UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The condominium experience in British Columbia Eadie, Graeme McAllister 1977

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1978_A4_6 E23.pdf [ 16.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0094232.json
JSON-LD: 1.0094232+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0094232.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0094232+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0094232+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0094232+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0094232 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0094232.txt
Citation
1.0094232.ris

Full Text

THE CONDOMINIUM EXPERIENCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by GRAEME MCALLISTER EADIE B. Comm., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  19 76  A T h e s i s Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t o f The R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e Degree o f Master o f Science i n Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in The F a c u l t y o f G r a d u a t e S t u d i e s (Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February,  ©  19 7 8  Graeme M c A l l i s t e r E a d i e ,  19 7 8  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  the  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y  of  B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference  and  study.  I f u r t h e r agree  t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be g r a n t e d by "the Head o f my  ment or h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .  I t i s understood t h a t  or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n be  allowed without my  written  permission.  departcopying  shall  not  Abstract The  overall objective  of  t h i s s t u d y was  condominium market i n B r i t i s h on  the  Columbia w i t h  m e t r o p o l i t a n V a n c o u v e r and  t h e r e were f o u r m a i n . g o a l s : and  timing  file  of  of  1)  this  sector  of  examine the  the  minium p r o j e c t s . pertaining All was  to  of  the  i n the  their level the  of  developers  characteristics finally  completed  s i t u a t i o n s and  4)  of to  condo-  unusual  problems  examined.  to quantify  the  condominium market  strata  r e g i s t r a t i o n , l o c a t i o n , use,  structure  type,  the  developer.  quantitative  Transaction  c o l l e c t e d at  the  f o r the  the  d a t a needed t o  o c c u p a n t s and  i n 1968.  condominium p r o j e c t s  As  of  involving  in  data concerning Offices;  construct  resale  the  the  above, a l s o  developers  found to November  the  this  price  served  46,411 u n i t s  1977 had  as  surveys.  have grown r a p i d l y 30,  and  condo-  Land R e g i s t r y  data, described  c o n d o m i n i u m m a r k e t was  inception  socio-demographic  number o f  index.  its  defining  pro-  strata projects,  number o f  of  The  type,  Included  formed p a r t  basis  amounts,  investigate  management o f  unique  Specifically  Offices,  also  the  and  Land R e g i s t r y  miniums was  The  their  the  emphasis  to e s t a b l i s h a  i t s participants,  data necessary  date of  name o f  m a r k e t and  Several  r e c o r d s were t h e units,  to  c o n d o m i n i u m s were a l s o  the  available  3)  purpose of  administration  the  f o r p u r c h a s e , and  concepts,  condominiums f o r the  special  to q u a n t i f y  condominium o c c u p a n t s i n c l u d i n g  s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the  investigate  V i c t o r i a areas.  c o n d o m i n i u m d e v e l o p m e n t s , 2)  characteristics, motivations  of  to  a total been  of  since 2340  registered  i n the p r o v i n c e .  Of these 94.8%  the u n i t s were s t r i c t l y  of the p r o j e c t s and  of  This represents a  signifi-  cant f o r c e i n the housing market as condominiums i n 1976  accoun-  ted  f o r 26.2%  housing  residential.  94.0%  of a l l housing  s t a r t s and  s t a r t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  were c o n c e n t r a t e d  G e o g r a p h i c a l l y the condominiums  (11.9% of a l l u n i t s ) .  s i n g l e s t r u c t u r a l category was 4.2%  of a l l m u l t i - u n i t  i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver (65.6% o f a l l u n i t s )  and m e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a  p r o j e c t s and  57.9%  The  largest  duplex p r o j e c t s (42.3% of a l l  o f a l l u n i t s ) f o l l o w e d by  (under 4 s t o r i e s ) which accounted f o r 21.7%  l o w r i s e apartments of a l l projects  (36.0% o f a l l u n i t s ) . O v e r a l l r e s i d e n t i a l condominium p r i c e s have r i s e n by mately 150%  between 1969  and  1977  approxi-  i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  and  V i c t o r i a although those u n i t s purchased from 197 4 on have shown little  o r no g a i n on r e s a l e .  Condominium u n i t s have kept pace  w i t h r a t e of i n c r e a s e of s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house p r i c e s .  One  hundred and  f i f t y - s e v e n p r o j e c t s o f 10 u n i t s and  were randomly s e l e c t e d i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and Every e i g h t h u n i t w i t h i n these p r o j e c t s was owners and a tenants r e s u l t i n g i n 234  survey  - 895  completed and  greater  Victoria.  distributed;  an  u n i t s were thus canvased  returned questionnaires.  From  t h e s e , t h r e e submarkets w i t h i n the condominium market were identified: a) young, apartment condominium p u r c h a s e r s , children.  g e n e r a l l y without  They purchased a u n i t p r i m a r i l y t o e s t a b l i s h  e q u i t y p o s i t i o n i n the housing  market;  an  b)  townhouse p u r c h a s e r s who were p r e d o m i n a n t l y  i n t h e 30-3  y e a r o l d age c a t e g o r y a n d h a d t h e h i g h e s t a v e r a g e of  c)  children;  the older  ( o v e r 40 y e a r s o l d ) a p a r t m e n t  moved f r o m  . single  the r e q u i r e d The  family  single  reasons  second,  was  found  t h e freedom  that overall  (90%) p r o d u c e d  twenty  upkeep  o r very well  (1261).  i n terms o f u n i t s  and p r o j e c t s .  buted  one h a l f  of the units  half  The l a r g e s t  these  c o u n c i l budgets,  and r e s e r v e a c c o u n t s , has improved Less  budget  pro-  than  contri-  i n terms o f both greatly  i n the  9 p e r c e n t o f surveyed p r o j e c t s had  deficiencies,  o f the p r o j e c t s  firms  i n this region.  management o f s t r a t a  operating  The m a j o r i t y o f  i n terms o f p r o d u c t i o n o f u n i t s concentrated,  i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver,  past.  t o be made  o n l y o n e o r two p r o j e c t s e a c h , however  activity  recent  satisfied.  i n d u s t r y was f o u n d  their  operating  Furtheri t  a s m a l l number o f f i r m s t h a t w e r e l a r g e  producers  The  (28%).  (46%)  E i g h t y - e i g h t percent o f the respond-  o f a l a r g e number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s  ducers both  frequently  t h e r e was a h i g h l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  condominium development  t h e r e were a l s o  t h e two m o s t  t h e economic advantage  of exterior  e n t s r e p o r t e d t o be m o d e r a t e l y  these  d w e l l i n g s t o escape  f o r p u r c h a s i n g a condominium r a t h e r than a  w i t h condominium l i v i n g .  The  p u r c h a s e r s who  upkeep.  f a m i l y h o u s e were f i r s t ,  and  up  detached  owners s u r v e y a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t  mentioned  numbe  surveyed  compared t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y one i n 1973.  V  The condominium market i s c u r r e n t l y e x p e r i e n c i n g very market c o n d i t i o n s .  T h i s i s evidenced  soft  by the minimal p r i c e  a p p r e c i a t i o n d i s p l a y e d r e c e n t l y , l a r g e vacant  s t o c k s o f unoc-  c u p i e d u n i t s (1638 i n June o f 1977 i n m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver) and the r e d u c t i o n i n the l e v e l o f new condominium c o n s t r u c t i o n relative  t o 1976.  D e s p i t e these n e g a t i v e a s p e c t s the broaden-  i n g o f the consumer market t o i n c l u d e a l l age groups and the high l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n  d i s p l a y e d i n the owners  survey  i n d i c a t e s the condominium market w i l l remain v i a b l e i n the long-run.  The s h o r t - r u n o u t l o o k must remain cloudy  u n t i l the p r e s e n t unsold i n v e n t o r y i s reduced.  however  vi Table o f Contents  • PAGE  L i s t of Tables L i s t o f Diagrams L i s t of Exhibits Acknowledgements  Chapter One -  Introduction  2.  Chapter Two - S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e o f Condominium Developments i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  5.  2 .1  H i s t o r y o f Condominiums  5.  2 .2  Sources o f Data and Methodology  6.  2 .3  Condominium Developments  8.  2 .3.1  Condominium Development - Type o f P r o j e c t  12.  2 .3.2  Condominium Development - S i z e o f P r o j e c t  I -  2 .4  Condominium Development as a of the Housing Market  25.  2 .5  Condominium Sale  2 .6  Current S i t u a t i o n  46.  Footnotes  48.  Proportion  Prices  7  •38.  Chapter Three - B r i t i s h Columbia T i t l e s Act  Strata  49.  3 .1  Introduction  49.  3 .2  G e n e r a l Concept  49.  3 .3  Definitions  51.  3 .4  Creation  3 .5  Owner-Developer  3• 6  Strata Corporation  3 .7  Owner-Purchaser  63.  Footnotes  69.  of a Strata  Plan  52. 55.  (Operation  and Management)  58.  PAGE Chapter Four - Owners' and Tenants' P r o f i l e  ' 71.  4.1  Introduction  71.  4.2  P r e v i o u s S t u d i e s o f Condominium Owners  72.  4.3  Sampling Process  76.  4.4  Condominium Owners' P r o f i l e  78.  4.4(a)  G e n e r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Survey Respondents  78.  4.4(b)  Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s o f Respondents  81.  4.4 (c)  Age  81.  4.4(d)  Number o f C h i l d r e n  81.  4.4(e)  E d u c a t i o n and O c c u p a t i o n  86.  4.4(f)  Income D i s t r i b u t i o n s  86.  4.4(g)  Two Wage Earner Households  92.  4.4(h)  S t r u c t u r e Type  95.  4.4 (i)  P r e v i o u s Tenure  96.  4.4 (j)  Loan-To-Value  4.4 (k)  Future Intentions  103.  4.4(1)  Summary P r o f i l e  107.  4.5  Discriminant Analysis  113.  4.6  Conclusion:  120.  4.7  M o t i v a t i o n f o r P u r c h a s i n g a Condominium  120.  4.8  Condominium V e r s e s S i n g l e Detached House  121.  4.9  Important F e a t u r e s o f the U n i t Purchased  123.  4.10  Level of S a t i s f a c t i o n  136.  4.11  General L e v e l o f S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Owners  139.  4.12  S p e c i f i c Problem Areas i n Condominiums  142.  4.13  R e a c t i o n o f Condominium Owners t o Tenants  144.  4.14  S p e c i f i c C r i t i c i s m s C o n c e r n i n g Condominiums  145.  R a t i o s and T o t a l Monthly Payments  Discriminant Analysis  f o r Condominium Owners  103.  viii • PAGE 4 .15  Tenants'  4 .16  Conclusion  149.  Footnotes  150.  C h a p t e r F i v e - Condominium Development a n d Management  152.  5 .1  Introduction  152.  5 .2  Data  5 .3. 1  Developers'  5 .3. 2  The  5 .3. 3  Small Development  5 .3. 4  Developers*  5 .3. 5  Developers  5 .4. 1  Developers'  Characteristics:  5 .4. 2  Developers' Market  Involvement  5 .4. 3  Project  5 .5. 4  Development  5 .4. 5  C o n d o m i n i u m Management by  5 .4. 6  The  5 .5. 1  C o n d o m i n i u m Management  5 .5. 2  Data  5 .5. 3  Management  5 .5. 4  Management o f P r o j e c t s a) B u d g e t s b) M a j o r P r o b l e m s c) B y - l a w E n f o r c e m e n t  193.  Footnotes  202.  Profile  Collection  148.  and Sample S i z e  -  Developers  Activities  154.  Top Twenty  157. 163.  Firms  Activity  Over Time  166.  o f Unique  Projects  166. The  Survey  i n t h e Condominium  Financing  Present  152.  Collection  172.  175.  Process  Situation  171.  177. Developers  and F u t u r e  a n d Sample  Firms  Expectations  183. 185. 187.  Size  189. 191.  PAGE Chapter S i x - Condominiums: Unique and S p e c i a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s  Features  204.  6 .1  T a x a t i o n of Condominiums a) Real P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n b) Income Tax-Owners c) Income T a x - I n v e s t o r s d) Income Tax-Developers  204.  6 .2  Conversion  212.  6 .3  Support S t r u c t u r e s  213.  6 .4  Non-Residential  217.  6 .5  Common Area Charges  224.  6 .6  Government Involvement i n Condominium F i n a n c i n g  228.  Footnotes  233.  Chapter Seven - C o n c l u s i o n s Bibliography Appendixes  235. 240.  1.  Synopsis o f P r e v i o u s  242.  2.  Owner's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  245.  3.  Tenant's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  259.  4.  Developer's  264.  5.  Manager's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  273.  6.  Strata Council Questionnaire  279.  o f R e n t a l Apartments t o Condominiums  Condominiums  Studies  Questionnaire  X  L i s t of Tables PAGE 1.  Condominium P r o j e c t s By Year and L o c a t i o n : P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia  9  2.  Summary o f Condominium P r o j e c t s  3.  P r o v i n c i a l Condominium P r o j e c t s by Year and Type  4.  Condominiums by Type and Major L o c a t i o n ,  5.  Condominium P r o j e c t s by P r o j e c t S i z e and Year  6.  P e r c e n t o f Condominium P r o j e c t s by S i z e  7.  Condominium Development Size of P r o j e c t  8.  Average P r o j e c t S i z e by Year and L o c a t i o n  24.  9.  Housing S t a r t s - P r o v i n c e  27.  10.  Housing S t a r t s - Vancouver M e t r o p o l i t a n  11.  Housing S t a r t s - V i c t o r i a M e t r o p o l i t a n  12.  Housing S t a r t s - N o n - M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas  13.  Change i n B r i t i s h Columbia P o p u l a t i o n  14.  B r i t i s h Columbia P o p u l a t i o n  15.  Condominium Average S e l l i n g P r i c e s  16.  Percentage I n c r e a s e s i n Resale P r i c e s  45  17.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Ages of Household Heads (Hamilton and Roberts)  75.  18-  B a s i c S t r u c t u r a l and Occupancy Surveyed U n i t s  Data o f  80.  19.  C o r r e l a t i o n Between Household S i z e and Number o f Bedrooms  82.  20.  P r o f i l e o f Condominium Purchasers by Age Groups  83.  21.  B a s i c Demographic and Economic DataBy S t r u c t u r e Type  85.  22.  Comparative Age D i s t r i b u t i o n s Hamilton and Roberts VS. 1977 Study  88.  #  11.  1967-1977  2.3. 16. ig. 20.  by Type o f Development  and  o f B r i t i s h Columbia Area'  28.  Area  by Age  By Age Group  22.  29. 31. Group  33. 34. 40. M  xi 23.  Comparative T o t a l Family Incomes Hamilton and Roberts, CMHC, and 1977 Study  24.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Working Spouses (At time o f purchase)  25.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e v i o u s Tenure Type by P r e s e n t S t r u c t u r a l Type  26.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e v i o u s Tenure Type by Age Group  27.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e v i o u s Tenure Type by P r i c e o f U n i t  28.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e v i o u s Tenure by Loan-to-Value R a t i o  29.  Reason f o r Moving by P r e v i o u s Tenure Type - F i r s t reason o n l y  30.  Reason f o r Moving by Age Group T o t a l Number o f Reasons  31.  Reasons f o r Moving by S t r u c t u r e Type - T o t a l Responses  32.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Loan-to-Value R a t i o by Age Group  33.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Loan-to-Value R a t i o by S t r u c t u r e Type  34.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f T o t a l Monthly Payments by Age Group  35.  F u t u r e Housing I n t e n t i o n s  36.  C h o i c e o f Next S t r u c t u r a l Type by Age Group - F o r those who Intend t o Move  37.  P r o f i l e o f Condominium P u r c h a s e r s / Discriminate Analysis Variables  38.  Number o f Cases C l a s s i f i e d Group  39.  Those who c o n s i d e r e d S i n g l e Detached House P r i o r t o Purchase o f Condominium by P r e s e n t S t r u c t u r e Type  i n t o Each  xii  PAGE  40.  Those who c o n s i d e r e d S i n g l e Detached House P r i o r t o Purchase o f a Condominium - by P r e v i o u s S t r u c t u r e type  124.  41.  Reason f o r Purchasing a Condominium over a S i n g l e Detached House - by S t r u c t u r e Type ( T o t a l Reasons)  125.  42.  Important L o c a t i o n a l Features o f the U n i t by S t r u c t u r e Type ( T o t a l Choices)  129.  43.  Important F e a t u r e s of the U n i t by S t r u c t u r e Type ( T o t a l Choices)  130.  44.  Frequency o f D e s i r e d Changes i n the U n i t by S t r u c t u r e Type  132.  45.  Important F e a t u r e s o f the P r o j e c t by S t r u c t u r e Type ( T o t a l Choices)  13 3.  46.  Frequency o f D e s i r e d Changes i n the P r o j e c t by S t r u c t u r e Type  135.  47.  Most Important Reason f o r the S e l e c t i o n o f the U n i t s  137.  48.  Frequency o f Unused Sales A t t r a c t i o n s by S t r u c t u r e Type  138.  49.  E x t e n t o f P u r c h a s e r ' s Knowledge by Method o f Purchase  140.  50.  E x t e n t o f P u r c h a s e r ' s Knowledge by the L e v e l o f S a t i s f a c t i o n  143.  51.  Most important C r i t i c i s m s o f Condominiums  146,  52.  Most Important C r i t i c i s m by S t r u c t u r e Type - F i r s t Mentioned  147.  53.  Developer's A c t i v i t y - P r o v i n c e  155.  54.  Developer A c t i v i t y by Region  15 8.  55.  Percentage o f Development - Top 20 D e v e l o p e r s i n Terms o f U n i t s  159.  56.  Percentage o f Development - Top 20 D e v e l o p e r s i n Terms o f P r o j e c t s  161.  57.  Top Twenty Developers i n Terms o f Average P r o j e c t Size  162.  xiii PAGE 58.  Percentage o f Development A c t i v i t y by Area Top Twenty Firms i n Terms o f U n i t s  164.  59.  Developer's A c t i v i t y by Year and S i z e  167.  60.  S i z e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Developer's A c t i v i t y by Year  169.  61.  Percentage o f Income D e r i v e d from Condominium Development  62.  Most Important Areas o f Revenue f o r Condominium Developers  174.  63.  Source o f F i n a n c i n g by Type and Developer's S i z e  176.  64.  Average Development  178.  65.  Method o f Development  181.  66.  D e v e l o p e r s ' P e r c e p t i o n o f Consumer P r e f e r e n c e  182.  67.  Developer Involvement i n Condominium Management  184.  68.  D e v e l o p e r s Having Unsold U n i t s Which a r e Vacant or Rented  186.  69.  Development Stages  Firms w i t h P r o j e c t s i n t h e P l a n n i n g  188.  70.  Ranking Most S i g n i f i c a n t Management Problems by Management Firms  196.  71.  Ranking o f Most S i g n i f i c a n t Management Problems by S t r a t a C o u n c i l s  197.  72.  Ranking o f Methods Used t o E n f o r c e By-laws - Strata Councils - Management Firms  200.  73.  C o n v e r s i o n s t o Condominium:  214.  74.  Support S t r u c t u r e Condominiums i n B r i t i s h Columbia  216.  75.  Completely N o n - R e s i d e n t i a l Condominium P r o j e c t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia  218.  76.  Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n o f 1977 Common A r e a Charges 226. by S t r u c t u r e Type ( M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a )  77.  N.H.A. and CM.H.C. Involvement i n Condominium F i n a n c i n g (1967 t o 1976).  Period  (Months)  B r i t i s h Columbia  17 3.  229.  xiv L i s t o f Diagrams PAGE 1.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f C h i l d r e n i n Households  87.  2.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P r e v i o u s Tenure  99.  3.  Reason f o r P u r c h a s i n g a Condominium Than a S i n g l e Detached House  4.  Manager's P r i o r E x p e r i e n c e  Rather  :  126. 192.  XV  L i s t of Exhibits PAGE 1.  R e s u l t s of D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s  119.  2.  Comparison of the L e a s i n g and Purchasing C o s t o f a Warehouse Condominium.  222.  v.  xvi Acknowledgements T h i s study  i s dependant on an e x t e n s i v e amount o f primary  data o f which t h e r e were many c o n t r i b u t o r s .  The author would  l i k e t o thank a l l those who responded t o the occupants, s t r a t a c o u n c i l s , and d e v e l o p e r s  questionnaires without  much o f t h i s study would not have been p o s s i b l e .  