end the difference is immaterial when comparing trends over time.

[Mike K.]

Bizarre, but I guess that's their way of looking at it. Regardless, their unit count is still highly under represented even when going by their definition of a poured foundation.

That being said, we don't know how far over- or under-represented construction activity has been in the region since they started keeping data, so we can't assume the data they make available is enough to base trends on year-over-year. Perhaps over a 10 year span, but anything less than that I would deem potentially misleading and potentially highly inaccurate.

If they're reporting 2,125 right now, but we know we are well in excess of 3,100, I wouldn't put much faith in their data.

[LeoVictoria]

Except we just found their definitions are different. So in fact we don't know whether their numbers are accurate or not.

Either way, the definition of "under construction" doesn't matter to completions. However you want to define it, in the end the thing gets completed at some point. not sure if you are tracking those to compare though.

[Mike K.]

Maybe they're using permit data, which can be misleading (ie permit obtained for a 100-unit building in May, construction does not start until January or later).

For the sake of simplicity they should be focusing solely on completions if they have their own wonky methodology that relies on something as meaningless as a foundation being completed. 1515 Douglas has been under construction since last year but the entire foundation hasn't been poured yet and won't be for a while. So does this project not exist as far as they're concerned? (I know it's office, but you get my point; 819 Yates will also pour the foundation in stages; Capital Park, too)

I'll be developing more of an engaging data component for Citified as part of upgrades to the site. It will be fantastic to be able to pull data, compare activity, view trends, etc. It's coming

[manuel]

Sadly, stats canada became less and less reliable as staff and resources were cut under the previous government. For any data stream to be reliable it needs quality and completeness checks and to be cleaned for outright errors. Not knowing this particular dataset, my suspicion is SC is using a respondent survey in whole or in part, and some units under construction haven't been included in the raw data.

Citiefieds data, being local and carefully maintain ed , will, all definitions and assumptions being equal, be of higher quality than a city component of a national dataset.

Manuel / Animal Spirit

Edited by manuel, 28 May 2016 - 10:31 AM.

[LeoVictoria]

Sadly, stats canada became less and less reliable as staff and resources were cut under the previous government. For any data stream to be reliable it needs quality and completeness checks and to be cleaned for outright errors. Not knowing this particular dataset, my suspicion is SC is using a respondent survey in whole or in part, and some units under construction haven't been included in the raw data.

Citiefieds data, being local and carefully maintain ed , will, all definitions and assumptions being equal, be of higher quality than a city component of a national dataset.

Manuel / Animal Spirit

 

The data is from CMHC, not statscan.   Hard to tell exactly how it is collected.  The huge advantage they have is they have data history for 40 years.  Hence the ability to compare over time.   Are 3100 units under construction a lot or not?  Impossible to tell.   But looking at the history we can see that it is actually not that much compared to the building booms we saw in 2007/08. 1994, 1991, etc.  

Completions are basically more interesting though as far as units coming to the market.   The under construction is the pipeline, but completion could be years out.  

[LeoVictoria]

Maybe they're using permit data, which can be misleading (ie permit obtained for a 100-unit building in May, construction does not start until January or later).

For the sake of simplicity they should be focusing solely on completions if they have their own wonky methodology that relies on something as meaningless as a foundation being completed. 1515 Douglas has been under construction since last year but the entire foundation hasn't been poured yet and won't be for a while. So does this project not exist as far as they're concerned? (I know it's office, but you get my point; 819 Yates will also pour the foundation in stages; Capital Park, too)

I'll be developing more of an engaging data component for Citified as part of upgrades to the site. It will be fantastic to be able to pull data, compare activity, view trends, etc. It's coming

 

The definition could be a legacy from when the dataset was created.   When you want to maintain a continuous time series dataset for almost 50 years you are stuck with the definition that was created back then.   Either way, completions is what matters, which they also track.   Interestingly enough they also have absorption but I haven't looked at those numbers in detail yet.

[Mike K.]

May's record-breaking real-estate sales push year's total to over 5,000 transactions

http://victoria.citi...0-transactions/

 

For the third month in a row Victoria’s real-estate market has set a new monthly sales record.

 

May surged ahead of last year's total for the month by a whopping 42%, reaching 1,289 sales, while active listings dropped by 40%.

 

Victoria’s real-estate frenzy began in March when sales reached 1,121 transactions and solidified the month as the busiest on record. April set another record with a 1,286 transaction total. May raised the bar even further with an additional three sales. [Full article]

[Mike K.]

Hold on to your hats: Victoria's luxury real-estate values to skyrocket

http://victoria.citi...s-to-skyrocket/

 

Victoria’s real-estate prices are on the precipice of a run-up in values, according to local real-estate professionals.

The next 18 months are expected to yield average luxury new-build real-estate rates in the $1,000 per square foot range, a significant departure from inventory currently priced at $650-to-$700 per square foot.

“We have people with serious money moving to Victoria and we’re starting to see pressure on prices materializing as demand for top-end product escalates and supply remains limited,” says Chris Gill, Victoria REALTOR® and partner at The Condo Group. “In other words, where we see the rates today, expect them to be much higher by the end of the year or by the summer of 2018. We can already see the first signs of what's coming with select units pushing well north of $1,000 per square foot.” [Full article]

[spanky123]

^ How does moving BCIMC staff from Selkirk to 'downtown' create 'hundreds' of high paying jobs in the core? 

 

Aside from that BCIMC is a Government entity. I have a couple of friends who work their and neither could afford a $1,000 a sq ft house or condo.

Edited by spanky123, 08 March 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[Mike K.]

bcIMC is expanding their workforce.

But that's just the thing, they can easily afford $650-$700 per square foot, right? So if you've got a surge of relatively well paid folks coming to Victoria who will be more than able to carry a $700/sq ft condo, especially if they can shed other real-estate, you've got the making of a new demand source and a driver of prices. The key thing to take away here is $700 per foot is heading to $1,000, and quickly.

[spanky123]

^ I just don't see many new jobs opening here. They acquired real estate assets from Bentall and about 500 staff but none of those buildings are in Victoria (from what I know) so why would they pay to move people and families from Vancouver to Victoria and would those people event want to move. Most of their staff on the investment side are already in Victoria and they have support offices in other markets. Again it would make no sense to move those people here when the assets they were managing are elsewhere.

Edited by spanky123, 08 March 2017 - 04:44 PM.