managers, which  Further  data  was c o l l e c t e d w i t h the generous a s s i s t a n c e from t h e M i n i s t e r of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing, p r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h  Columbia,  R e g i s t r a r s i n each Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e throughout the P r o v i n c e and t h e B r i t i s h Columbia o f f i c e o f C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation.  Thanks i s extended t o Mrs. A. Wicks, Mr. J.N.  Brampton and Mr. K. Johnson f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e d a t a  from the  Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e s and the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e d a t a . I would a l s o l i k e t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n and g r a t i t u d e t o the B r i t i s h Columbia Real E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n and t h e i r  special  S t r a t a T i t l e s Committee  (A.L. Andrews, R.J. Burns, P. Watkinson,  J.G.  and L.K. S u l l y ) f o r t h e i r  Dennis, D. 0'Brian  support  and f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e i n a r r a n g i n g  financial  appointments  throughout the p r o v i n c e .  F i n a l l y , very s p e c i a l thanks i s  extended t o Mr. D. Baxter  forhis significant contribution to  the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the primary  data and t o D r . S.W.  f o r h i s guidance throughout t h i s  study.  Hamilton  Introduction Strata  title  projects,  commonly r e f e r r e d t o , a r e ownership i n B r i t i s h in  1968.  The  overall owned  This  Columbia;  d e f i n i t i o n of  i n fee  s i m p l e by  a l l the  form o f  c o n d o m i n i u m s as  a relatively  area having within  owned by  or  the  the  be  applied  Similarly  the  projects  divisions  to multi-story  being  built  t o any  areas  i n common."* from r e s i d e n t i a l  industrial,  t a k e may  highrise  use  "one  parts  other  tenants  range  or  recreational.  from land  sub-  buildings.  legislations providing  condominiums has  property  i t s boundaries c e r t a i n  commercial,  of  project  i n d i v i d u a l owners and  t e n u r e may  enabling  form of  more  condominium c o n c e p t i s  t o mixed r e s i d e n t i a l ,  The  first  i n d i v i d u a l owners as  form the  new  they are  f o r the  development  been i n e f f e c t i n B r i t i s h Columbia  since  2 September, 1, as  the  strata  1966.  c o n c e p t was projects  not  312  increased  greatly  u n d e r s t o o d by  been c r e a t e d number,  since  31,  1977,  a total  involving  the  housing market.  the  province a  As  t h e y have i n c r e a s e d  the  a proportion  f r o m 2.2%  when 7  rate of  projects  production projects  Over the  period  With t h e i r  has invol-  1968  from  of  new  1.2%  32.0%  have  increasing  s i g n i f i c a n t force housing i n 1968  s t a r t s intended to  No  i n 667  h a v e become a  new  public.  slow  46,411 c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s  2340 p r o j e c t s .  t h e y have i n c r e a s e d share of  The  i n 1976. of  the  1968  then culminating  condominiums  As  until  u n i t s were p r o d u c e d .  11,052 u n i t s b e i n g b u i l t  t o November  1976.  fully  the, r a t e of. d e v e l o p m e n t was  were c o n s t r u c t e d  involving  ving  Initially  for  o v e r the  in  starts in to  26.2%  in  owner-occupiers same  period.  T h i s study d i v i d e s the examination o f the condominium market  i n t o f i v e b a s i c components r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g  chapters. market  Chapter Two p r e s e n t s a s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e o f t h e  i n c l u d i n g t h e q u a n t i t y , type, l o c a t i o n , and s i z e o f  condominium developments prices.  Chapter  Three  and i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i r  reviews  the S t r a t a  selling  T i t l e s A c t as  i t  p r e s e n t l y a p p l i e s , some o f the major amendments t h a t have been made s i n c e i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n , and some of the proposed  changes  i n the A c t .  The F o u r t h Chapter r e p r e s e n t s a major p o r t i o n o f  t h i s study.  I t d i s c u s s e s the r e s u l t s o f a survey o f condo-  minium owners and tenants which e s t a b l i s h e s a p r o f i l e o f t h e occupants i n c l u d i n g socio-demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , m o t i v a t i o n s f o r purchase, and the owner's s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h condominiums.  The next chapter i s concerned w i t h the d e v e l o p e r s  o f condominiums and" those charged" w i t h t h e i r  administration  and management on completion - the p r o f e s s i o n a l p r o p e r t y managers and the s t r a t a c o u n c i l s .  Chapter S i x examines some s p e c i a l  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and unique p r o j e c t s .  F i n a l l y , Chapter  Seven  p r o v i d e s some c o n c l u d i n g remarks. I t should be noted b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g f u r t h e r t h a t the term "condominium" i s not c o n t a i n e d i n the B r i t i s h Columbia tion.  legisla-  Rather, the term " s t r a t a " has been adopted from the New  South Wales S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t from which t h e B.C. A c t was modeled.  Throughout  t h i s r e p o r t however, t h e terms  "condominium  and " s t r a t a " a r e used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y t o r e f l e c t the g e n e r a l usage o f the p u b l i c .  The  f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n s are p r o v i d e d  the r e a d e r s who  are u n f a m i l i a r w i t h the terminology  to a s s i s t associated  w i t h condominiums.  For g r e a t e r d e t a i l and more s p e c i f i c  n i t i o n s the readers  are r e f e r r e d to Chapter Three.  defi-  S t r a t a P l a n or Condominium P l a n : T h i s r e f e r s t o the document t h a t i s r e g i s t e r e d at the l o c a l Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e to c r e a t e the l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n r e a l p r o p e r t y t h a t are known as s t r a t a u n i t s or condominium u n i t s . U n t i l t h i s p l a n i s accepted f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e , no s t r a t a or condominium u n i t s exist. S t r a t a P r o j e c t or Condominium P r o j e c t : T h i s i s a r a t h e r l o o s e d e f i n i t i o n used i n the i n d u s t r y t o d e s c r i b e the p r o j e c t developed under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . Generally t h i s i s i d e n t i c a l to the p r o j e c t d e s c r i b e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n except i n the case of phased condominiums where each phase i s c a l l e d a p r o j e c t but one s t r a t a p l a n covers a l l phases. S t r a t a U n i t ( l o t ) or Condominium U n i t ( l o t ) : This refers to the i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s which are c r e a t e d by the r e g i s t r a t i o n of the s t r a t a p l a n . The s i z e and b o u n d a r i e s of these i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s are s p e c i f i e d in. the s t r a t a p l a n and a t the time the s t r a t a p l a n i s f i l e d , i n d i v i d u a l c e r t i f i c a t e s of t i t l e are c r e a t e d f o r each s t r a t a u n i t . The s t r a t a u n i t s r e p r e s e n t the p o r t i o n of the s t r a t a p l a n which may be owned i n fee simple. S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n of Condominium C o r p o r a t i o n : A t the time the s t r a t a p l a n i s f i l e d , t h e r e i s an automatic c r e a t i o n of a S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n . Each owner of the s t r a t a u n i t s c o n s t i t u t e the members o f the S t r a t a Corp o r a t i o n and t h e i r v o t i n g r i g h t s are p r e s c r i b e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n . The S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n i s charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of o p e r a t i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g the common areas and by-laws and t h i s i s done through an e l e c t e d s t r a t a c o u n c i l comprising members o f the Strata Corporation.  4. Footnotes  - Chapter 1  1.  S.W. Hamilton, I . D a v i s , and J . Lowden, "Condominium Development i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver", The Real E s t a t e C o u n c i l o f G r e a t e r Vancouver, December 1971, p. 2.  -  S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , S.B.C. 1966 c h . 46, Nov. S.B.C. 1974 ch. 89.  2  5. Chapter 2 S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e of Condominiums i n B r i t i s h 2.1  Columbia  H i s t o r y o f Condominiums The condominium concept was  Hebrews, 2,500 y e a r s ago and was  f i r s t used by the a n c i e n t subsequently used by the Greeks,  P h o e n i c i a n s , Moslems and E g y p t i a n s .  In 1804  the f i r s t modern  c o d i f i c a t i o n o f condominium law was  enacted i n the Code Napoleon  of  t h e r e was  France ( A r t i c l e 664) and by 1884  4,190  condominium s t r u c t u r e s i n F r a n c e .  r e p o r t e d t o be  Condominium  a l s o appeared i n a major f a s h i o n a f t e r World War In  development  I i n Europe.  North America, condominiums f i r s t became p o p u l a r i n Puerto  Rico and Hawaii. all  P r e s e n t l y , v i r t u a l l y a l l the c o u n t r i e s of Europe,  the American s t a t e s , a l l the A u s t r a l i a n  s t a t e s , and a l l the  Canadian, p r o v i n c e s have comprehensive condominium, l e g i s l a t i o n . ' ' "  The B r i t i s h Columbia S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t was 1966  introduced i n  and was modelled a f t e r the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t o f New  Wales, A u s t r a l i a .  The A l b e r t a and Saskatchewan  p a t t e r n e d a f t e r the New  South  A c t s were a l s o  South Wales A c t w h i l e the remaining  Canadian p r o v i n c e s adopted an American s t y l e d a c t .  The main  d i f f e r e n c e between the two s t y l e s o f l e g i s l a t i o n i s t h a t the American-based  law does not r e q u i r e a b u i l d i n g o r p h y s i c a l  s t r u c t u r e b e f o r e the r e g i s t r a t i o n o f a s t r a t a p l a n , t h e A u s t r a l i a n law does.  T h i s i s m o d i f i e d now  i n the B.C. A c t  which p e r m i t s b a r e l a n d and support s t r u c t u r e s t r a t a l o t s . .  Examining the h i s t o r y of condominiums r e v e a l s t h a t the of the condominium concept i s s t i m u l a t e d shortages  (such as i n Europe a f t e r world War  r e s t r i c t e d b u i l d i n g areas ancient  i n periods  c i t i e s or the  Hawaii).  The  ( w i t h i n the w a l l e d  o f housing  I) or i n p l a c e s confines  of  l i m i t e d land areas of Puerto Rico  development of condominiums i n B r i t i s h  also accelerated  during  use  of  the and  Columbia  a p e r i o d of high demand f o r housing  evidenced by r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g p r i c e s of s i n g l e - f a m i l y homes. The  l e v e l o f housing demand i s o n l y one  reason f o r the  of condominiums however, changes i n l i f e s t y l e , ences, and The  consumer p r e f e r -  economic c a p a b i l i t y a l s o have an e f f e c t .  o b j e c t i v e of t h i s chapter i s t o q u a n t i f y  ment of condominiums i n B r i t i s h Columbia. the owners o£ condominiums and i s l e f t t o Chapter Four - The 2.2  acceptance  Sources of Data and  The  the  develop-  examination of  t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n s f o r purchase Owners Survey.  Methodology  There are s e v e r a l sources of data used i n t h i s c h a p t e r . I n i t i a l l y data were c o l l e c t e d from the O f f i c e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  The  seven Land  data i n c l u d e d  Registry  the  strata  p l a n number, number of u n i t s i n the p r o j e c t , data of r e g i s t r a t i o n , municipality units and  or a r e a the p r o j e c t was  l o c a t e d i n , the  use  ( r e s i d e n t i a l or n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l ) , data on phased  those c o n s t r u c t e d  p r o j e c t c o u l d a l s o be  on  leased  land.  The  structure  determined by examining the  r e g i s t e r e d i n the Land R e g i s t r y  Offices  (L.R.O.).  t h i s s e t of data, the name of t h e developer was to be used i n Chapter F i v e .  of  the  projects  type of  the  s t r a t a plans As p a r t  of  also c o l l e c t e d  D a t a on with  a single  titles of  conversions, title  w i t h i n the  t h e L.R.O.'s.  municipal The  made i n 1973 conversion  same a r e a , was  requiring  c o u l d take  of  the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  o f any  The  one  ments not rise  the  p l a c e no  necessarily horizontally (vertical  projects  support  (two  (more t h a n  used  with  changes were  of the m u n i c i p a l i t y b e f o r e on  the  even a f t e r  presented  some  the  con-  therefore  a complete  list.  classified, into a variety  but  not  vertically),  attached v e r t i c a l l y and  of  less  attachment of  duplex  of  (those u n i t s t h a t are  units attached one  should  than  low and  next  step  i n the  attached  may  data  random sample o f p r o j e c t s o f more t h a n  four stories)  or  tan areas  of V i c t o r i a  u n i t was  then  and  Vancouver.  s e l e c t e d and  the  collection 10  From t h e s e  but high  stories),  horizontally),  was  detached, mixed  uses  to select  u n i t s i n the  title  apart-  be  in a strata plan), single  primary  cate-  rise  f o u r o r more  vertically  number  1973  s t r u c t u r e s , b a r e l a n d , w a r e h o u s e , c o m m e r c i a l and  The  eighth  the  d i d not have complete r e c o r d s o f  horizontally  records  Vancouver.  legislative  Secondly,  townhouses or rowhouses  apartment  and  s h o u l d be  a minimum number r a t h e r t h a n  another  from  r e c o r d s were k e p t  conversions.  building  from the  collected  before  approval  s t r u c t u r e type, was  duplexes  available  category  first,  (those u n i t s t h a t are  duplex  not  number o f c o n v e r s i o n s  considered  gories : to  in this  reasons:  location  The  existing  p r o j e c t with multiple  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was  or  be  title  o f an  governments i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a  f o r two  versions.  changing  to a s t r a t a  figures presented  caution  the  metropoli-  p r o j e c t s , every  searched  a  to o b t a i n  sales price information.  These data were then supplemented by  o t h e r sources to p r o v i d e some i n d i c a t i o n of the changes i n p r i c e s for 3  condominium u n i t s .  Condominium Developments The  B r i t i s h Columbia S t r a t a T i t l e s Act became e f f e c t i v e  September 1, 1966  but the f i r s t  u n t i l February  29, 1968.  ment i n i t i a l l y  was  s t r a t a p l a n was  registered  The reason f o r the slow r a t e o f  p a r t i a l l y due  develop-  to c a u t i o n on the p a r t o f d e v e l -  opers to e n t e r i n t o an e n t i r e l y new problems of f i n a n c i n g .  not  on  area and p a r t i a l l y due  F i n a n c i n g was  difficult  t o the  t o o b t a i n because  mortgagees ranked condominiums v e r y low i n o r d e r o f t h e i r p r e f e r 2 ence and 1967 and 1968 were p e r i o d s of shortages of mortgage 3 money.  T h i s r e s u l t e d i n mortgagaes p l a c i n g a l l a v a i l a b l e  funds  i n more, t r a d i t i o n a l forms, of. housing. T a b l e 1 d i s p l a y s the aggregate ments i n B r i t i s h Columbia s i n c e 1968  of a l l condominium - t h e r e were no  develop-  strata  t i t l e p r o j e c t s developed  p r i o r t o t h i s time.  modest b e g i n n i n g  the r a t e of condominium development  i n 1968  From the r a t h e r  i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y t o the p o i n t where, as of November 30,  1977,  there are 46,411 s t r a t a u n i t s i n 2340 s t r a t a p l a n s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. 1262  Of these, 30,502 (65.7%) of the s t r a t a u n i t s and  (53.9%) of the s t r a t a plans are l o c a t e d i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  Vancouver.  M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a comprises  the second  largest  group of s t r a t a u n i t s and p l a n s w i t h 5528 (11.9%) u n i t s i n (18.4%) p l a n s .  Combined these areas r e p r e s e n t 77.6%  u n i t s and  of a l l p r o j e c t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  72.3%  The  of a l l next  l a r g e s t urban area i n terms o f condominium development i s  432  •  TABLE 1  CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS BY YEAR AND LOCATION:  ProProProProProProPro. .Unit . ..Unit . .Unit.j.e c t..Unit ].e c t .Unit j.e c t.Unit j e c t ject ject ject  Land Registry Areas  1975  1S74  1973  1972  1971  1970  1969  1968  PROVINCE OP-BRITISH COLUMBIA  ProU n i t  ject  Unit  0  0  3  78  5  220 18  494 37  1243 50  1654 72  2424 75 . 2363  2 2  46 46  1 4  12 90  3 ' 8  16 1 236 19  10 5 504 42  71 1 1314 51  3  102 10  520  16  674 31  1409 35  1010 82  12 10 1666 82 2028 83  0  0  4  68  3  3  102 .14  588  •19  772 34  j 7. T o t a l Metropolitan Van- 3 ! couver Area (1+4)  102 13  598  21  894 49  ! 8. Metropolitan V i c t o r i a 1 LRO I 9, Balance V i c t o r i a LRO ;10. T o t a l V i c t o r i a LRO  0  • 0  2  42  13  239 21  z  164  . 22 . 0 64 13  0 4 239 25  3  102 15  34  1133 70  0 0  0 2 5  0 4 0 4 6 1 0 0 27 1 33 10  0 0 1  0 0 10  1. Metropolitan Vancouv er LRO 2. Balance Vancouver LR 0 T o t a l Vancouver  :  LRO  4. Metropolitan New Westminster LRO 5. Balance New Westmins t e r LRO 6. T o t a l New Westminster LRO  j l l . A l l Metropolitan : (1+4+8) '12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.  Areas  Kamloops C i t y Kclov/na Vernon Penticton Balance Kamloops LRO T o t a l Kamloops LRO Nelson LRO Prince Georgo LRO Prince Rupert LRO  21, Grdnd T o t a l )  B.C,  ?  1  3  640  0  3  •  7  315 21  742  46  98  3  0 0 1  1290 89  Pro jec  b  Total  1977  1976 Unit  Pro-  Project  U n i t  ject  ProUnit  ject  Unit  77  2044 431 •13206  18.4  28.4.  274 12 2698 87  205 17 195' 16 2558 no 2891 . 94  260 68 1101 2304 499 14307  2.9 21.3  2.3 30. 8  2028 L56  2857 213  9  130 30  468 65  1010 87  2199 92  2158 L86  3295 278  1903 72 ' 2253 132  3682 L55  4452 231  5220 307  494 25  ' 640 34  553 42  602 52  900 L09  72 7 566 32  141 6 781 40  160 10 713 52  210 23 812 75  567 80 1467  2893 166  4235 L97  70  0  1479 35  2397  97  249 3 9 1 21 2 0 0 19 4 298 10 0 0 27  I 0  o  0  5  171  115 2 4 0 • 74 195  1 1 0 0 1 3  - 2 14 0 0 64 80  4 1 0 0 2 7  87 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0  2 2 0  2874 120 3387 181 4658  237  94 2686  5054 28 3 6120 416 172 4 72 13 0 3 0 G 51 6 295 32 22 50 0  6 6 2  6045 394  164 8 89 29 60 3 130 4 84 30 527 74 62 176 .,..93  6 € 4  4126 202  2542 831  29  473 148  904  17296 35.5 2352  37.2.  6.3  4.9  3015 979 19648 41.8  42.3.  6812  279 4586 1262 305C2 53.9  65 7 •  1073  134  5030 231  985 432  5528 18 .4  460 181  2617  7.7.  7885 413 5571 1694 35030  72.3  48 821 1894 -182  312 5 124 24 56 6 185 2 288 • 27 965 •64 117 88  4  2  A,  1441£31- 8145 75 ,1  n.s'; .' 5.6 17. f, 77.6.  12 97 2S m i 3.1 177 73 487 <35 18 0.8 182 0.5 48 •12 363 3.1 494 73 1101 851 205 . 3244. 87 51 107 ,i on  19 16  339  431 297  .817£ .667 11052 578 . 7873 234C 46411  2.3; 1.0 0.4 0.8' 2.1 6.9' ' 0.8' 0.9 ' 1,0'r 0.8  0*1  100,1  „D._Z-  'iml  10. Kamloops C i t y w i t h 29 p r o j e c t s The The  (1.2%) and  1111  data i n Table 1 r e q u i r e s some f u r t h e r  units  (2.3%).  explanation.  t o t a l s i n c l u d e amalgamations or c o n s o l i d a t i o n s of e x i s t i n g  condominiums, c a n c e l l e d p l a n s which were r e g i s t e r e d and quently  cancelled, demolitions,  project. as t h r e e  each phase i n a m u l t i - p h a s e  For example, a s t r a t a p l a n w i t h three phases i s counted separate p r o j e c t s t o r e f l e c t the t i m i n g d i f f e r e n c e s of  construction. should  and  subse-  These adjustments are minor i n aggregate but  be kept i n mind.  adjustments.  Table 2 i n d i c a t e s the extent  A f t e r allowing  of 2302 s t r a t a p l a n s  f o r adjustments, one  i n existence  a l l of these r e p r e s e n t  new  of these  finds a t o t a l  i n v o l v i n g 45,597 u n i t s .  u n i t s as 1188  existing units i n  p r o j e c t s were c o n v e r t e d t o condominiums from another use. are examined i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter S i x .  Not 48 These  TABLE 2 Summary of Condominium Projects  Projects 2340  1.  P r o v i n c i a l Totals  2.  Less Cancelled or Destroyed Plans* Subtotal  3.  4.  14  245  232  46JL66 569  2322  45,597  Less Duplicate Count Phased Plans** E x i s t i n g Totals  '  4  Less Consolidations Subtotal  Units 46,411  20  0  2302 Plans  ••Projects include each phase i n a phased s t r a t a plan.  45,597 Units  The t o t a l project  included 14 phased strata plans with a t o t a l of 34 projects or phases. Each phase was recorded as a separate project i n order to a l l o c a t e the units to the correct year in which they were constructed.  *In most cases the records at the Land Registry Office did not indicate the reason f o r cancellation of the plan.  Therefore i t i s not possible  to determine i f the building was destroyed or converted to a non-condominium use.  Examining the data c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y one  can see the number of  condominium r e g i s t r a t i o n s i n terms of both u n i t s and r i s e n s t e a d i l y from 1968  t o 1976  mation p e r t a i n i n g to 1977 is l i t t l e  i n the p r o v i n c e .  While the  i s complete o n l y t o November 30,  doubt t h a t the p r o d u c t i o n  approximately 20%  from the 1976  level.  cussed i n more d e t a i l i n s e c t i o n 2.6,  more than the p r e v i o u s  Current  of  (This i s d i s -  Situation).  While  and  1976  year's  terms i n B r i t i s h Columbia  where 273  production  p r o j e c t s and  was  recorded.  2874 u n i t s 1976  the l a r g e s t s i n g l e y e a r i n terms of p r o d u c t i o n of a l l p r o j e c t s and  S i m i l a r increases occurred 1975-76 p e r i o d  there  showed the g r e a t e s t r a t e of i n c r e a s e of develop-  took p l a c e between 1975  t i n g f o r 28.5%  infor-  This i s a r e f l e c t i o n  ment, the g r e a t e s t i n c r e a s e i n a b s o l u t e  represented  has  of condominiums w i l l be down  c u r r e n t poor market c o n d i t i o n s being experienced.  the e a r l y p e r i o d s  projects  23.8%  of a l l u n i t s  accoun-  (Table  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver d u r i n g  (an i n c r e a s e of 76 p r o j e c t s and  1592  also  3). the  units),  however M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a d i s p l a y e d i t s l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e over the p r e v i o u s  year i n terms of u n i t s from 1974  although the l a r g e s t i n c r e a s e i n p r o j e c t s 1975  and  2.3.1  (57)  t o 1975  (298)  took p l a c e between  1976.  Condominium Developments - Type of P r o j e c t s The  d i s t r i b u t i o n of condominium p r o j e c t s and  p r o j e c t and  by year i s shown i n T a b l e  3.  The  u n i t s by type of  majority of  the  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y , however some c l a r i f i c a t i o n may  be  required.  Support s t r u c t u r e s  L i n e s 1 to 11 are s t r i c t l y r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s . ( l i n e 12)  and  bareland  subdivisions  (line  14)  13.  •.  TABLE 3  PROVINCIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS BY TYPE BY YEAR  Type o f  1968 Project Units  Project  1969 Project Units  1970 Project Units  1973 Project Units  1972 Project Units  1971 Project Units  1974 Project Units  1975 Project Units 1  1976 Project Units  1977* Project Units  Total '% Project P r o j e c t • Units Units  SINGLE TYPE: Residential . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  Single Detached Duplex (2 Units) . Duplexes Townhouses Low-Rise High-Rise  MIXED TYPE: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.  3 •4  147 165  15 656 4 . 86  15 2 18 8 3  30 96 824 274 66  1 7 18 36 3 24 30 1606 18 610 13 377  2 • 24 25 50 1 4 43 1611 40 1409 6 239  4 44 53 106 1 35 35 1100 61 2225 20 862  5' 132 1 11 67 134 .47 294 1 6 1 32 42 1309 77 2085 97 3343 104 2930 21 1042 46 2313  6 353 6 102 110 45  '.74 706 134 2362 3373' 2430  18 311 5 92 61 27  161 622 '54 1721 2321 1763  3 1 1 1  626 122 19 7  0 0 0 2 0  0 0 0 18 0  30 0  807 0 51 30 156 43 0 18 0 108  -  37  20 .58 507 181  453 1978 385 13421 16735 9092  2 6 3 4 1  953 297 51 7  )89  1.5 0.9 42.3 4.2 0.7 /l.O 19.7 29.3 21.7 36.0 7.7 19.5  Residential  Duplex/Townhouse Low-Rise/Townhouse Townhouse/High-Rise Single/Duplex Duplex/Lowrise  TYPE: Non-Residential J 12. *. Support Structure 13. Lot Subdivision 14. Bareland Subdivision 15. Residential & Commercial 16. Warehouse 17. Commercial 18. Church/Hlghrlse 19. Cancelled 20. Consolidated 21. Lease  1 1 1  58 63 72  •  i .*  1 1 0  264  14 0  1  52  1  103  0 0 0. 0 0  u •  2 1  1  : 12 8 4  0 5 0  63 . 0  1 1  0 21  5 1  161 137  n o /l.O £1.0  71.0  2.0 71.0 £1.0 /l.O /l.O /l.O £1.0  MIAKU  22.  Total:  A l l Types  23.  Percentage By Year  •  .7 0.2  0  21  742  46  0.6 0.8  1.5  1.9  312  *To November 30i 1977t  1 0 0 • 0 0 35  3387  1  H  0 0 0 1  1290  89  2874  120  2.7  3.8  6.1  5.1  2 2  1 0  7  2 11 2 . 11  181  7.2 7,7  l  Z  4658 237 • 6045  24 7  $94 8178  10.0 10.1 13.0 1 3.8  17.6  20 678 0 0 0 0 2 7 3 15 1 4 1 2 3 17 1 411 8 65 66711052 28.5  1  2 17 7 0 1 1 3  52 1509 2.2 3.5 2 8 /l.O /l.O 1 51 71.0 71.0 5 49 /l.O /l.O 260 "1.3 71.0 "31 11 62 /l.O £1.0 1 2 /l.O £1.0 14 245 71.0 71.0 4 569 71.0 1.23 11 173 £1.0 £1.0  578 7873 0 340 4641" loos; 100%  23.8 24.7 16.9  100 100  represent  condominium p r o j e c t s w i t h no b u i l d i n g s .  Line  13, l o t  s u b d i v i s i o n , r e f e r s t o the c r e a t i o n o f two or more s t r a t a l o t s out o f a s i n g l e s t r a t a u n i t . u n i t s o n l y the newly c r e a t e d 18 r e p r e s e n t s  To a v o i d  the double c o u n t i n g of  s t r a t a u n i t s are i n d i c a t e d .  Line  a n o v e l use o f the condominium concept t o combine  a church and a h i g h r i s e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g .  L i n e 21  s t r a t a p r o j e c t s t h a t are c o n s t r u c t e d  land - a more  on l e a s e d  contains  complete account o f these i s p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter S i x . C l a s s i f y i n g the development i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l and nonr e s i d e n t i a l one can see t h a t the v a s t m a j o r i t y p r o j e c t s are r e s i d e n t i a l i n nature.  Lines  o f the u n i t s and  1 t o 11 and 21, which  are a l l e x c l u s i v e l y r e s i d e n t i a l , aggregate t o r e p r e s e n t all  u n i t s r e g i s t e r e d and 94% o f a l l p r o j e c t s .  i n c l u d e the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s c o n t a i n e d  95% o f  T h i s does not  i n the mixed r e s i d e n t i a l /  commercial p r o j e c t s o r those support s t r u c t u r e s and b a r e l a n d s t r a t a u n i t s used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. these c a t e g o r i e s picture.  The numbers i n v o l v e d i n  are very s m a l l and w i l l not a f f e c t the o v e r a l l  While the r e g i s t r a t i o n s of n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s i s  very s m a l l , the numbers have been i n c r e a s i n g i n r e c e n t y e a r s .  As  the market g a i n s e x p e r i e n c e i n these areas even more developments will  l i k e l y be forthcoming i n the f u t u r e . Duplex  (2 u n i t ) condominium p r o j e c t s r e p r e s e n t  42.3% o f a l l  p r o j e c t s but only  4.2% o f a l l u n i t s .  miniums r e p r e s e n t  the l a r g e s t c a t e g o r y i n terms o f the number o f  units  Lowrise apartment condo-  (36.0% of u n i t s , 2 l . 9 % of p r o j e c t s )  (29.3% o f u n i t s , 19.7% o f p r o j e c t s )  followed  and h i g h r i s e  by townhouses  apartments  (19.5% and 7.7% f o r u n i t s and p r o j e c t s r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  A l l other  15. uses are i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n to these c a t e g o r i e s .  It is  i n t e r e s t i n g to note however, t h a t support  approxi-  s t r u c t u r e s are  mately double the number o f any o t h e r n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l use they have o n l y been developed s i n c e Table  4 presents  yet  1975.  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of condominiums by  and major l o c a t i o n s .  The  type  l o c a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of s t r u c t u r e  types w i l l depend on s e v e r a l f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g the r e l a t i v e p r i c e of l a n d , l e v e l of demand f o r v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r e t y p e s , zoning,  municipal  and on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of l a n d i n each area.  the f a c t o r of m u n i c i p a l  zoning  Excluding  i t would be expected t h a t  the  s t r u c t u r e s w i t h the h i g h e s t d e n s i t i e s ( h i g h - r i s e apartments) would be c l o s e s t t o the i n n e r c i t y f o l l o w e d by the l e s s dense l o w - r i s e apartments and  f i n a l l y by townhouses and  types i n the suburban a r e a s .  lower d e n s i t y  This pattern i s generally  observable  f o r condominium u n i t s . L i n e 1 of Table  4, M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver LRO  represents  the C i t y of Vancouver, West Vancouver, North Vancouver C i t y  and  North Vancouver D i s t r i c t , a l l of which are r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e t o c e n t r a l bu si ne ss  district.  Over one  the  h a l f (51.6%) of the condo-  minium p r o j e c t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver are of l o w - r i s e  design.  These are f o l l o w e d i n o r d e r of importance by h i g h - r i s e apartments (18.2%) and  townhouses  M e t r o p o l i t a n New  (12.1%). Westminster LRO,  o u t l y i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of New Surrey,  l i n e 4, c o n s i s t s of  the  Westminster, Burnaby, P o r t Coquitlam,  P o r t Moody, D e l t a , Richmond, Langley,  and White Rock.  As  expected there i s a lower percentage of apartment s t y l e d condominiums i n t h i s area than i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, 20.7%  versus  1 6 .  TABLE 4 CONDOMINIUMS BY TYPE AND MAJOR LOCATIONS 1»67-1977*  i Land R e g i s t r y Areas  Single Detached  Duplex  Duplexes  Low Rise  Town House  High Rise  1 4 5  5 33 38  43 16 59  86 32 118  6 2 8  105 36 141  52 1536 30 498 82 2034  221 6697 4 189 225 6886  12 1 13  199 8 207  495 66 561  990 132 1122  0 4 4  0 106 106  119 5896 41 902 160 6798  148 6318 32 1025 180 7343  ' 7. T o t a l M e t r o l o l i t a n Vancouver ' Area (1 + 4)  13  204  538  1076  6  105  171 7432  i 8. M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a LRO \ 9. Balance V i c t o r i a LRO 1 0 . T o t a l V i c t o r i a LRO  1 10 11  2 152 154  212 76 289  424 152 578  2 4 6  24 50 74  73 1129 49 1150 122 2279  11. A l l M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas (1 + 4 + 8)  14  209  750  1500  8  129  1 0 1 0 0 2  60 0 4 0 0 64  0 0 0  0 0 0  20  385  1. M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver LRO ; 2. Balance Vancouver LRO , 3. T o t a l Vancouver LRO 1  4. M e t r o p o l i t a n New Westminster ' 5. Balance New Westminster LRO • 6. T o t a l New Westminster LRO  Mixed Residential  ,  Support Structure  Others  78 4378 0 0 78 4378  1 0 1  103 0 103  5 9 14  40 312 352  21 238 1 1 22 239  23 2107 0 0 23 2107  6 0 6  953 0 953  0 1 1  0 157 157  26 285 1 22 27 307  369/13015  101 6485  7  1056  5  40  47 523  1210 479 1689  74 2430 4 130 78 2560  3 4 7  201 51 252  2 11 12  8 271 279  244 8561  420 14225  175 8915  10  1257  7  48  21 810 8 99 7 125 5 244 19 367 60 1645  4 6 4 4 8 26  141 228 28 102 148 647  0 1 0 1 0 2  0 36 0 11 0 47  1 0 0 0 0 1  58 0 0 0 0 58  0 2 1 1 18 22  0 6 15 4 517 542  0 2 0 0 0 2  0 10 0 0 0 10  267 201 197  3 2 0  72 99 0  0 0 0  0 0 0  0 1 0  0 52 0  0 1 1  0 79 100  0 0 0  0 0 0  181 9092  16  1418  .  i  12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.  Kamloops C i t y Kelowna Vernon Penticton Balance Kamloops LRO T o t a l Kamloops LRO  18. Nelson LRO 19. P r i n c e George LRO 20. P r i n c e Rupert LRO 21. GRAND TOTAL B . C .  1 0 0 0 7 8  . 40 0 0 0 14 54  2 108 10 2 40 162  0 0 0  0 0 0 37  1 54 5 1 20 81  453  ^Excludes c o n s o l i d a t i o n s and c a n c e l l a t i o n s  989  1978  14 12 8  458 13421  51 20 71  507 16736  52 1509  11 0 11  49 0 49  58 572  62 605  17.  69.8%.  A l s o t h i s area has a l a r g e r percentage  12.1%) and  versus  i n a b s o l u t e terms, twice as many townhouse u n i t s as  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. M e t r o p o l i t a n New p r o j e c t s , 495. area and  (14.4%  The most i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e o f  the  Westminster area i s the l a r g e number o f duplex These r e p r e s e n t 59.7%  o f a l l p r o j e c t s i n the  50% of a l l duplex p r o j e c t s i n the  province.  Examining the M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a a r e a , l i n e 8, a note o f c a u t i o n must be added.  A l a r g e though undetermined number  of the condominium p r o j e c t s i n t h i s area t h a t are c l a s s i f i e d h i g h - r i s e c o n t a i n o n l y 3h or 4 s t o r i e s .  Hence by  definition  they are c l a s s i f i e d as h i g h - r i s e but l o c a l l y they are low r i s e .  E x c l u d i n g the major m e t r o p o l i t a n most popular  condominium d e s i g n .  suggested above.  areas.  areas, townhouses are  T h i s a l s o f o l l o w s the p a t t e r n  lower d e n s i t y developments to be  F i n a l l y i t should be noted t h a t support  are most o f t e n l o c a t e d i n the non-urban areas.  structures  Only 13% o f  the  Westminster, o r V i c t o r i a .  Condominium Development - S i z e of P r o j e c t s The  d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l condominium p r o j e c t s by year  s i z e i s shown i n Table  5.  each phase i n a multi-phased as a s i n g l e p r o j e c t . one  constructed  s t r u c t u r e p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g 3% o f the u n i t s are l o c a t e d  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, New 2.3.2  the  Land c o s t s are g e n e r a l l y lower i n the o u t l y i n g  areas which allows  support  considered  T h i s f a c t makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o comment on the Metro-  p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a area r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r  profitably.  as  and  I t should be noted t h a t i n t h i s t a b l e , condominium development i s counted  Hence the range i n p r o j e c t s i z e i s from a  u n i t p r o j e c t (of which there are two,  one,  a commercial phase  LEAF 18 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING.  18a.  TABLE  5  CCMOMINIUM  Size o f  19 68  Project Provincial Totals 1-  2  Units  ProUnit ject  PROJECTS  BY ' PROJECT  SIZE  BY  YEAR:  P R O V I N C I A L  1 9 6 9  1 9 7 0  1 9 7 1  1 9 7 2  1 9 73  1 9 7 4  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUi.it ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  0  0  0  0  15  30  18  36  26  51  54  108  3- 9  0  0  0  0  2  12  12  76  11  62  18  10- 19  1  12  6  86  8  103  17  243  20  288  25  20- 39  3  94  8  182  9  253  22  667  39 1152  40- 59  1  42  1  51  6  304  5  259 540  T O T A L S  19 7 5  1 9 7 6  ProUnit ject  1 9 7 7  T 0T AL  PERCENTAGE  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  Sj e c t ^  ProUnit ject  358  716  331  67  134  148  296  101  18  105  33  189  75  395  321  42  616  62  941  57  787  t  661 1017  2032  83  453  252  1393  10.8  3.0  45  666  283  4063  12.1  8.7  43.6%  4.4%  47 1353  56 1620  90 2505  96  2664  60  1660  430 12150  18.4  26.2  288  16  715  27 1260  29 1422  39  1821  36  1735  166  7897  7.1  17.0  13 1025  12  107  7744  4.6  16.7  75 10625  3.2  22.9  <1.0  1.1  6  60- 99  1  63  2  164  4  326  7  100-499  1  101  2  259  2  262  8 1053  4  521  500 plus  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  2  0  0  0  0  5  10  4  8  5  10  2  4  3- 9  0  0  0  0  1  4  1  3  1  4  1  . 8  10- 19  1  12  3  • 40  4  47  '4  53  4  57  2  26  26  363"  20- 39  1  34  3  62  0  8  236  10  282  6  184  10  245  27  695  , o 1  0  0  0  2  96  1  58  . 1  54  3  137  5  253  9  439  8  60- 99  . "63  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  87  1  64  3  192  4  283  9  638  100-499  1  101  0  0  0  0  1  119  0  0  0  0  1  140  1  137  2  289  ;500 plus  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  .0  0  0  805  18 1319  15 1044  23  1646  '12  812  9 1255  8 991  14 1781  18  3023  9  1379  0  0  0 , 1  507  1  507  0  0  0  0  0  6 - 12  26  52  133  266  73  145  254  507  39.7  4.7  5  15  89  36  195  27  150  87  491  13.6  4.7  24  ,341 • 20  292  97  1342  15.1  12.9  38  1044  29  806  132  3588  20.6  34.5  394  9  403  38  1834  5.9  17.7  4  305  23  1632  3.6  15.7  2  201  8  987  1.2  9.5  £  0  0  0  0  ?  Non-Me tropolitan Areas 1-  :  40- 59 '  0.  38  9; 111  0 .  18b .  SOURCE;  Land Registry Data excluding cana »d o r amalgamated projects with no units reports Includes cancelled o r amalgamated projects where units were recorded i n the Land Registry O f f i c e . Each phase i n a s t r a t a plan i s counted as a separate project.  TABLE 5 (continued)  ,  , Size of I Project  i  •  CONDOMINIUM  PROJECTS  3  1 9 6 8  1 9 6 9  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  BY  PROJECT  Oi.  SIZE  BY  (a) Subdivision o f existing strata l o t , only new l o t counted. (b) One commercial unit i n a two-phase project.  YEAR; To Nov.30  19 7 0  1 9 7 1  1 9 72  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  19 7 3  ProUnit ject  1 9 7 4  1 9 7 5  1 9 76  1 9 77  T O T A L  PERCENTAGE .  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  i | Metropolitan i Vancouver i  1-  '  2 Units  3- 9  \ 10- 19  0  0  0  0  4  8  12  24  18  324 170  340  544  1088  43.1%  3.6%  100  33  170  101  533  8.0  1.7  23  314  13  195  135  1975  10.7  6.5  1389  44  1247  25  693  229  6618  18.2  21.7  376  28  1273  25  1227  115  5405  9.1 • 17.7  6  382  72  5227  5.7  17.1  36  38  76  37  74  103  206  162  70  11  56  10  52  22  246  26  405  31  .499  47 18  0  0  0  0  0  .0  8  58  5  27  12  0  0  2  28  3  43  5  66  12  179  20  20- 39  2  60  4  96  5  126  10  309  18  534  33  943  41 1221  40- 59  1  42  1  51  4  208  1  44  5  234  '11  485  21  965  60- 99  0  0  2  164  3  247  6  468  11  842  9  607  12  880  10  595  13  942  100-499  0  0  2  259  2  262  7  934  3  401  9  1255  7  851  12  1503  15  2612  6  1072  63  9149  5.0  29,9  500 plus  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  507  1  507  <1.0  1.6  0  0  0  0  6  12  2  4  3  5-  14  .28  24  48  19  38  63  126  88  176  219  437  50.7  7.9  369  14.8  6.7 13.5  Metropolitan Victoria .. •  1-  2 •  0  0  0  0  1  8  3  15  5  31  5  23  2  11  8  48  17  100  23  133  64  • 10- 19  0  0  1  18  1  13  8  124  4  52  3 . 49  7  100  5  79  10  132  12  179  51  746  11.8  20- 39  0  0  1  24  4  127  4  122  11  336  226  5  154  16  421  14  373  6  161  69  1944  15.9  35.2  154  2  105  13  658  3.0  11.9  66  2  125  12  885  2.8  16.0  <1.0  8.8  0  0  3-9  40- 59 .60- 99 100-499 500 plus  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 1 0 0  0 79 0' 0  8  3  157  0  .0  2  93  1  42  2  107  3  1  72  1  96  2  134  3  247  1  66  1  0 0  0 0  1 0  120 0  0' 0  0 0  0 0  0 0  1 0  141 0  1 0  122 0  1  106  4  489  0  0  0  0  H CO  cr  i n a mixed r e s i d e n t i a l / c o m m e r c i a l development and the other  being  the newly c r e a t e d s t r a t a l o t r e s u l t i n g from a l o t s u b d i v i s i o n ) to a p r o j e c t of 507 The  u n i t s developed  p r o j e c t s developed  as a s i n g l e phase.  i n the 1-2  t i a l l y duplexes) account f o r 43.6% of the u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e . category  accounts  f o r o n l y 3.2%  units provincially.  The  non-metropolitan  of the p r o j e c t s but o n l y  Conversely,  4.4%  the 100-499 u n i t  of the p r o j e c t s but 22.9%  o f u n i t s and  18.4%  of  the  of p r o j e c t s .  areas f o l l o w a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n w i t h a l a r g e  percentage o f duplex p r o j e c t s (but few u n i t s ) and the category  (essen-  l a r g e s t group i n terms o f u n i t s i s the  20-39 group r e p r e s e n t i n g 26.2% The  u n i t s i z e category  largest  being the 20-39 u n i t group.  Comparing the m e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a areas  one  can see t h a t there are more l a r g e r p r o j e c t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  Twenty-one percent of the p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g 66% o f the  u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver are i n p r o j e c t s o f 40 u n i t s o r more. and  The  same category  37% o f the u n i t s .  i n V i c t o r i a r e p r e s e n t s 7% o f the p r o j e c t s  I t i s a l s o o f i n t e r e s t t o note t h a t o f  76 p r o j e c t s c o n t a i n i n g 100 (84%)  or more u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e ,  are i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  64  There are o n l y f o u r such  projects i n Metropolitan V i c t o r i a . Table  6 i s p r o v i d e d t o a l l o w some q u i c k comparisons t o be  made between the areas; i t i s compiled  from T a b l e  5.  the  ..  .  s  i  -  i  20.  TABLE  6  -  SUMMARY  P e r c e n t o f Condominium P r o j e c t s  Provincial Total  Non-Metropolitan Areas  by  Size  Metropolitan Vancouver  Metropolitan Victoria  Size of Project  Project  Unit  Project  Unit  Project  Unit  Project  Unit  1-2  43.6%  4.4%  39.7%  4.9%  43.1%  3.6%  50.7%  7.9%  3-9  10.8  3.0  13.6  4.7  8.0  1.7  14.8  6.7  10-19  12.1  8.7  15.1  12.9  10.7  6.5  11.8  13.5  20-39  18.4  26.2  20.6  34.5  18.2  21.7  15.9  35.2  17.0  5.9  17.7  9.1  17.7  3.0  11.9  40-59 60-99  4.6  16.7  3.6  15.7  5.7  17.1  2.8  16.0  100-499  3.2  22.9  1.2  9.5  5.0  29.9  <1.0  8.8  <1.0  1.1  0  0  <1.0  1.6  500  plus  Source:  Table  5  0  0  Referring possible  to  again  to Table  The  project  of  proportion  of  the  to  smaller  scale projects  in  1976  and  trend  40  again  accounted 10  or  more u n i t s  total  sample. (under  i n 1977.  f o r 49.8  s l a c k market  largest  unit  rise per  7.  category.  project)  residential  and  respectively  and  The  support  and  amongst t h e  the  size  This  1974  a  shift  of  back  reversed  40 as  or  more  compared  suggests a  reflective  no  current  doubt of  the  the  major  location  provincial totals  i s the  are  the  m i x e d r e s i d e n t i a l (58.92  seven p r o j e c t s  i n the  l a r g e s t average s i z e d group i s followed  by  low-rises  (29.37 u n i t s p e r  8.39,  5.64,  projects  structure  and  project).  The  and  a l l  other,  8.50  exceeded  projects  (33.01  39  u n i t s per units  were f a i r l y  100highunits non-  project  in size.  evenly  divided  categories.  the  non-metropolitan  and  in Metropolitan support  the  was  total units  s i z e and  type  project)  none o f  until  increasing  projects  percent.  type,  next  averaging  Making r e g i o n a l  and  1977,  an  projects  which again  p r o j e c t s , warehouse, commercial, small  land  by  townhouses  t e n d e d t o be  land  units)  l a r g e l y t o the  The  (50.23 u n i t s p e r  40  Considering  due  there  up  i t is  projects.  average s i z e d p r o j e c t project)  1975  scale projects  f o r condominium  i n Table  u n i t s per 499  57.7  s i z e of  increase  In  percent of  Condominium p r o j e c t s displayed  i n the  representing  During  year average of  towards s m a l l e r  provincial totals,  s i z e s appear to  with projects  w i t h the  the  i d e n t i f y some modest t r e n d  over time.  units  5 and  c o m p a r i s i o n s one areas are  smaller  Vancouver across  structures.  sons w i t h M e t r o p o l i t a n  can  This  see  the  than those  a l l types of  i s generally  V i c t o r i a a l s o , but  the  developments i n the  province  projects  true  for  duplexes  in  except  compari-  and  22 .  TABLE 7  .Size of Project • Provincial Totals  i j!  13- 2 9 Units  Single Family  Duplex  Duplexes  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  13 7  26 989 1978  43  0  0  Town House  Low Rise Project  High Rise ..  U n i t  Mixed Land and Residen- Support tial  Project  ProUnit ^ ject  0  0  0  1  2  1  2  12  64  126 716  51 294  3  24  47  0  0  0  ProUnit ject  o o  -  i 3 / /:  Warehouse  Corrmer• cial  ProUnit ject  ProUnit ject  Other  11  4  8  1  1  1  2  15  75  16  80  •9  39  3  11  33  5  96  8 108  0  0  1  12  1  26  9 ' 108  0  0  0  0  97 1297  127 1900  30 462  10 2  86  0  0  4  123  123 3384  201 5789  73 2120  0  0  17  456  3  64  1  22  190  0  0  3  138  42 2003  75 3530  34 1632  5  259  3  145  0  0  0  0  0  0  60- 99  4 4 0  0  0  1  60  51 3745  32 2277  2 , 135  4  295  0  0  0  0  0  0  100-499  0  0  0 0  0  0  0  18 2276  21 2946  7 1115  4  490  0  0  0  0  0  0  500 plus  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  ' 10- 19 1 , 20- 39 ;  1  40- 59  Average Size  12.24  2.0  0  19.25  0  0  29.37  0  33.01  T  17 1232 22 3113 1 507  0  58.92  50.23  28.51  8.39  5.64  8.50  Non-Metropolitan Areas  20- 39  11 3 3 4  40- 59  2  80  60- 99  0  o  100-499  0 0  0 0  1- 2 3- 9 10- 19  500 plus Average  22 239  478  0  0  0  0  0  19  0  0  7  32  47 272  16  95  0  0  40  0  0  0  0  65 852  19 295  1  11  86  0 0 0 0 0  0  2  68  70'1893  33 915  4 124  0  2  96  20 986  9 426  1  42  0  60  9 637  9 640  0  0  1 0  0  2 220  1 140  0  0  0  0  0  10.74  2.0  21.33  0  0  22.82  0  28.86  0  3  6  0  0  2  18  10  45  2  10  2  33  6  96  0  0  0  0  16  435  0  0  2  11C  2  94  0  0  0  0  0  4  295  0  0  0  0  0  4  490  0  0  0  C  0  0  0  0  29.50  0  26.83  32.47  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  22  0  0  0  0  0  0  . 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  5.0  1  11.50  0.0  tto o  townhouses must a l s o be added t o the l i s t of The  exceptions.  average p r o j e c t s i z e s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver a l s o  tend t o be g r e a t e r than i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a .  Interestingly,  the average s i z e of townhouses i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver i s g r e a t e r than the average s i z e l o w - r i s e while  i n Metropolitan  V i c t o r i a the r e v e r s e i s t r u e . H i g h - r i s e s have a g r e a t e r average s i z e than e i t h e r l o w - r i s e s or townhouses i n each a r e a . R e f e r r i n g again t o Table  4 there i s e x h i b i t e d a  significant  v a r i a t i o n i n the average s i z e d p r o j e c t w i t h i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  In the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver LRO  area the average  p r o j e c t s i z e f o r townhouses, l o w - r i s e s , and h i g h - r i s e s was 30.3,  and  t a n New 42.7,  56.1  u n i t s per p r o j e c t r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Westminster LRO  and  98.6  In the M e t r o p o l i -  area the averages i n c r e a s e d t o  49.5,  u n i t s per p r o j e c t f o r each group r e s p e c t i v e l y .  In o r d e r to determine any  trends i n the s i z e of p r o j e c t s ,  the average s i z e of p r o j e c t f o r each year was  calculated.  8 provides  a summary f o r the t h r e e main types of  projects.  The  they r e v e a l no  29.5,  Table  residential  other types of p r o j e c t s are not r e p o r t e d s i n c e apparent t r e n d .  Looking  f i r s t a t the townhouse  type of p r o j e c t , the o n l y n o t i c e a b l e t r e n d i s f o r M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver where the t r e n d i s towards s m a l l e r p r o j e c t s . t r e n d i s not e v i d e n t e i t h e r i n the non-metropolitan M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a ; however, i n each of these age  s i z e townhouse p r o j e c t i s c o n s i d e r a b l y  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  In the category  The  same  areas or i n  areas  the  aver-  s m a l l e r than i n  of l o w - r i s e p r o j e c t s  M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a shows a t r e n d towards s m a l l e r p r o j e c t s  Table  3  Average  Project  S i z e by Year  and  (Major R e s i d e n t i a l C a t e g o r i e s ) '  METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER  YEAR  METROPOLITAN VICTORIA  Location  "  REST OF PROVINCE  1968  T 0  L 34  H 0  T 0  L 0  H 0  T 49  L 63  1969  67  21  0  21  0  0  16  22  1970  64  28  19  8  38  28  10  0  0 0 0  1971  75  38  32  15  36 . 28  36  ,14  0  1972  53  38  24  26  20  48  31  0  0  1973  36  37  56  14  35  33  29  35  41  1974  39  33  77  38  37  25  25  51  20  1975  43  30  59  21  14  36  23  25  11  1976  35  34  66  12  21  26  21  27  33  1977  25  50  85  9  14  41  19  '24  43  35  64  15  24  33  23  29  All  Years  Source:  Land  Registry  to nearest  Data.  whole  T = townhouse;  A l l averages  H  0 29  a r e rounded  unit. L = lowrise;  H = highrise;  25. while M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and the r e s t of the p r o v i n c e are f a i r l y u n i f o r m over the 10 y e a r s p e r i o d .  The  f i n a l noticeable  t r e n d i s i n the category o f h i g h - r i s e p r o j e c t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver where the t r e n d has d e f i n i t e l y been towards l a r g e r scale projects.  2.4  Condominium Development as a P r o p o r t i o n of the Housing In s e c t i o n 2.3.1  market was  Market  the s i z e and scope of the condominium  d i s c u s s e d , however, the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f condominium  development i s most c l e a r l y e v i d e n t when i t i s r e l a t e d t o o t h e r s e c t o r s o f the housing market.  P r e v i o u s work examined t h i s  r e l a t i o n s h i p on the b a s i s o f the type of tenure... " I t i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n between r e n t a l u n i t s and home ownership u n i t s r a t h e r than the t o t a l number of u n i t s s t a r t e d which i s of primary 4 est."  T h i s method of comparison i s v a l i d and i n f a c t  however, the r e l a t i o n s h i p based ignored.  inter-  necessary,  on s t r u c t u r e type should not  The marked d i f f e r e n c e between the l i f e s t y l e s  be  congruent  with townhouse and apartment l i v i n g and those o f s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g i n d i c a t e s the e x i s t e n c e o f a d i f f e r e n t market which should be examined. T a b l e s 9, 10, and 11 g i v e the number and percentage housing  s t a r t s by tenure and s t r u c t u r e types f o r B r i t i s h  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The  of Columbia,  "start"  date of the condominiums i s a c t u a l l y the date of r e g i s t r a t i o n which, due  t o the requirement  t h a t the b u i l d i n g be c o n s t r u c t e d  b e f o r e r e g i s t r a t i o n , i s not s t r i c t l y comparable w i t h o t h e r ing dates.  The  start-  time r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e r i s not u s u a l l y e x c e s s i v e  and t h e r e f o r e these f i g u r e s w i l l p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e e s t i m a t e o f the p r o d u c t i o n each y e a r .  I t should a l s o be noted t h a t the number  of r e n t a l u n i t s w i l l be u n d e r s t a t e d each year by the number o f condominiums t h a t are r e n t e d .  No a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e  on the e x t e n t t h a t t h i s o c c u r s and t h e r e f o r e no adjustment has been made. R e n t a l s t a r t s are d e f i n e d as the number o f rowhousing and apartment  starts  (column 2) minus the number of condominium  r e g i s t r a t i o n s (which exclude a l l condominium duplexes and s i n g l e detached u n i t s  (column 4)) i n each y e a r .  Ownership  s t a r t s are  the number o f s i n g l e f a m i l y detached, semi-detached, and duplex units  (column 1) p l u s the number o f condominium r e g i s t r a t i o n  (column 4 ) . rowhousing  M u l t i p l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t s are the number o f  and apartment  s t a r t s l i s t e d i n column 2.  The p r o p o r -  t i o n o f m u l t i p l e f a m i l y u n i t s r e l a t i v e t o the t o t a l i s c a l c u l a t e d by adding the percentage o f r e n t a l r e l a t i v e t o the t o t a l  (column  8) and the percentage o f condominiums r e l a t i v e t o the t o t a l (column 9 ) .  From 1968 t o 1976 the percentage o f m u l t i p l e  family  u n i t s t o the t o t a l ranged from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 t o 6 0% i n a l l areas. While the p r o p o r t i o n of m u l t i p l e d w e l l i n g u n i t s  remained  r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t over t h i s p e r i o d the p r o p o r t i o n o f r e n t a l u n i t s d e c l i n e d s t e a d i l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia and M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  T h i s was o f f - s e t by a s i m i l a r though o p p o s i t e  i n c r e a s e i n the percentage o f condominiums.  In 1976 r e n t a l  u n i t s o n l y accounted f o r 17.5% and 13.9% o f t o t a l housing s t a r t s w h i l e condominiums i n c r e a s e d t o r e p r e s e n t 26.2% and 37.9% o f the  TABLE 9 HOUSING STARTS - PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (1)  Year  Single Family Detached, SemiDetached, Duplex  (2)  (3)  Row and Apartment (Multiple)  Total Housing Starts  (4)  (5)  Condominium (Excludi n g Duplex and S i n g l e Detached  (6)  Total Resident i a l Condominiums  (7)  (8)  (9)  (10)  Planned Rental (2)-(4)  Planned Owner (l)+'(4)  Rental as % o f Total (6)r(3)  Condominium as % o f Total (5)*(3)  Condominium as % o f multiple .(4)*(2)  (11) Condominium as % o f owned (5) + (7)  1967  14,027  10,073  24,100  0  0  10,073  14,027  41.8  0  1968  13,613  12,583  26,196  312  312  12,271  13,925  46.8  1.2  2.5.  2.2  1969  14,411  17,409  31,820  742  742  16,667  15,153  52.4  2.3  4.3  4.9  1970  14,860  12,456  27,316  1,260  1,290  11,166  16,120  40.9  4.7  10.1  8.0  1971  18,927  15,838  34,765  2,810  2,853  12,985  21,737  37.4  8.2  17.7  13.1  1972  19,708  15,609  35,317  3,277  3,351  12,258  22,985  34.7  9.5  21.0  14.6  1973  22,214  15,413  37,627  4,486  4,636  10,927  26,700  29.0  12.3  29.1  17.4  1974  19,304  12,116  31,420  5,855  6,000  6,261  25,159  19.9  19.1  48.3  23.8  1975  20,181  13,971  34,152  7,360  7,786  6,611  27,541  19.3  22.8  52.6  28.3  1976  21,970  15,757  37,727  9,138  9,918  6,619  31,108  17.5  26.2  57.9  32.0  179,215  141,225  320,440  35,240  36,888  105,838  214,455  33.0  11.5  24.9  17.2  'otals  '  0  0  TABLE 10 HOUSING STARTS - VANCOUVER METROPOLITAN AREA  (1)  (2)  (3)  (5)  (4) Resident i a l Condominium (Excludi n g Duplex and S i n g l e Detached)  (6)  (7)  (10)  (8)  (9)  Rental as % o f Total  Condominium as % o f Total (5)T(3)  (11)  Year  Single Family Detached, SemiDetached, Duplex  Row and Apartment . (Multiple)  1967  6,328  7,568  13,896  0  0  7,568  6,328  54.4  0  0  0  1968  5,658  10,032  15,690  102  102  9,930  5,760  63.3  0.6  1.0  1.8  1969  5,165  12,525  17,690  598  598  11,927  5,763  67.4  3.4  4.8  10.4  1970  4,832  8,605  13,437  886  894  7,719  5,718  57.4  6.6  10.3  15.6  1971  5,674  9,879  15,553  1,872  1,903  8,007  7,546  51.4  12.2  18.9  25.2  1972  7,679  8,531  16,210  . 2,193  2,253*  6,338  9,872  39.0  13.8  25.7  22.8  1973  9,090  8,235  17,325  3,551  3,671*  4,684  12,641  27.0  21.2  43.1  29.0  1974  7,194  7,258  14,452  4,354  4,428  2,904  11,548  20.0  30.6  59.9  38.3  1975  7,051  6,264  13,315  4,704  5,020  1,560  11,755  11.7  37.7  75.0  42.7  1976  8,342  8,360  16,702  6,023  6,345  2,337  14,365  13.9  37.9  72.0  44.1  Total  67,013  87,275  154,270  24,283  25,214  62,974  91,296  40.8  16.3  27.8  27.6  Total Housing Starts  Total Planned ResidenPlanned Owned t i a l Con- R e n t a l dominiums* (2)-(4) ' + (4)  (D  (6) + (3)  * I n c l u d e s a l l condominiums on l e a s e d l a n d s i n c e they a r e a l l r e s i d e n t i a l .  Condominium as % of Multiple 2  (4)-r(2)  Condominium as % o f Owned (5) + (7)  i  I I  TABLE 11  i I  HOUSING STARTS - VICTORIA METROPOLITAN AREA (1)  Year  Single Family Detached, SemiDetached, Duplex  (2)  Row and Apartment (Multiple)  (3)  (4)  (5)  Total Housing Starts  Resident i a l Condominium (Excluding Duplex and Single Detached)  Total Resident i a l Condominiums  (6)  Planned Rental (2)4(4)  (7)  (8)  (9)  Planned Owned (l) + (4)  Rental as % of Total (6)^(3)  Condominium as % of Total (5)4(3)  (10)  (11)  Condomin- Condoium as % minium as % of 2 Owned Multiple (4)4(2) (5)4(7) o f  1967  889  575  1,464  0  0  575  889  39.3  0  . 0  1968  1,150  1,366  2,516  0  0  1,366  1,150  54.3  0  0  0  1969  1,287  2,457  3,744  42  42  2,415  1,329  64.5  1.1  1.7  3.1  1,521  1,050  59.4  9.3  13.0  23.0  51.4  15.3 -  22.8  31.6  20.7  31.9  0  1970  811  1,748  2,559  227  239  1971  1,034  2,068  3,102  472  476  1,596  1,506  1972  1,293  2,899  4,192  600  604  2,299  1,893  54.8  14.4  1973  1,473  2,540  4,013  516  542  2,024  1,989  50.4  13.5  20.3  27.2  1974  1,324  1,306  2,630  554  602  752  1,878  28.6  22.9  42.4  32.0  1975  1,573  2,407  3,980  855  893  1,552  2,428  38.9  22.4  35.5  36.7  1976  1,338  3,101  4,439  947  1,069  2,154  2,285  48.5  24.1  30.5  46.8  12,172  20,467  32,639  4,213  4,467  16,254  16,397  49.8  13.7  20.6  27.2  Totals  Sources:-  Notes;-  Column (1) and (2) - Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadian Housing Statistics, 1976 and 1972, Ottawa. Column (4) - Table 2.2, Row 7 excluding duplex units; Column (5) - Table 2.2, Row 7 Duplex units excluded to permit comparison of data. CMHC Data in Column 1 includes duplex units, independent of whether or not they are strata plans. Condominium duplex units excluded to permit comparison of building types.  t o t a l i n the p r o v i n c e and M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver r e s p e c t i v e l y . Condominiums a l s o r e p r e s e n t e d 57.9% and 72.0% o f m u l t i p l e s t a r t s i n 1976 i n the two a r e a s .  I t can t h e r e f o r e be concluded  that  condominiums have been a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n the housing market. The M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a market d i d n o t f o l l o w e x a c t l y the same t r e n d as i n the p r o v i n c e o r M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver b u t the c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s s e c t o r o f the housi n g market i s unchanged.  R e n t a l u n i t s as a percentage o f t o t a l  housing s t a r t s d e c l i n e d from 1969 t o 1974 then i n c r e a s e d t o 1976. Condominiums as a percentage o f t h e t o t a l remained  stable at  approximately 14% from 1971 t o 197 3 then i n c r e a s e d t o approximately 23% from 1974 t o 1975.  Condominiums as a p r o p o r t i o n of t h e m u l t i p l  f a m i l y market peaked i n 1974 a t 42.4% and has d e c l i n e d s i n c e then. Condominiums as a share o f t h e ownership  market have e x p e r i e n c e d  f a i r l y steady growth through the e n t i r e p e r i o d .  In 1976 condo-  miniums r e p r e s e n t e d 24.1% of a l l housing s t a r t s , 30.5% o f m u l t i p l e s t a r t s and 46.8% o f s t a r t s i n t e n d e d f o r owner-occupiers. U s i n g T a b l e s 9, 10, and 11 s i m i l a r t a b u l a t i o n s were c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h e n o n - m e t r o p o l i t a n areas o f t h e p r o v i n c e ; these a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 12.  Condominiums a r e a much l e s s  significant  f a c t o r i n the housing market i n the o u t l y i n g areas than i n the metropolitan l o c a l i t i e s . s t a r t s d i d n o t exceed 1967  Condominiums as a percentage  10% u n t i l 1975.  of t o t a l  Over the e n t i r e p e r i o d o f  t o 1976 condominiums o n l y accounted  housing s t a r t s i n t h i s area i n comparison  f o r 5.4% o f a l l new t o 27.6% i n m e t r o p o l i -  tan Vancouver and 27.2% i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a .  31. TABLE 12 Housing S t a r t s ; Year  Total  Starts  Non-Metropolitan Areas  1967-1976  R e s i d e n t i a l Condominiums  Condominium As % Total  1967  8740  0  1968  7990  210  2.6  1969  10386  102  0.9  1970  11320  157  1.3  1971  16110  474  2.9  1972  14915  494  3.3  1973  16289  423  2.6  1974  14338  970  6.7  1975  16857  1873  11.1  1976  16586  2504  15. 1  133,531  7207  5.4  TOTAL  0  32 . The  success o f the condominium concept i n terms of the number  of u n i t s c r e a t e d and the s i g n i f i c a n t share o f the housing market those u n i t s r e p r e s e n t i s undeniable.  There have been numerous  f a c t o r s t h a t have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s success both i n terms o f demand and supply.  While  i t i s beyond the scope of t h i s  study  to q u a n t i f y the e x t e n t t o which each f a c t o r i s i n f l u e n c i a l i t i s worthwhile  t o d i s c u s s them i n a q u a l i t a t i v e manner.  First,  the  f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g demand. The  two major f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the demand f o r housing i n  the 1960's and 1970's were the "baby boom" a f t e r World War the steady i n c r e a s e s i n r e a l income From 1965  t o 1971,  (Tables 13 and 14  the 20-24 age group i n c r e a s e d by  55,400 persons w h i l e a t the same time the 65+ by 26,400 persons  i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  I I and  respectively).  approximately  age group i n c r e a s e d  These groups g r e a t l y  i n c r e a s e d the apartment demand and r e s u l t e d i n the number of m u l t i p l e u n i t s t a r t s i n c r e a s i n g t o o n e - h a l f of a l l s t a r t s i n the p r o v i n c e from t h e i r p r e v i o u s l e v e l of 35% p r i o r t o 1962.  The  20-24 year o l d group had moved i n t o the p o t e n t i a l home-ownership p o p u l a t i o n by the 1971-1976 p e r i o d .  "Supported  by steady i n c r e a s e s  i n r e a l incomes, both a t the p e r s o n a l and household  level  l i b e r a l c r e d i t c o n d i t i o n s , the baby-boom moved i n t o home with a v e n g e a n c e . T h i s  ownership  r e s u l t e d i n r a p i d l y r i s i n g house p r i c e s  (evidenced i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ) . minium concept was  and  By t h i s time the condo-  becoming g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d as a v i a b l e  o f tenure and hence a l s o e x p e r i e n c e d an i n c r e a s e i n demand. o f t h i s demand was  l i k e l y due  t o s i n g l e detached p r i c e s  to the l e v e l t h a t excluded many p u r c h a s e r s ' f i n a n c i a l ex c < t «/-ec/  form Some  increasing  capabilities.  TABLE 13 CHANGE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA POPULATION BY AGE GROUP CHANGE IN NUMBER OF PERSONS IN EACH AGE GROUP ( i n Thousands) ( R e l a t i v e change i n parentheses) TOTAL  0-4  5-9  10- 14  15- 19  20-24  25-29  30- 34  35- 39  40- 64  65 +  1951- 56  2 33. 3 (20.0)  30.9 (24.6)  40.7 (40.7)  30. 0 (38. 2)  16. 1 (22. 9)  6.6 (8.3)  9.9 (9.8)  15. 4 (17. 0)  12. 2 (13. 4)  47. 7 (15. 3)  24.7 (19.6)  1956- 61  230.4 (16.7)  30 (19)  31.1 (22.1)  42. 1 (38. 8)  26. 2 8.8 (30. 3) (10.2)  1.5 (1.5)  6. 0 (5. 6)  12. 8 (12. 4)  57. 1 (15. 9)  14. 8 (9.8)  1961- 66  222. 8 (13.7)  2.0 (1.1)  31.4 (18.3)  31. 7 (21)  45. 8 34.6 (40. 7) (36.3)  11.8 (11.6)  1. 7 (1. 5)  5. 3 (4. 6)  67. 4 (16. 2)  13. 0 (7.9)  1966- 71  332. 8 (18.0)  -13.4 (-7.1)  9.1 (4.5)  39. 9 (21. 9)  42. 7 55.4 (27. 0) (42.7)  46.2 (40.1)  19. 1 (16. 8)  5. 7 4. 7  79. 8 (16'. 5)  26.4 (14.8)  1971- 76  282 (12,9)  -2.1 (-1.2)  -18. 2 (-8.6)  5. 6 (2. 5)  36. 8 36.3 (18. 3) (19.6)  58.8 (36.7)  43. 9 (33, 0)  66. 6 (11. 8)  37.0 (18.0)  Apartment  SOURCE:  17. 5 (13. 8)  Family  DAVID BAXTER, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA AND VANCOUVER  Apartment  j HOUSING MARKETS, OP, CIT.  CO CO  TABLE 14 BRITISH COLUMBIA POPULATION  BY AGE GROUP*  (THOUSANDS) Denotes the p o s t war baby boom AGE GROUP Year  Total  0-4  5-9  10-14  15-19  20-24  25-29  30-34  35-59  40-64  65+  1951  1165.3 100%  125. 9 10. 8  99.9 8.6  78.6 6.8  70, 3 6, 0  79.8 6.8  91.6 7.9  90. 8 7.8  91.2 7.8  311.1 26.7  126.1 10. 8  1956  1398.6 100%  156. 8 11. 2  140. 6 10. 0  108.6 7.8  86, 4 6, 2  86.4 6.2  100.6 7.2  106.2 7.6  103.4 7.4  358. 8 25.7  150. 8 10. 8  1961  1629.0 100%  186. 8 11. 5  171. 7 10. 5  150 .7 9 .2  112. 6 6.9  95. 2 5. 8  102. 1 6.3  112.2 6.9  116. 2 7. 1  415. 9 25. 5  165. 6 10. 2  1966  1873.7 100%  188. 8 10. 1  203. 1 10. 8  182. 4 9. 7  158. 4 8. 5  129. 8 6.9  113. 9 6.1  113. 9 6.1  121. 5 6.5  483. 3 25. 8  178. 6 9. 5  1971  2184.6 100%  175. 4 8. 0  212 .2 9 .7  222. 3 10. 2  201. 1 : 185. 2 9. 2 8. 5  160. 1 7. 3  133. 0 6.1  127. 2 5. 8  563. 1 25. 8  205. 0 9. 4  1976  2466.6 100%  173. 3 7. 0  194. 0 7. 9  227. 9 9. 2  237. 9 9. 6  218.9 8.9  176. 9 7. 2  144. 7 5. 9  629. 7 25. 5  242. 0 9. 8  221. 5 9. 0  * Source: B.C. V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s ( V i c t o r i a : P r o v i n c i a l P r i n t e r , 1976) David B a x t e r , The B r i t i s h Columbia And Vancouver Housing Markets, Op. C i t , 1976 f i g u r e s  from 1976 Census o f Canada, s u p p l i e d by Data E n q u i r i e s - R e g i o n a l O f f i c e  35.  pagination  only  36 This  sector  turned  t o condominiums t o e s t a b l i s h t h e m s e l v e s i n t h e  h o u s i n g m a r k e t and t o s a t i s f y Again  t h e i r demand f o r home o w n e r s h i p .  s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h i s was t h e o v e r  65 a g e g r o u p t h a t n o  longer  needed a s i n g l e d e t a c h e d house as t h e i r c h i l d r e n had e s t a b l i s h e d their  own h o u s e h o l d s .  Hence, t h e y were t r a d i n g down i n s i z e t o  condominiums.^ The  demand f o r c o n d o m i n i u m s was f u r t h e r  legislative  changes.  First  amended t o i n c o r p o r a t e  a t a x on c a p i t a l g a i n s e x c e p t t h o s e r e s u l t -  from t h e s a l e o f a p r i n c i p a l r e s i d e n c e ,  was  an a t t r a c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t  provincial rising acted  from t h i s p o i n t  change was t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n g o v e r n m e n t i n 1972.  rents  and v e r y  as a d e t e r e n t  h e n c e home o w n e r s h i p o f view.  of rent  The  low v a c a n c i e s a t t h i s t i m e a n d t h e s e  t o new r e n t a l p r o d u c t i o n .  o r as t e n a n t s  renting  p r o v i n c i a l government  cash grants  also offered  those d e s i r i n g apartment  from  rate  accommoda-  investors.  further  to first  contributed  assistance  form o f t h e A s s i s t e d  t i m e home b u y e r s .  majority  Ninety-five Metropolitan  of units percent  t o t h e demand  second  The f e d e r a l  mortgages government  t o lower and moderate income f a m i l i e s i n Home O w n e r s h i p P r o g r a m  p r o g r a m was l i m i t e d t o d w e l l i n g s the  controls  The low vacancy  f o r home o w n e r s h i p b y o f f e r i n g l o w i n t e r e s t r a t e  the  experiencing  i n t o t h e e x p a n d i n g c o n d o m i n i u m m a r k e t , e i t h e r a s owner-  occupiers  or  The second  c o n t r o l s by t h e  T h e r e n t a l m a r k e t was.  continued e f f e c t i v e l y channeling tion  by two  t h e 1971 f e d e r a l Income T a x A c t was  ing  legislative  stimulated  financed  (AHOP).  o f u n d e r $47,000  As t h i s  (1976) i n p r i c e  u n d e r t h i s p r o g r a m were  condominiums.  (657) o f t h e AHOP u n i t s c o n s t r u c t e d i n  V a n c o u v e r and V i c t o r i a d u r i n g  19 76  were  condominiums.  The and  the  supply of condominiums responded to the resulting rising prices.  increased  Further factors  demand  affecting  p r o d u c t i o n were: a)  the  removal of "tax  buildings b)  the  i n the  imposition  s h e l t e r s " on m u l t i p l e  1970  f e d e r a l Income Tax  unit rental Act,  of r e n t a l c o n t r o l s p r o v i n c i a l l y i n 19 72  which when combined w i t h  (a) r e s u l t e d  i n a s h i f t away 7  from the p r o d u c t i o n of r e n t a l  dwellings,  c) h i g h mortgage r a t e s were e x p e r i e n c e d from 1974 peaking at 12.5% constructing  to  1976  which r e s t r i c t e d both the p u r c h a s i n g  of new  and  units,  d) by mid-1975 the number o f u n s o l d and  vacant condominiums 8  had peaked a t an estimated:, 1700 had e)  u n i t s ->. the  production  begun t o o u t s t r i p the demand,  i n 1977  a reduction  produced was  noted.  i n the number of new T h i s was  large unsold inventory s i t u a t i o n was  duction  the r e s u l t of a  (approximately 1600  f u r t h e r compounded by  federal Assisted  R e n t a l Program  1,797  units constructed  first  f i v e months of 1977,  the  (ARP)  back to the r e n t a l s e c t o r .  been p r o c e s s e d .  condominiums continuing  units).  The  i n i t i a t i n g of  the  which s h i f t e d p r o In  1976  there were  under t h i s program and applications  Further applications  an a d d i t i o n a l 4,400 u n i t s as of August  within  f o r 1,568  had  the  units  had  been r e c e i v e d  for  1977.  The  development of condominiums as a p o r t i o n of the  market can now  be d e s c r i b e d i n g e n e r a l terms-  Condominiums were  i n t r o d u c e d j u s t as the demand f o r home ownership was to i n c r e a s e .  T h i s demand was  programs w h i l e o t h e r s reduced s e c t o r o f the housing market.  housing  beginning  s t i m u l a t e d by s e v e r a l government the p r o f i t a b i l i t y ( o f the  rental  U n f o r t u n a t e l y the p r o d u c t i o n o f  condominiums c o n t i n u e d a t a h i g h l e v e l even as much of the l a r g e " l e a d i n g edge" of the baby-boom had been accommodated. the m i g r a t i o n i n t o B r i t i s h Columbia and p a r t i c u l a r l y Vancouver has d e c l i n e d from i t s p r e v i o u s  l e v e l s and  Further,  Metropolitan the r a t e o f  i n c r e a s e of r e a l incomes has a l s o d e c l i n e d , both of which reduce the demand f o r housing. p r e s e n t oversupply oversupply 2.5  These f a c t o r s have now  of condominium u n i t s .  The  r e s u l t e d i n the  extent of t h i s  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n  2.6.  Condominium S a l e P r i c e s S e l l i n g p r i c e s are of g r e a t importance t o  mortgagees and  developers.  The  purchasers  purchasers,  and mortgagees are  p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the p r o t e c t i o n and growth i n v a l u e t h e i r investment  w h i l e developers  of  need such i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the  p l a n n i n g and marketing of t h e i r p r o j e c t s .  Due  t o the numerous  f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the p r i c e i n c l u d i n g l o c a t i o n , s i z e of u n i t s , f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e d , date of s a l e , method of f i n a n c i n g , l e v e l of taxes and  common areas charges and  the common f e a t u r e s o f f e r e d ,  a comprehensive a n a l y s i s of s e l l i n g p r i c e s i s beyond the scope of t h i s study.  Instead  some i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be p r e s e n t e d  w i l l p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o the t r e n d of condominium p r i c e s .  that  Two sources o f data were used t o r e v e a l the l e v e l o f condominium p r i c e s through time.  F i r s t , the consumers q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e t h a t i s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter  4 asked the respondents t o  s t a t e t h e date o f s a l e and t h e purchase p r i c e o f t h e i r  unit.  T h i s p r o v i d e d 2 02 random responses i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and Victoria.  The second data source was the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e s '  r e c o r d s from which the t r a n s a c t i o n h i s t o r i e s o f 895 u n i t s were collected. and  These were a g a i n c o n f i n e d t o M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  Victoria. While t h e Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e data has proven t o be a c c u r a t e  i n the p a s t " ^ c a u t i o n should be used when r e l y i n g on t h i s mation.  infor-  As t h e data were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g a p e r i o d of e x t e n s i v e  condominium development t h e r e i s a l a r g e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n i t i a l s a l e s from d e v e l o p e r s much more, so than, would... g e n e r a l l y be., the. case f o r housing market s a l e s d a t a .  Seventy-four p e r c e n t o f pur-  chases l i s t e d i n t h e consumers survey were from the d e v e l o p e r . S i m i l a r l y , s e v e n t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f the u n i t s examined i n t h e L.R.O. r e c o r d s had t r a n s a c t e d o n l y once s i n c e t h e i r c r e a t i o n and hence must have been purchased The  from the d e v e l o p e r .  two condominium p r i c e s e r i e s are p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 15  i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a p r i c e index o f s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and secondly w i t h s a l e s i n f o r m a t i o n from the M u l t i p l e L i s t i n g S e r v i c e , a l s o i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. Some d i s c u s s i o n o f the two non-condominium necessary b e f o r e any comparisons The  price series i s  are c a r r i e d o u t .  s i n g l e detached p r i c e index was compiled  from the Land  T A B L E 15 CONDOMINIUM AVERAGE S E L L I N G P R I C E S METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER AND V I C T O R I A 1969-77 LAND R E G I S T R Y O F F I C E DATA CONDOMINIUMS ONLY AVERAGE  YRAR  METRO  VANCnnVRR  SINGLE DETACHED PRICE INDEX  CONDOMINIUM OWNERS SURVEY AVERAGE P R I C E  M.L.S. DATA S I N G L E DETACHED AND CONDOMINIUM AVERAGE P R I C E  WEIGHTED AVERAGE  METRO VANCOUVER  METRO V I C T O R I A AND VANCOUVER  METRO VANCOUVER  PRICE METRO VICTORIA  1969  18,512 (100)  N/A  18,512 (100)  100  17,900  .(100)  23,939 (100)  1970  21,452 (116)  N/A  21,452 (116)  104  22,900 (128)  24,239 (101)  1971  21,197 (115)  N/A  21,197 (115)  106  21,233 (119)  26,471 (111)  1972  2 3 , 3 4 5 (126)  23,128  23,319 (126)  126  25,970 (145)  31,465 ( 1 3 1 )  1973  27,8i'0 (150)  32,077  28,074 (152)  148  32,468 (181)  41,505 (173)  1974  39,237 (212)  33,376  37,887 (205)  207  40,665 (227)  5 7 , 8 6 1 (242)  1975  42,773 (231)  43,467  42,856 (232)  212  49,081 (274)  63,169 (264)  1976  44,764 (242)  51,343  46,549 (251)  245  (JULY) 49,494 (276)  68,693 ( 2 8 7 )  1977  4 5 , 8 5 1 (248)  58,874  50,091 (271)  N/A  49,937 (279)  70,500 (295)  R e g i s t r y O f f i c e r e c o r d s i n the same manner as was condominiums  ( L.R.O.)." "' ' 1  1  The  c o m p a r a b i l i t y of the two  by the q u a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s i n the two p r o d u c t s miniums being mainly  new  units  detached u n i t s were mainly  done f o r the is limited  caused by the condo-  ( d i s c u s s e d above) w h i l e the  r e s a l e s of e x i s t i n g u n i t s .  single  Despite  t h i s l i m i t a t i o n the s i n g l e detached index p r o v i d e s the b e s t comp a r i s o n i n terms of the c h o i c e o f f e r e d t o consumers between the two markets.  The M u l t i p l e L i s t i n g S e r v i c e (MLS)  t h r e e major problems: or Surrey  one,  i t includes a l l  i n c l u d i n g condominiums, c o o p e r a t i v e hous-  ing , s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s , and revenue p r o p e r t y r e s i d e n t i a l and  contains  i t does not i n c l u d e the White Rock  areas of M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, two,  s a l e s made through MLS  data  commercial)  (both  (the m a j o r i t y however a r e . s i n g l e  detached or condominium u n i t s ) , f i n a l l y ,  i t has been shown t h a t  the percentage of the t o t a l market s a l e s conducted through  the  12 MLS  v a r i e s with the c o n d i t i o n s of the market.  "the m u l t i p l e l i s t i n g tative.. ."^ used and The  O v e r a l l , ...  s e r v i c e data are not c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p r e s e n -  D e s p i t e these  l i m i t a t i o n s the MLS  t h e r e f o r e i t has been  data i s widely  presented.  f i r s t p o i n t to note on Table 15 i s the r a p i d i n c r e a s e i n  p r i c e of condominiums i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a the 1969  to 1977  period.  over  Combining both a r e a s , p r i c e s i n c r e a s e d  from an average of $18,512 to $50,091 a c c o r d i n g to the L.R.O. data and data.  from $17,900 to $49,9 37 a c c o r d i n g t o the Owner's Survey  The  g r e a t e s t i n c r e a s e s took p l a c e from 1969  have s i n c e then moderated, p a r t i c u l a r l y  t o 1974  and  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  42 . The r a t e o f p r i c e i n c r e a s e s d i d not d e c l i n e as much i n M e t r o p o l i tan V i c t o r i a from 1974 t o 1977.  This coincides with  ate r e d u c t i o n i n t h e share of new housing  proportion-  s t a r t s h e l d by condo-  miniums i n t h i s area t h a t was noted i n S e c t i o n 2.3.  The average  s e l l i n g p r i c e i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a i n 1977 was c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than t h a t i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver ($58,814  versus  $45,851). One o f the more common reasons c i t e d f o r p u r c h a s i n g  a  condominium i s t o e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y p o s i t i o n i n the housing market t h a t can l a t e r be used t o trade up t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached d w e l l i n g  (See Chapter 4 ) . The success  of this  strategy  w i l l be based on the r e l a t i v e r a t e s o f change o f the condominium and  s i n g l e detached p r i c e s .  Comparing the condominium L.R.O.  data f o r M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver w i t h the M.L.S. s e r i e s one can see t h a t on the average, condominium p r i c e s have not i n c r e a s e d at the same r a t e as the M.L.S. average, by i n f e r e n c e s i n g l e detached p r i c e s must have i n c r e a s e d more than the M.L.S. average. Hence condominium p r i c e s have not kept pace with s i n g l e detached prices. Such a c o n c l u s i o n i s suspect  however having  r e a l i z e d the  l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e M.L.S. data and the c o n t r a d i c t o r y presented  by the s i n g l e detached p r i c e index.  evidence  O v e r a l l , from  1969 t o 1976, s i n g l e detached and condominium p r i c e s have moved i n a p a r a l l e l f a s h i o n , w i t h condominiums i n f a c t showing g r e a t e r increases i n several years.  Such a f i n d i n g l e a d s one t o conclude  t h a t condominium p r i c e s have maintained  their relative position  43. i n the housing market v i s a v i s the more comprehensive study would be  s i n g l e detached p r i c e s .  A  r e q u i r e d however, b e f o r e such  a statement c o u l d be made without some r e s e r v a t i o n s . The  sample s i z e from both the owners' survey and  Registry  o f f i c e s are not of a s u f f i c i e n t s i z e t o p e r m i t a c c u r a t e  cross-tabulations s e p a r a t e d by  by  type of s t r u c t u r e .  type of s t r u c t u r e , the  given y e a r f o r any  Once the  sample i s  frequency of s a l e s i n  s i n g l e type of c o n s t r u c t i o n  to form a c c u r a t e i n d i c e s .  one  can  frequency of s a l e s i n the  observe a m a r g i n a l l y  d i f f e r e n c e i s not  dence one  can  The  two  h i g h e r r a t e of i n c r e a s e  -  largest,  in. the  and h i g h - r i s e u n i t s .  conclude t h a t townhouse u n i t s are becoming more  s i m i l a r evidence from the  two  This  conclusion  p r i c e data samples.  s e r i e s of p r i c e data also i n d i c a t e that u n i t s  townhouse or l o w - r i s e  u n i t s f o r the the h i g h e s t  recent  - 1977.  years,  1975  located  a h i g h e r v a l u e than u n i t s i n e i t h e r  t h a t townhouse u n i t s had  lowest r a t e of i n c r e a s e  three y e a r s 1972  over the  - 1974  but  average v a l u e f o r the most  In each y e a r , 1972  u n i t s l o c a t e d i n l o w - r i s e u n i t s had the  trend  s u b s t a n t i a l but based on the l i m i t e d e v i -  i n h i g h - r i s e p r o j e c t s had  three  1972  sample are the  expensive r e l a t i v e to o t h e r types of development. i s based on  price  During the p e r i o d  value of townhouse u n i t s r e l a t i v e to l o w - r i s e The  small  However the d a t a are a t l e a s t sugges-  f o r d i f f e r e n t types o f s t r u c t u r e s . where the  any  becomes too  t i v e of some d i f f e r e n c e s between the p r i c e l e v e l and  1977,  the Land  the six  -  1977,  lowest average v a l u e years.  and  In o r d e r  to obtain  condominium v a l u e s , sales p r i c e data  a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e change i n  a l l p r o p e r t i e s i n t h e Land R e g i s t r y  w h i c h s o l d more t h a n o n c e was u s e d t o  measure p e r c e n t a g e changes i n v a l u e . 201  repeat  This  provided  s a l e s o f i n d i v i d u a l condominium u n i t s  p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a for these properties  areas.  a t o t a l of  i n the Metro-  The p e r c e n t a g e  i s i n d i c a t e d i n Table  16.  undertaken Table  f o r t h e two m e t r o p o l i t a n  increase  Because o f the  l i m i t e d number o f t r a n s a c t i o n s , no b r e a k d o w n c o u l d be  reasonably  areas.  16 i s i n t e r p r e t e d a s f o l l o w s :  t h e row i n d i c a t e s t h e  y e a r t h e s t r a t a u n i t was p u r c h a s e d a n d t h e c o l u m n g i v e s of r e s a l e . in  The f i g u r e s i n b r a c k e t s  each category  the  provide the  while  a r e t h e number o f p r o p e r t i e s  (or decrease)  i n question.  statistically  the year  t h e f i g u r e s u n d e r t h e "%" s i g n i n d i c a t e  average r a t e o f increase  over t h e p e r i o d  office  valid  o v e r a l l p r i c e trend  While  there  f o r those  i s n o t enough d a t a t o  r e s u l t s the trend  noted  properties  i s supportive of  previously.  i  T h o s e p u r c h a s e s made p r i o r increases  i n value  price  increase  still  enjoyed  upon r e s a l e .  over t h i s period.  t o 1974 e n j o y e d s u b s t a n t i a l This  corresponds t o the rapid  Those u n i t s p u r c h a s e d  some, t h o u g h m o d e r a t e d , i n c r e a s e d  i n 1974  prices.  The  same c a n n o t be s a i d f o r t h e p u r c h a s e s made i n 1975 o r 1976. The  increases  bought  were u n d e r  i n 1975 and s o l d i n 1977 t h e r e  Eighteen  percent  i n capital  and f o r t h o s e  since  and 80% o f a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s  value  occurred  during  units  was a 1% l o s s i n v a l u e .  o f the resale transactions  at a loss i n value loss  4% i n a l l c a s e s  1974  that  this period.  occurred  involved a This  again  45.  T A B L E 16  PERCENTAGE I N C R E A S E I N R E S A L E P R I C E S M E T R O P O L I T A N VANCOUVER AND METROPOLITAN V I C T O R I A  Year of  Purchase  1973  Year  1974  of Resale  %  1968  32 (1)  1969  112 .(1)  1975  1976  %_  %_  159 (1)  163 (1)  118 (2)  132 (1)  1977  1970  12 (2)  1971  30 (6)  67 (6)  91  8 (3)  51 (6)  87 (7)  85 (6)  186 (1)  37 (19)  39 (16)  58 (12)  74 CD  16 (43)  16 (24)  27 (2)  1972 1973 1974  (  3  115 (3)  >  1975  3 (31)  -1  1976  CG)  2 (7)  :  Includes of  895  a l l properties  condominium u n i t s  s o l d more t h a n once  i n the  random  i n the Land R e g i s t r y o f f i c e s  for  selection Victoria,  V a n c o u v e r a n d New W e s t m i n s t e r . Figures  i n brackets  average rates  of  indicate  increase.  number o f  sales included i n  these  r e f l e c t s the reduced r a t e of p r i c e a p p r e c i a t i o n t h a t has i n the l a s t few  years.  l a r g e e x i s t i n g vacant  I t i s a l s o r e f l e c t i v e of the  occurred  current  stock of condominiums t h a t w i l l be  discussed  i n the next s e c t i o n . 2.6  Current S i t u a t i o n The  c u r r e n t market s i t u a t i o n f o r condominiums i s very poor.  T h i s i s evidenced  by numerous f a c t o r s , many o f which have a l r e a d y  been mentioned: a) f o r the f i r s t  time s i n c e the i n t r o d u c t i o n of the concept,  the p r o d u c t i o n terms i n  of condominiums w i l l d e c l i n e i n a b s o l u t e  1977,  b) the r a t e of p r i c e i n c r e a s e has the pre-1974 l e v e l and loss i n capital c) CMHC has  reduced s u b s t a n t i a l l y from  some u n i t s are being  traded at a  value,  estimated  newly completed  and  unoccupied condominiums i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  and  a f u r t h e r 311 1977,  there are 1638  u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a as of June,  t h i s i n c l u d e s only the u n i t s t h a t have been on  market f o r s i x months or l e s s . newly completed and Vancouver have been  F u r t h e r , the number of  unoccupied u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n approximately  1600  s i n c e mid-1975,  d) the area of c l a s s i f i e d newspaper a d v e r t i s i n g f o r condominium p r o j e c t s i n the Vancouver Sun of A p r i l ,  1977  i s double t h a t o f A p r i l ,  comprises 9h patjfes,  the  new  newspaper as  1975,  i t now  47. e) an undetermined number o f condominium u n i t s are being r e n t e d and the evidence would i n d i c a t e i t i s s u b s t a n t i a l . 14.4% of the occupants surveyed The d e v e l o p e r s ' survey  (Chapter  4) were t e n a n t s .  (Chapter 5) r e v e a l e d t h a t 1544  u n i t s or 23% o f the respondent  firms p r o d u c t i o n of the  p r e v i o u s 2h years was b e i n g r e n t e d .  (as o f J u l y ,  (A f u r t h e r 30% o f the d e v e l o p e r ' s p r o d u c t i o n was and finally  1977) vacant  unsold.)  f) two of the top f i v e f i r m s , i n terms o f p r o d u c t i o n of u n i t s , i n the p r o v i n c e have i n d i c a t e d they are l e a v i n g the condominium development b u s i n e s s . These d e p r e s s i n g s t a t i s t i c s should not be taken  as i n d i c a -  t i o n s of an upcoming demise o f the condominium market.  Rather  the condominium market i s e x p e r i e n c i n g a low l e v e l o f a c t i v i t y as are other s e c t o r s of the housing market but i t i s f u r t h e r complicated i s reduced  by a l a r g e e x i s t i n g stock.  Once the l a r g e i n v e n t o r y  the condominium market should behave as the o t h e r  s e c t o r s o f the market.  48. Footnotes 1.  Rosenberg, A l v i n B., Condominiums i n Canada, Canada Law L t d . , Toronto, 1969, P. 1-6.  Book  2.  Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , N a t i o n a l Survey o f Condominium Lenders, C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , Toronto, 1970, P. 47.  3.  Rosenberg,  4.  Roberts, R.A., "Condominium Housing i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver", M.Sc. T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973, P. 19-25.  5.  B a x t e r , David, "The B r i t i s h Columbia and Vancouver Housing Markets: Short Run R e a l i t i e s and Long Run Trends," a paper p r e s e n t e d a t The Economic Outlook f o r the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia forum, p r e s e n t e d by E x e c u t i v e Programmes, F a c u l t y of Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, December 14, 1977, P. 13.  6.  I b i d , PP. 12-14.  7.  Goldberg, M.A. and U l i n d e r , D.D., " R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behaviour: 1975", Housing: I t ' s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, The Urban Land Economic D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976, P. 295.  8.  C e n t r a l Mortgaae  9.  Baxter, op. c i t . , P.  P.G.  and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n 14.  10.  Hamilton, S t a n l e y W., "House P r i c e I n d i c e s : Theory and P r a c t i c e " , Housing: I t ' s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976.  11.  Subocz, Irene, "House P r i c e I n d i c e s " , of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976.  12.  Hamilton, "House P r i c e I n d i c e s : P. 415.  13.  Ibid.  M.Sc.  Thesis, University  Theory and P r a c t i c e " ,  CHAPTER 3  BRITISH COLUMBIA STRATA TITLES ACT  3.1  Introduction The  B r i t i s h Columbia S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t has been i n e f f e c t f o r 1  eleven years yet there i s s t i l l cept involved. of  some c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the con-  I t i s t h e r e f o r e necessary t o p r o v i d e a d i s c u s s i o n  the A c t and i t s terminology b e f o r e examining  which comprises  the bulk o f t h i s study.  the e m p i r i c a l data  The f o l l o w i n g w i l l  outline  the b a s i c terminology o f the A c t and the r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of  those i n v o l v e d i n the s t r a t a t i t l e  to  be a d e t a i l e d examination  but r a t h e r a g e n e r a l overview understanding  3.2  T h i s i s not meant  o f the A c t and a l l i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s t o p r o v i d e the reader w i t h a b a s i c  o f the l e g i s l a t i o n .  General Concept The  concept  strata t i t l e  o r condominium  (as i t i s more commonly known)  i s a form o f ownership i n r e a l p r o p e r t y .  the combination in  projects.  I t consists of  o f a f e e simple ownership of i n d i v i d u a l areas w i t h -  the l a r g e r area w i t h the remaining p o r t i o n owned by a l l the  i n d i v i d u a l owners as tenants i n common.  The S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t p r o -  v i d e s the l e g a l foundation f o r t h i s arrangement p l u s a means o f e f f e c t i v e l y managing and o p e r a t i n g the p r o j e c t .  50.  One  o f the most common mistakes  i s b e l i e v i n g t h a t a condomin-  ium r e f e r s o n l y t o a s p e c i f i c type o f s t r u c t u r e o r use (e.g., r e s i d e n t i a l townhouse).  T h i s i s not t h e case as the A c t a l l o w s f o r any  s t y l e o f b u i l d i n g o r simply b a r e - l a n d t o be used as a condominium. Further, the type o f use i s u n r e s t r i c t e d and may be a p p l i e d t o such types as r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, o r a mixture o f uses.  retail,  industrial,  recreational,  While the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t p r o v i d e s f o r a  v i r t u a l l y u n l i m i t e d a r r a y o f p r o j e c t s t y l e s , they remain local regulation  under  (e.g., zoning) as t o how and where they are imple-  mented . The areas t h a t a r e owned i n f e e simple a r e termed " s t r a t a or " s t r a t a u n i t s " .  lots"  They are i s s u e d i n d i v i d u a l c e r t i f i c a t e s o f t i t l e  which enables them t o be mortgaged, charged, conveyed i n the same manner as any f e e simple i n t e r e s t  .  or dealt with  (There are some  e x c e p t i o n s t o t h i s which w i l l be d e a l t w i t h l a t e r . )  The A c t a l s o  p r o v i d e s f o r the u n i t s t o be assessed and taxed i n an i n d i v i d u a l manner-^.  Herein l i e s the b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e between a c o o p e r a t i v e  form o f ownership  and a condominium.  A l l the p r o p e r t y i n a c o -  o p e r a t i v e i s under a s i n g l e t i t l e w i t h the r e s i d e n t s p u r c h a s i n g a r i g h t t o occupy a u n i t .  Each u n i t cannot t h e r e f o r e be d e a l t w i t h  i n d i v i d u a l l y as i t does not have a separate Any  title.  area t h a t i s not s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d i n a s t r a t a l o t i s  owned by a l l the u n i t owners as tenants i n common and i s termed the common p r o p e r t y , common areas, o r common f a c i l i t i e s ^ p r o p e r t y i s governed all  The common  by the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n which i s made up o f  the s t r a t a l o t owners.  I t i s " r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e enforcement  51. of the by-laws, and the c o n t r o l , management, and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the common p r o p e r t y , common f a c i l i t i e s , 5 strata corporation." veyed o r otherwise  and the a s s e t s of t h e  The common p r o p e r t y may be mortgaged, con-  d e a l t with  s e p a r a t e l y from the i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s  under the d i r e c t i o n o f the c o r p o r a t i o n . 3.3  Definitions Before proceeding  f u r t h e r , some b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l be  s u p p l i e d which w i l l f a c i l i t a t e the d i s c u s s i o n o f the A c t l a t e r . (1)  Bare-land S t r a t a P l a n : means a s t r a t a p l a n on which the boundaries o f the s t r a t a l o t s are d e f i n e d by r e f e r e n c e t o survey markers; no b u i l d ing o r s t r u c t u r e i s s u p p l i e d .  (2)  Support S t r a t u r e S t r a t a P l a n : means a s t r a t a p l a n i n which the owner-developer intends t o prov i d e o n l y support s t r u c t u r e s , upon which improvements may be c o n s t r u c t e d . These may be i n the form o f concrete s l a b s o r wood p l a n k s . s e t i n the ground.  (3)  Phased S t r a t a P l a n : means a s t r a t a p l a n which i s intended t o be developed i n s u c c e s s i v e s t a g e s . See P a r t I I o f the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t .  (4)  Leasehold S t r a t a P l a n : means a s t r a t a p l a n i n which the land contained t h e r e i n i s l e a s e d from the Crown, F e d e r a l Crown, o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y , r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t o r other p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y f o r a term o f a t l e a s t 50 y e a r s . Upon the d e p o s i t o f a l e a s e h o l d s t r a t a p l a n the r e g i s t e r e d ground l e a s e i s converted t o i n d i v i d u a l ground l e a s e s a p p l i c a b l e to each u n i t . See Part I I I o f the S t r a t a T i t l e s Act.  (5)  Unit Entitlement: means t h a t f i g u r e which i s s t i p u l a t e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n f o r each u n i t and i s g e n e r a l l y based on the r e l a t i v e square footage o f the u n i t t o the t o t a l square footage o f a l l s t r a t a l o t s i n the s t r a t a p l a n . The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the l o t ' s u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t t o the t o t a l u n i t e n t i t l e ment g i v e the l o t ' s share o f the common expenses,  shares o f the common property and a s s e t s o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n , and share o f any debt or l i a b i l i t y o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n .  3.4  (6)  Common expenses: means those expenses which apply t o the o p e r a t i o n and management o f the common areas, common f a c i l i t i e s and common a s s e t s o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n .  (7)  Contingency Reserve Fund: means a fund f o r the non-annual expenditures o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n f o r r e p a i r , maintenance, and replacement o f the common p r o p e r t y , common f a c i l i t i e s , and other a s s e t s o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n . It i s collected from the owners on the b a s i s o f the s t r a t a l o t ' s unit entitlement.  C r e a t i o n of a S t r a t a Plan A condominium o r s t r a t a p r o j e c t i s c r e a t e d by the f i l i n g o f a  s t r a t a p l a n i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e ^ . accepted  the p l a n w i l l be  by the R e g i s t r a r , c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s s t i p u l a t e d i n t h e  S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t must be met. for  Before  These c o n d i t i o n s p r o v i d e  the b a s i s  i d e n t i f y i n g the p r o j e c t , the u n i t s , the v o t i n g r i g h t s o f each  u n i t , and the p r o p o r t i o n a t e property The  share o f expenses r e l a t i n g t o the common  f o r each u n i t . requirements f o r f i l i n g a s t r a t a p l a n a r e c o n t a i n e d i n  S e c t i o n s 2 and 3 o f the A c t and a r e as f o l l o w s .  Subsection  2 (2)  s t a t e s t h a t the land i n c l u d e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n must be a s i n g l e p a r c e l o r i f there are s e v e r a l p a r c e l s , they must be p a r t o f a strata plan.  T i t l e t o t h e land must be r e g i s t e r e d i n the name o f  the owner-developer except f o r a l e a s e h o l d s t r a t a p l a n where the owner-developer must be the r e g i s t e r e d l e s s e e . The major requirements under S e c t i o n 3 s t i p u l a t e the f o l l o w i n g must be i n c l u d e d i n the p l a n : -  (a)  the p l a n must d e l i n e a t e the plane boundaries o f the l a n d i n c l u d e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n and the l o c a t i o n of the b u i l d i n g i n r e l a t i o n t h e r e t o ,  (b)  i n c l u d e a drawing i l l u s t r a t i n g the s t r a t a l o t s and d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the s t r a t a l o t s by numbers o r l e t t e r s i n consecutive order,  (c)  s u b j e c t t o Subsections 3 (3) and 3 ( 4 ) , d e f i n e the boundaries o f each s t r a t a l o t ,  (d)  have endorsed upon i t a schedule s p e c i f y i n g the u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t o f each s t r a t a l o t , and  (e)  have endorsed upon i t a schedule... s p e c i f y i n g ... the share o f each owner as a tenant i n common o f the p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s o f t h e s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n upon the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the b u i l d i n g s . . . c a l c u l a t e d i n the p r o p o r t i o n t h a t the v a l u e o f each s t r a t a l o t bears t o the t o t a l v a l u e o f a l l s t r a t a l o t s i n t h a t s t r a t a plan.  The d e f i n i t i o n o f the boundaries r e f e r r e d t o i n (c) (above) are the c e n t r e of the f l o o r , w a l l , o r c e i l i n g o f the u n i t o r "where the owner-developer  i n t e n d s t o p r o v i d e o n l y support s t r u c t u r e s , on  a h o r i z o n t a l plane by r e f e r e n c e t o the support s t r u c t u r e , and f o r t h i s purpose, u n l e s s otherwise d e f i n e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n , the boundaries s h a l l be deemed t o extend v e r t i c a l l y upwards and down7 wards without l i m i t " .  Areas such as b a l c o n i e s , p r i v a t e y a r d a r e a s ,  storage spaces, garages and the l i k e may be i n c l u d e d as p a r t o f a s t r a t a u n i t o r p a r t o f the common p r o p e r t y but they cannot  form  separate s t r a t a l o t s u n l e s s they a r e r e l a t e d t o n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l use. The boundaries of these p a r t s may be d e f i n e d i n the same manner as the s t r a t a u n i t s o r " . . . i n any manner approved  by the R e g i s t r a r . "  In a d d i t i o n t o the requirements o f the p l a n i t s e l f ,  further  approvals are necessary which w i l l vary w i t h t h e type o f developments .  0  54. (a)  New B u i l d i n g : a land surveyor must c e r t i f y the b u i l d i n g i s a new development t h a t has not been p r e v i o u s l y occupied.  (b)  Conversion o f an E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g t o a S t r a t a P r o j e c t : approval by an approving a u t h o r i t y i s required. T h i s was i n c l u d e d t o p r o v i d e a means of c o n t r o l l i n g the c o n v e r s i o n o f r e n t a l b u i l d ings d u r i n g a p e r i o d of very low r e n t a l v a c a n c i e s . The a u t h o r i t y i s allowed g r e a t d i s c r e t i o n i n approving or r e j e c t i n g the c o n v e r s i o n but i s charged w i t h c e r t a i n d u t i e s : (i)  (ii)  (iii)  t h a t the b u i l d i n g " s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h the a p p l i c a b l e by-laws of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ..." (Subsection 5 (2)) o r the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code i f the p r o j e c t i s located outside a municipality, the approving a u t h o r i t y s h a l l  consider  (a)  the p r i o r i t y of r e n t a l accommodation over p r i v a t e l y owned housing i n the area,  (b)  the p r o p o s a l s of the owner-developer f o r the r e l o c a t i o n of persons occupying the b u i l d i n g s ,  (c)  the  l i f e expectancy of the b u i l d i n g .  the approving a u t h o r i t y may c o n s i d e r any other matters which i n i t s o p i n i o n are r e l e v a n t . These p r o v i s i o n s have r e s u l t e d i n the e l i m i n a t i o n of c o n v e r s i o n i n some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the severe c u r t a i l m e n t i n o t h e r s .  (c)  Phase S t r a t a P l a n : i n f i l i n g a phased s t r a t a p l a n , the owner-developer must f i l e a " D e c l a r a t i o n of Intention t o Create a S t r a t a Plan by Phased D e v e l opment" (Fourth Schedule, Form E ) . The d e c l a r a t i o n must s p e c i f y the number and the d e t a i l s o f each phase, an estimated schedule of development, the u n i t e n t i t l e ment of each phase and the t o t a l u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t of the completed development. The approving o f f i c e r must approve each phase s e p a r a t e l y and ensure t h a t they each comply w i t h the d e t a i l s of Form E.  (d)  Support S t r u c t u r e s : ment A c t , 1977 ( B i l l  p r i o r to the S t r a t a T i t l e s Amend75), s t r a t a p r o j e c t s s u p p l y i n g  o n l y support s t r u c t u r e s d i d not r e q u i r e a p p r o v a l . T h i s allowed owner-developers t o a v o i d m u n i c i p a l or r e g i o n a l s u b d i v i s i o n by-laws by c r e a t i n g a strata t i t l e " s u b d i v i s i o n . " The amendments r e q u i r e the approval o f such p l a n s and i s r e t r o a c t i v e t o June 24, 1977. (e)  3.5  Bare-land S t r a t a P l a n : the amendments p r o v i d e f o r the s t r a t a f i c a t i o n o f raw-land which had p r e v i o u s l y : been accomplished under the g u i s e o f support s t r u c t u r e s - only wood planks or s m a l l c o n c r e t e s l a b s would be p r o v i d e d w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y o f the l o t undeveloped. Bare-land s t r a t a p l a n s w i l l a l s o r e q u i r e the approval o f the approving a u t h o r i t y b e f o r e f i l i n g i n the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e .  Owner-Developer The  f e a t u r e s o f the A c t r e l a t i n g t o the owner-developer a r e not  l i m i t e d t o those r e q u i r e d f o r the f i l i n g o f the p l a n . a l s o f i l e a p r o s p e c t u s , develop  an i n i t i a l o p e r a t i n g budget f o r the  p r o j e c t , and face v e r y s p e c i a l requirements development.  These aspects w i l l  They must  when c r e a t i n g a phased  be d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  Where the s t r a t a p r o j e c t i s a new development o r a c o n v e r s i o n being o f f e r e d f o r s a l e f o r the f i r s t time and f i v e o r more u n i t s have been c r e a t e d , a prospectus must be f i l e d Act^and  under the Real E s t a t e  A copy o f the prospectus must be p r o v i d e d t o each  purchaser  s h a l l i n c l u d e , among o t h e r s , the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : (a)  name, address,  and past d e a l i n g s o f the promoter,  (b)  a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s u b d i v i s i o n ,  (c)  a l l encumbrances  (d)  p a r t i c u l a r s of the developer's w a r r a n t i e s o r f i n a n c i n g , i f any,  o f the t i t l e ( s ) ,  (e)  a proposed o p e r a t i n g  Cf)  a summary of the condominium management c o n t r a c t , and  (g)  the proposed by-laws.  The  budget,  p r o s p e c t u s i s s i m i l a r to t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r a normal sub-  d i v i s i o n and  should not be a s i g n i f i c a n t o b s t a c l e to development.  I t w i l l a l s o serve  to inform the p u r c h a s e r s of the p r o j e c t and  r u l e s which w i l l govern t h e i r behaviour should chase.  they decide t o pur-  T h i s can o n l y i n c r e a s e the g e n e r a l l e v e l of  they w i l l experience  i n the f u t u r e .  Survey - S a t i s f a c t i o n , Chapter  the  satisfaction  (See the r e s u l t s o f the Owners'  4.)  A f t e r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the p r o j e c t i s completed and u n i t s are ready f o r s a l e , the owner-developer manages and the common areas i n p l a c e of the s t r a t a c o u n c i l .  the  operates  Under the  present  Act he i s r e q u i r e d to r e l i n q u i s h these d u t i e s t o the i n t e r i m s t r a t a c o u n c i l which i s e l e c t e d at the g e n e r a l meeting of the The  purchasers.  meeting must be c a l l e d w i t h i n three months of the f i r s t  ance of a l o t .  A f t e r 85%  convey-  of the l o t s are s o l d , o r a f t e r twelve  months from the date of r e g i s t r a t i o n of the p l a n , the i n t e r i m council  i s r e p l a c e d by an e l e c t e d permanent c o u n c i l .  ments s t r e a m l i n e  The  new  amend-  t h i s procedure by e l i m i n a t i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n  tween i n t e r i m and permanent c o u n c i l s and  r e q u i r i n g the f i r s t  meeting o f the owners t o be h e l d once 60% o f the  1 0  .  general  l o t s have been con-  veyed or a f t e r nine months from the date of r e g i s t r a t i o n of plan  be-  the  The A c t a l s o r e q u i r e s the developer t o prepare an o p e r a t i n g budget f o r the p r o j e c t f o r a nine-month p e r i o d and t o r e v i s e i t every t h r e e months.  I f the a c t u a l expenses, u n t i l the s t r a t a  c o u n c i l assumes the management d u t i e s , exceed  those e s t i m a t e d i n  the budget, the developer i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any e x c e s s . e s t i m a t e d expenses exceed  I f the  the a c t u a l , a l l the owners, i n c l u d i n g the  owner-developer, r e c e i v e a rebate i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i r e n t i t l e m e n t and t h e i r p e r i o d o f tenure.  unit  N a t u r a l l y the developer  i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the common expenses a t t r i b u t e d t o any unsold units. The development o f a phased s t r a t a p l a n p l a c e s e x t r a r e q u i r e ments on the owner-developer.  They are i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t the  purchasers o f the i n i t i a l s t a g e s , however, they a l s o reduce much o f the f l e x i b i l i t y of a phased development. P r e v i o u s l y the requirement Schedule  of f i l i n g  a Form E o f t h e F o u r t h  i n c r e a t i n g a phased p l a n was noted.  I f the owner-devel-  oper does not wish t o proceed w i t h phases subsequent t o the f i r s t one to  a c c o r d i n g t o the t i m e t a b l e o u t l i n e d i n the Form E, he may a p p l y the approving o f f i c e r f o r an e x t e n s i o n .  the o f f i c e r ' s d i s c r e t i o n  T h i s may be granted a t  f o r up t o one y e a r .  I f the owner-devel-  oper e l e c t s not t o go ahead with the subsequent phases, the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n c r e a t e d i n the i n i t i a l stages for  an order t o ensure the proposed  s t r u c t e d w i l l be p r o v i d e d . 1 1  may apply t o the Court  common f a c i l i t i e s n o t y e t con-  The s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may a l s o apply 12  for  the f o l l o w i n g stages to be completed  i n a "reasonable  time"  58. or t h a t t h e developer  e l e c t n o t t o proceed.  To ensure the common  f a c i l i t i e s can be p r o v i d e d by t h e owner-developer he i s r e q u i r e d t o post a bond, l e t t e r o f c r e d i t , or other s e c u r i t y to cover the c o s t of t h e common f a c i l i t i e s . or r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t  The s e c u r i t y i s h e l d by the m u n i c i p a l i t y  (whichever a p p l i c a b l e ) and may be r e l e a s e d  o n l y a f t e r the f a c i l i t y i s completed o r the s t r a t a  corporation  grants i t s r e l e a s e . The  owner-developer i s f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e common  expenses a p p l i c a b l e t o the common f a c i l i t i e s developed i n t h e initial  stages  i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t o f the phases  not y e t b u i l t .  The amendments a l s o r e q u i r e s t h a t where the common  f a c i l i t i e s are provided  i n the i n i t i a l  stages and t h e owner-devel-  oper e l e c t s not t o proceed with the subsequent phases, "he s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e t o the common expenses i n p r o p o r t i o n to the u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t o f the s t r a t a l o t s o f the phases t h a t are not b u i l t , " . 1 3  Presumably, though not e x p l i c i t l y  s t a t e d , t h i s w i l l be f o r the l i f e  o f the p r o j e c t .  3.6  Strata Corporation The  (Operation Management)  s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d on the d e p o s i t o f t h e  s t r a t a p l a n and i s comprised o f a l l the owners o f the s t r a t a It  lots.  i s not r e g u l a t e d under the Companies A c t but does have p e r p e t u a l  s u c c e s s i o n , may sue and be sued, and may sue on the b e h a l f o f an 14  i n d i v i d u a l l o t owner even when i t i s not i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i o n The  c o r p o r a t i o n i s charged with two b a s i c d u t i e s : -  59. (1)  the c o n t r o l , management and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the common p r o p e r t y , and  (2)  the enforcement o f the by-laws.  Each o f these f u n c t i o n a l areas w i l l be d i s c u s s e d should  first  i n t u r n but i t  be p o i n t e d out t h a t the d a i l y b u s i n e s s  of the corpora-  t i o n i s conducted by the s t r a t a c o u n c i l . The  s t r a t a c o u n c i l i s e l e c t e d from the p u r c h a s e r s o f the s t r a t a  l o t s ; t h i s excludes by d e f i n i t i o n , the owner-developer from e l e c t e d t o the body.  being  The c o u n c i l may see t o t h e " e x e r c i s e and p e r 15  formance o f the powers and the d u t i e s o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n " but i t i s not empowered t o a c t where the by-laws o r A c t r e q u i r e s the consent o f the c o r p o r a t i o n by a v o t e .  F o r example, only the  c o r p o r a t i o n i s e n t i t l e d t o amend t h e by-laws o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . In r e s p e c t  t o the management o f the common a r e a s , the s t r a t a  corporation i s required to:(1)  maintain insurance on the b u i l d i n g s , common f a c i l i t i e s and any i n s u r a b l e improvements owned by the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n t o the f u l l r e p l a c e ment value (Subsection 19 ( a ) ) ,  (2)  p r o p e r l y maintain 19 ( d ) ) ,  (3)  e s t a b l i s h a fund f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expenses (Subsection 20 ( a ) ) ,  (4)  e s t a b l i s h a contingency r e s e r v e 20 ( b ) ) , and  (5)  r a i s e the amounts necessary f o r (3) and (4) by l e v y i n g c o n t r i b u t i o n s on the owners i n p r o p o r t i o n to t h e i r u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t (Subsection 20 (d)) .  the common p r o p e r t y  fund  (Subsection  (Subsection  F u r t h e r , the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may a c q u i r e , t r a n s f e r , charge, o r  60.  grant easements o r r e s t r i c t i v e covenants on the common and  property  amend the by-laws, r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s by a s p e c i a l r e s o l u t i o n  o f the owners The  .  s t r a t a corporation i s a l s o e n t i t l e d to enter i n t o contracts  " . . . a f f e c t i n g the s e c u r i t y and.maintenance o f the common II 17 •«•  .  T h i s allows  property  them the o p t i o n o f managing the p r o j e c t them-  s e l v e s or h i r i n g a p r o f e s s i o n a l management company.  I f a management  company i s employed i t u s u a l l y i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d a i l y  functions  such as bookkeeping, s u p e r v i s i o n o f maintenance, and the h a n d l i n g o f any  complaints o r d i s p u t e s .  The f i n a l c o n t r o l , however, remains  with the c o u n c i l o r c o r p o r a t i o n r e g a r d i n g by-laws and t h e s e t t i n g o f p o l i c i e s .  the enforcement o f the  The blame f o r any i n e f f i c i e n t  management must, t h e r e f o r e , be shared by the p r o f e s s i o n a l f i r m and the  corporation. The  c o n t r a c t s entered  i n t o between the management company and  the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may be c a n c e l l e d by e i t h e r p a r t y on t h r e e months' n o t i c e without i n c u r r i n g any l i a b i l i t y  f o r breach o f con-  18 tract  .  T h i s c l a u s e was o r i g i n a l l y intended  t o a l l o w the c o r p o r a -  t i o n out o f "sweetheart" c o n t r a c t s made between the developer and the management company but i t i s a l s o used t o get r i d o f management companies t h a t prove t o be u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .  Interestingly, several  management companies r e v e a l e d they have a l s o used t h i s s e c t i o n t o break c o n t r a c t s w i t h  s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n s which they found t o be  incompatible with t h e i r management s t y l e . One aspect r e g a r d i n g condominium management f i r m s which has  caused some comment i s the l a c k of r e g u l a t i o n over t h e i r e s t a b l i s h ment or behaviour.  P r e s e n t l y there  i s no c o n t r o l under e i t h e r the  S t r a t a T i t l e s Act or the Real E s t a t e Act over the needed t o e s t a b l i s h such a f i r m o r the h a n d l i n g amount o f funds represented  The  of the  considerable  by the budgets o f t h e i r c l i e n t s .  c o u l d be the source of c o n s i d e r a b l e by the a p p r o p r i a t e  qualifications  abuse which should be  This  corrected  legislation.  by-laws of the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n are e s t a b l i s h e d f o r  the c o n t r o l , management, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , use, 19 s t r a t a l o t s and  common p r o p e r t y . . . "  .  The  and  enjoyment of  "... the  strata corporation i s  charged with the duty of e n f o r c i n g the by-laws, r u l e s and  regula-  t i o n s by any means necessary, i n c l u d i n g the removing o f p r i v i l e g e s i n the use o f c e r t a i n f a c i l i t i e s or the f i x i n g and c o l l e c t i n g o f 20 fines  .  G e n e r a l l y , the c o u n c i l a c t i n g on the b e h a l f o f the  poration, provides blem and  cor-  the o f f e n d i n g owner a chance t o c o r r e c t the  o n l y i f the problem r e o c c u r s  are f i n e s imposed.  pro-  Removing  the use of c e r t a i n f a c i l i t i e s i s u s u a l l y too d i f f i c u l t t o p o l i c e and  i s t h e r e f o r e not o f t e n used. Where an owner d e f a u l t s i n the payment of h i s share of  common expenses the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n has two 21.  o p t i o n s under S e c t i o n  F i r s t l y , upon a r e s o l u t i o n passed by a m a j o r i t y and a f t e r  seven days' n o t i c e to the owner, the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may o r i z e the t e r m i n a t i o n o f the u t i l i t y owner. new  the  auth-  s e r v i c e s to the d e f a u l t i n g  Such a c t i o n has been seldom used and w i l l be removed i n the  amendments. The  second method i s more commonly used and more e f f e c t i v e .  On  d e f a u l t of payment of the common expense charges or of f i n e s l e v i e d , the c o r p o r a t i o n may  f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e i n Form B of the  Fourth  Schedule which i s a l i e n a g a i n s t the t i t l e o f the s t r a t a l o t . l i e n can be the amount unpaid p l u s  "...the l a n d r e g i s t r y fee  The and 21  the l e g a l and and  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s of f i l i n g  i t s h a l l have p r i o r i t y t o every other  the  certificates"  l i e n except those i n  favour  22 of the Crown (except mortgages i n favour of the Crown c r e a t e d under the Mechanics L i e n A c t  (Subsection  21  ) and  (3)).  The  t h a t makes t h i s a t r u l y e f f e c t i v e enforcement method i s t h a t l i e n i s enforceable one  by a Court ordered  point  the  s a l e o f the s t r a t a l o t a f t e r  month's n o t i c e t o the owner. The  s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n i s v i r t u a l l y guaranteed t h a t they w i l l  r e c e i v e t h e i r money i f they a c t under t h i s s e c t i o n . of d e l i n q u e n c i e s in  those  the process  are s i g n i f i c a n t , however, the  may  i n h e r e n t time l a g s  cause some cash flow problems.  must, t h e r e f o r e , a c t e x p e d i e n t l y  The  corporation  i n the performance of t h e i r  t o ensure the s i t u a t i o n does not become c h r o n i c . enforcement of the by-laws, r u l e s  I f the number  and  duties  S i m i l a r l y , the  r e g u l a t i o n s must be c a r r i e d  out e f f i c i e n t l y but tempered with the knowledge t h a t o v e r l y  strin-  gent r e g u l a t i o n s w i l l cause as much d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n as too l a x enforcement. The  power of the  s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n i s not  matters i n v o l v i n g the common areas and p r o p e r t y the  s t r a t a l o t s themselves as w i l l be  owner-purchaser.  l i m i t e d to the but a l s o to w i t h i n  seen i n the d i s c u s s i o n of  the  3.7  Owner-Purchaser The d u t i e s of the owners are c o n t a i n e d  i n the by-laws and  include:-  The  (1)  a duty t o maintain  (2)  r e c e i v e t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f the s t r a t a c o u n c i l b e f o r e undertaking any a l t e r a t i o n t o his strata l o t ,  (3)  he s h a l l not make undue n o i s e i n o r about any s t r a t a l o t o r common p r o p e r t y ,  (4)  keep any animals on h i s s t r a t a l o t o r t h e common p r o p e r t y a f t e r n o t i c e on t h a t b e h a l f from t h e council,  (5)  i f he wishes t o r e n t h i s s t r a t a l o t f o r more than one month, he s h a l l submit a Form D o f t h e F o u r t h Schedule n o t i f y i n g the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n of h i s i n t e n t , and  (6)  comply s t r i c t l y with these by-laws, i n c l u d i n g the payment of the common area charges and cont i n g e n c y r e s e r v e fund l e v y .  owner i s s u b j e c t t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f r e g u l a t i o n , however,  i n doing so, a reasonable The  the s t r a t a l o t ,  life  s t y l e i s ensured  f o r the m a j o r i t y .  owner a l s o has the r i g h t t h a t the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n perform i t s  d u t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s which i s e n f o r c e a b l e by a Court ordered man. . 23 datory i n j u n c t i o n  .  The amendments w i l l a l s o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n t o  the owner i n cases of o p p r e s s i v e a c t s by the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n , c o u n c i l , o r c l a s s o f owners on one or more owners i n c l u d i n g h i m s e l f . 24 In such an i n s t a n c e , the matter may be r e f e r r e d t o a r b i t r a t i o n to  the Court with a view t o p r e v e n t i n g o r remedying t h e matter. The  owner w i l l be f u r t h e r p r o t e c t e d by the amendments i n  or  i n s t a n c e s where, subsequent t o the conveyancing from the ownerdeveloper,  a charge i s f i l e d  Mechanics L i e n A c t .  The  new  a g a i n s t the s t r a t a l o t under the S e c t i o n 41 A w i l l p r o v i d e  holdback of the f u l l purchase p r i c e f o r 31 days. c o u r t of t h i s holdback d i s c h a r g e s  a l l liens  for a  15%  Payment i n t o  (even i f the amount of  the l i e n s exceed the amount of the holdback) a g a i n s t the l o t and i t s share of the common p r o p e r t y . be  filed  chaser. but may  F u r t h e r , no Mechanics L i e n s  can  l a t e r than 31 days a f t e r the conveyancing date t o the purT h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s ample p r o t e c t i o n t o the cause the s u b c o n t r a c t o r s  and  purchaser  s u p p l i e r s to be more s t r i c t  t h e i r e x t e n s i o n of c r e d i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y t o s m a l l  developers.  S e c t i o n 18 i s concerned with the r e s t r i c t i o n s on the w i t h the s t r a t a l o t .  Subsection  18  on  dealings  (1) s t a t e s : -  "No by-law...operates to p r o h i b i t or r e s t r i c t a dev a l u a t i o n of a s t r a t a l o t or any t r a n s f e r , l e a s e , mortgage, or other d e a l i n g w i t h a s t r a t a l o t or t o d e s t r o y or modify an easement i m p l i e d or c r e a t e d by t h i s Act." While t h i s s e c t i o n p r o t e c t s the r i g h t of an owner i n the a l i e n a t i o n of the l o t , i t does not e l i m i n a t e the power of the c o r p o r a t i o n to r e s t r i c t the use of the l o t The most c o n t e n t i o u s and  i s s u e over t h i s p o i n t i s the development  c o n t i n u a t i o n of "adult o n l y " p r o j e c t s .  On  the one  hand a  by-  law r e s t r i c t i n g c h i l d r e n from i n h a b i t i n g the u n i t s can be viewed a r e s t r i c t i o n of usage.  From the vendor's v i e w p o i n t ,  as  however, i t  i s a r e s t r i c t i o n on h i s r i g h t t o s e l l t o whomever he wishes, i n c l u d -  65.  ing  f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n .  cede as i t "...permits,  The  Human Rights Code does not  t a c i t l y , d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n the purchase  (and l e t t i n g ) of p r o p e r t y  on the b a s i s of age."  Arguments can  advanced f o r both s i d e s but as yet the i s s u e does not resolved. The  inter-  seem to  be  be  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the A c t i s t h e r e f o r e recommended. major e x c e p t i o n  to Subsection  18  (1) i s t h a t a by-law  be enacted by a c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t i s wholly  or p a r t i a l l y  may  residential 27  t h a t r e s t r i c t s the number of s t r a t a l o t s which may T h i s c l a u s e was  be  leased  i n c l u d e d because many owners f e l t t h a t tenants  did  not t r e a t the common areas p r o p e r l y , have the proper r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r r e s i d e n t s ' r i g h t s , or the owner-landlords would not be t o maintain dents.  the common areas i n the same manner as i f they were r e s i -  T h i s p r o t e c t i o n may  c r e a t e hardships  or may  not be  j u s t i f i e d but  where the market i s " s o f t " and  owner i s unable to s e l l h i s u n i t ( s ) .  The  the s t r a t a c o u n c i l t o make an e x c e p t i o n may  willing  the developer or  present  or the  i t can  legislation  an  allows  strata corporation  amend the by-law to a l l o w an a d d i t i o n a l number of u n i t s to  be  l e a s e d i n such a s i t u a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t changes to S e c t i o n 18 are contained ments.  A new  s e c t i o n , S e c t i o n 18 A,  i s proposed which attempts to  a l l o w the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n to continue u n i t s to be rented but a l s o allows  i n the amend-  to c o n t r o l the number of  the owner-developer to s t i p u l a t e  a number of l o t s t h a t may  be  l e s s of the by-laws.  i n t e n t i o n of t h i s amendment i s to p r o t e c t  The  leased for a s p e c i f i e d period i r r e g a r d -  the developer i n i n s t a n c e s where the u n i t s are not being r e a d i l y  66. absorbed i n t o the market; however, i t i s l i k e l y t o cause a good d e a l o f c o n f u s i o n and may  not p r o t e c t the d e v e l o p e r o r the owners.  The d e t a i l s o f the new  section  ( S e c t i o n 18 A) are as f o l l o w s : -  (1)  the by-laws of the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may r e s t r i c t the number of r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a l o t s l e a s e d by the owners (as b e f o r e ) ,  (2)  an owner-developer must d i s c l o s e the number o f s t r a t a l o t s he has l e a s e d or i n t e n d s to l e a s e and the d u r a t i o n of the l e a s e s t o every purchaser o r p r o s p e c t i v e purchaser i n a " r e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e statement,"  (3)  where a r e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e statement i s f i l e d , the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n cannot r e s t r i c t the c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e i n , even i f the l o t s are l a t e r s o l d t o another,  (4)  m o d i f i c a t i o n of the r e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e statement r e q u i r e s 75% a p p r o v a l of the owners, e x c l u d i n g the owner-developer and owners who are l e a s i n g ( i . e . , 75% of the owner-occupiers),  (5)  i f the owner-developer i s s u f f e r i n g "undue h a r d s h i p " because he i s r e s t r i c t e d by a by-law from l e a s i n g and he cannot get a p p r o v a l of an amendment o f the . r e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e statement by the owner-occupiers, he may appeal t o the s t r a t a c o u n c i l f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o l e a s e the l o t o r l o t s and the c o u n c i l s h a l l not "unreasonably r e f u s e " ,  (6)  the c o u n c i l , i f i t so d e c i d e s , may permit the l e a s i n g of one or more s t r a t a l o t s i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n w i t h the by-laws or may a l t e r the r e n t a l d i s c l o s u r e statement without the owners' consent,  (7)  f a i l u r e of the owner-developer to meet the r e q u i r e ments of t h i s s e c t i o n i s an o f f e n s e and any agreement t o purchase between the owner-developer or owner and purchaser or tenant i s u n e n f o r c e a b l e .  1  The g r e a t e s t shortcoming of t h i s s e c t i o n i s the l a c k o f d e f i n i t i o n of "undue h a r d s h i p " and  "unreasonably r e f u s e " .  Such ambiguity  i n c r e a s e s the u n c e r t a i n t y i n the purchase and developments  o f condo-  miniums and  w i l l l i k e l y be the  source of s i g n i f i c a n t l e g a l  dis-  agreements. The  developer i s faced w i t h a f u r t h e r dilemma i n s p e c i f y i n g  the number of l o t s to be l e a s e d and he  s t i p u l a t e s too few  the d u r a t i o n of the  a number, he may  n e i t h e r s e l l nor r e n t .  end  leases.  up w i t h u n i t s he  can  A l s o , he w i l l a l i e n a t e those p u r c h a s e r s  l o o k i n g f o r an investment or are unsure of t h e i r f u t u r e p l a n s want the a b i l i t y t o r e n t the u n i t i f n e c e s s a r y .  an  T h i s may  owner-occupier segment and  s h i p " and The  "unreasonably  he  strictly  r e s u l t i n f r a c t i o n a l i z i n g the market i n t o an i n v e s t o r o r i e n t e d segment.  o f the outcome w i l l depend on e v e n t u a l  and  a duration  a l i e n a t e those l o o k i n g f o r a p r o j e c t t h a t c o n t a i n s  owner-occupiers.  and  C o n v e r s e l y , i f he  s e l e c t s too l a r g e a number o f u n i t s or too l e n g t h y may  If  d e f i n i t i o n of  Much  "undue hard-  refuse".  S t r a t a T i t l e s Act p r o v i d e s  g u i d e l i n e s on the purchase p r i c e  renewal r e n t on the e x p i r y of the ground l e a s e p e r t a i n i n g t o a  leasehold  s t r a t a plan.  Each s t r a t a l o t may  or may  not have i t s  l e a s e renewed; i f i t i s not renewed the l e a s e i s s u b j e c t t o r i g h t t o purchase by the l e s s o r must purchase the l o t ) .  The  (under the new  the  amendments the  purchase p r i c e i s to be  lessor  s t i p u l a t e d as:-  (a)  "the p r i c e c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s s e t out i n a schedule f i l e d w i t h the l e a s e h o l d s t r a t a p l a n ; or  (b)  i f c l a u s e (a) does not apply, i t s f a i r market v a l u e , and, f o r the purpose of a s s e s s i n g i t s f a i r market v a l u e , the i n t e r e s t i n the s t r a t a l o t s h a l l be e v a l u a t e d as i f the l e a s e d i d not terminate..." .  68.  In other words, i f c l a u s e  (b) a p p l i e s , the l e s s o r must pay the f a i r  market value o f the s t r a t a l o t as i f i t were a f e e simple  interest.  T h i s i s d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t without such l e g i s l a t i o n the owner would have no l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n the s t r a t a l o t on e x p i r y o f the lease. The amendments p r o v i d e  a b a s i s to c a l c u l a t e the r e n t under a  renewed l e a s e which d i d not e x i s t p r e v i o u s l y .  The l e a s e s h a l l be on.  the same terms and c o n d i t i o n s as the o r i g i n a l l e a s e and the r e n t s h a l l be determined by agreement between the l e s s o r and l e s s e e by the date o f commencement of the renewal p e r i o d .  Failing this, i t  s h a l l be determined by a r b i t r a t i o n and i s s t i p u l a t e d a s : " . . . ( t h e rent) s h a l l be the share o f the c u r r e n t market r e n t a l value o f the land i n c l u d e d i n the s t r a t a p l a n , e x c l u d i n g a l l b u i l d i n g s and improvements, a p p o r t i o n e d t o the s t r a t a l o t i n accordance w i t h the schedule f i l e d under s e c t i o n 3 (1) ( g ) . " (The s t r a t a l o t ' s share on destruction.) The l e s s e e w i l l o n l y be r e q u i r e d t o pay a maximum r e n t i n accordance with the land value  i f the l e a s e i s renewed.  The l e s s o r ,  however, must pay f o r the l a n d which i t a l r e a d y owns p l u s a l l the improvements  i f the l e a s e i s not renewed.  g r e a t l y i n favour o f the l e s s e e .  The balance i s t h e r e f o r e  FOOTNOTES S t a t u t e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, S.B.C. 1974, C. 89.  1966, Chapter 46, Now  S e c t i o n 2. S e c t i o n 33. S e c t i o n 1. Section 9 (4). Section 2 ( 1 ) . S e c t i o n s 3 (3) and 4 (b) . Section 4  (c).  S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974, Chapter 77, Real E s t a t e Amendment A c t , S e c t i o n 51 (6). S t r a t a T i t l e s Amendment A c t , 1977, B i l l Schedule, S e c t i o n 22. S e c t i o n 43 ( 5 ) . S e c t i o n 43 ( 8 ) . S e c t i o n 45 (5)  (d).  S e c t i o n 9 (5) . First  Schedule, S e c t i o n 18 ( b ) .  75, F i r s t  Sections  12,  Section  10.  Section  10.  Section  17 .  Section  3  Section  21  13,  14,  and  ( i ) and F i r s t  17.  Schedule,  Section  19  (2) ( d ) .  (6).  Strata T i t l e s Section  23.  Section  24.  /Amendment A c t , 1977 , B i l l  75,  Clause  The S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , P a v l i c h , D-J.., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , U n p u b l i s h e d , p . 40. Ibid.,  Section  p.  18  40.  (2).  18.  71. CHAPTER 4 OWNERS' AND TENANTS' PROFILE 4.1  Introduction Condominiums, w h i l e r e l a t i v e l y new i n comparison  types  to other  o f housing tenure a r e an i n c r e a s i n g l y common and accepted  form o f housing i n North America.  S e v e r a l s t u d i e s have been done  i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s t o i d e n t i f y socio-economic and t h e i r  p r o f i l e s o f the owners, t h e i r reasons f o r purchase,  satisfaction  w i t h the u n i t s .  the r e l e v a n c e o f y e t another study. significant  One may t h e r e f o r e q u e s t i o n  The p o s i t i o n i s taken t h a t  changes have o c c u r r e d i n the housing market which  necessitates further The  such items as the  investigations.  e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n f o r condominiums i n B r i t i s h  was f i r s t  i n t r o d u c e d i n l a t e 196 7.  Columbia  A t t h a t time, condominiums  were thought t o p r o v i d e a major breakthrough  i n housing:  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r new forms o f housing s t r u c t u r e ; lower  housing  c o s t s f o r v a r i o u s p u r c h a s e r s ; and lower o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . market was understandably h e s i t a n t i n a c c e p t i n g t h i s  an  The  new form  of housing tenure b u t by 1970 condominiums r e p r e s e n t e d a s i g n i f i cant f o r c e i n the housing market.  The d r a s t i c i n c r e a s e i n condo-  miniums which has o c c u r r e d i n the p a s t t e n y e a r s g i v e s r i s e t o some important s o c i a l and economic i s s u e s . are buying condominiums?  What type o f people  Who i s l i v i n g i n t h e condominium u n i t s ?  What i s the reason f o r purchase?  Have they proven  t o be a good  investment? The most r e c e n t and d i r e c t l y comparable study i s the 1973 study by Hamilton  and Roberts" " which examined t h e condominium 1  72. market i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  During t h a t year 4486 u n i t s  e x i s t e d i n the area which r e p r e s e n t e d 29.0% o f the new home ownership u n i t s produced  d u r i n g the y e a r .  By 1977, over 46,000  condominium u n i t s e x i s t e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia o f which 25,214 were l o c a t e d i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. of the new home completions  The p r o p o r t i o n a t e share  i n 1976 i n c r e a s e d t o 32.0% f o r t h e  p r o v i n c e and 44.1% i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  In s p i t e o f t h e s e  i m p r e s s i v e s t a t i s t i c s the condominium market i s p r e s e n t l y e x p e r i encing some d i f f i c u l t y w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l oversupply and c o r r e s ponding  s o f t p r i c e s , c o n d i t i o n s which d i d not e x i s t i n 1973.  This  chapter w i l l p r o v i d e a socio-economic  p r o f i l e from a  sample o f e x i s t i n g owners, t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n s f o r purchase, and t h e i r l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n .  I n s i g h t s w i l l a l s o be s u p p l i e d as  t o the owners' l i k e s and d i s l i k e s o f the u n i t s and the p r o j e c t s which s h o u l d p r o v i d e d e v e l o p e r s w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o meet the d e s i r e s o f the consumers i n the f u t u r e . 4.2  Previous Studies S e v e r a l r e c e n t s t u d i e s have d e a l t w i t h t h e condominium  2 market i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver; n o t a b l y , Eger (1976) , 3 Hamilton and Roberts (197 3) , and Hamilton, D a v i s , and Lowden 4 (1971) . The Condominium Research A s s o c i a t i o n p u b l i s h e d a 5 study i n 1970 on condominiums i n Canada  while Norcross  investi-  gated townhouse condominiums i n Washington D.C. and C a l i f o r n i a i n 1973 . The  A s y n o p s i s of t h e i r f i n d i n g s i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix 1.  r e s u l t s o f the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s (1970 and 1971) i n d i c a t e d  t h a t the condominium market was dominated by young f a m i l i e s i n the e a r l y stages of t h e i r l i f e  cycle.  T h e i r incomes were i n the  mid-range f o r a l l households although t h e r e was a predominance o f p r o f e s s i o n a l and managerial household heads. first  The m a j o r i t y were  time purchasers who s e l e c t e d condominiums over s i n g l e  homes due t o the economic advantages free l i v i n g .  The l a t e r s t u d i e s  and secondly f o r  family  maintenance-  (Norcross, Hamilton and R o b e r t s ,  Eger) showed t h a t the condominium market was g r a d u a l l y a p p e a l i n g to  a wider age d i s t r i b u t i o n o f p u r c h a s e r s , although the dominance  of  average incomes and p r o f e s s i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s remained.  Hamilton and Roberts study i d e n t i f i e d two submarkets; time p u r c h a s e r s i n the e a r l y stages of t h e i r l i f e  young,  first  c y c l e and  secondly an o l d e r group w i t h h i g h e r incomes moving from s i n g l e detached home and p u r c h a s i n g apartment  The  units.  their  Again the  two primary reasons g i v e n f o r p u r c h a s i n g a condominium r a t h e r than a . s i n g l e f a m i l y , house were the economic advantages freedom  and the  o f upkeep and maintenance.  T h i r t y p e r c e n t of the owners r e p o r t e d by Hamilton and Roberts were over 49 y e a r s o l d .  T h i s i s a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e from the  study by Hamilton, D a v i s , and Lowden in  t h i s age group.  (1971) t h a t r e v e a l e d o n l y 10%  T a b l e 17 shows t h a t the o l d e r people were  l o c a t e d mainly i n a p a r t m e n t - s t y l e d condominiums w h i l e the younger groups were found mainly i n townhouses.  With the i n c r e a s e o f  o l d e r p u r c h a s e r s the number of purchasers t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y owned a home i n c r e a s e d from 14% i n 1971 to 36.4% i n 1973. A change i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of incomes between the 1971 and 1973 study i s a l s o noted.  In 1971, 68% of the f a m i l y incomes were i n  excess o f $10,000 p e r year w h i l e 65% of those i n the 1973 study were l e s s than $12,000.  Hamilton and Roberts a l s o evidenced a  much h i g h e r percentage o f lower income households  in  apartments  than i n townhouses r e f l e c t i n g the age d i s t r i b u t i o n and the number of s i n g l e occupants i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e type. There was  a low i n c i d e n c e o f f a m i l y u n i t s i n condominiums  (50%) r e v e a l e d by Hamilton and Roberts. average of 0.86 of c h i l d r e n  c h i l d r e n per u n i t .  The  Of t h e s e , t h e r e was  an  l a r g e s t average number  ( e x c l u d i n g low c o s t developments) were found i n town-  houses (1.05 c h i l d r e n per u n i t ) .  I t was  expected t h a t the  s i z e i n townhouses would i n c r e a s e over time w h i l e the  family  apartment  households would be f a i r l y s t a b l e based on the r e l a t i v e  age  d i s t r i b u t i o n of the two s t r u c t u r e types and the g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y o f townhouses f o r c h i l d r e a r i n g . D i f f e r e n t data sources were used i n each o f the p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h a t concerned condominiums i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver. Hamilton, D a v i s , and Lowden assembled  t h e i r d a t a from CMHC and  NHA  an a c c e p t a b l e method as  l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n forms.  T h i s was  v i r t u a l l y a l l the condominiums a t t h a t time were f i n a n c e d o r the f i n a n c i n g i n s u r e d through these two  sources.  The major draw-  backs were the e x c l u s i o n of those t h a t p a i d a l l cash f o r t h e i r u n i t and the m o t i v a t i o n s and the a t t i t u d e s o f the p u r c h a s e r s were not a v a i l a b l e .  Hamilton and Roberts c o r r e c t e d  d e f i c i e n c i e s by u t i l i z i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u r v e y s .  these  Both of these  s t u d i e s a n a l y s e d the data by c r o s s - t a b u l a t i n g the v a r i o u s f a c t o r s . The d a t a f o r Eger's study was forms of i n s t i t u t i o n a l  c o l l e c t e d from l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n  l e n d e r s and i n c l u d e d s i n g l e f a m i l y  houses as w e l l as condominiums.  detached  The p u r c h a s e r s o f both d w e l l i n g  types were p r o f i l e d u s i n g d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s .  None of these  s t u d i e s i n c l u d e d an examination of tenants r e s i d i n g i n the  TABLE 17  75'.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Ages o f Household Heads (Hamilton and Roberts) Under  30  30 - 39  40 - 49  No.  %  No.  No.  %  %  Over 49 No. %  Average Age  NHA Town House  69  34.8  72  36.4  30 15.2  27  13.6  35.7  NHA Apartment  10  26.3  2  5.3  5 13.1  21  55.3  47 .2  8  28.6  8  28.6  3 10.7  9  32.1  39.8  C o n v e n t i o n a l Town House  13  38 .2  6  17.6  3  8.8  12  35.3  39.5  C o n v e n t i o n a l Apartment  19  15.6  18  14.7  8  6.6  77  63.1  50.1  T o t a l Town H o u s e d )  82  35.3  78  33.6  33 14.2  39  16.8  36.3  Total  29  18.2  20  12.5  13  8.1  98  61.2  49.4  28.3 106  25.2  49 11.7  146  34.8  41.5  49.3  25  32.5  10 13.0  4  5.2  32.5  20.5 131  26.4  59 11.9  150  30.2  •40.1  NHA Mixed Town House & Apartment  Apartment(1)  Total  119  NHA L o w - C o s t ( Grand  2)  Total  38 157  Notes: (1) These f i g u r e s e x c l u d e the mixed town house and apartment projects. (2) A l l data above t h i s row e x c l u d e the l o w - c o s t h o u s i n g d a t a .  Ti  condominium u n i t s . 4.3  Sampling  Process  In o r d e r to p r o v i d e c u r r e n t data concerning B r i t i s h Columbia which c o u l d p r o v i d e c u r r e n t market and permit questionnaire The  condominiums i n  u s e f u l i n s i g h t s i n t o the  comparisions  with e a r l i e r s t u d i e s ,  surveys were conducted d u r i n g the summer of  surveys  two  1977.  of condominium o c c u p i e r s were l i m i t e d to the  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a areas.  Questionnaires  were  d i s t r i b u t e d to o c c u p i e r s i n a t o t a l of 15 7 randomly s e l e c t e d condominium p r o j e c t s , a sample r e p r e s e n t i n g 25% of the p r o j e c t s of ten or more u n i t s . represent  f i v e areas  The  sample was  then s t r a t i f i e d  as f o l l o w s : -  1.  Vancouver C i t y  40 P r o j e c t s  2.  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver: North Shore  25 P r o j e c t s  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver: Low Growth Area  30 P r o j e c t s  3. 4.  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver: High Growth Area  5.  Low  30 P r o j e c t s  Victoria  32 P r o j e c t s Total  The  157  Projects  Growth Area o f M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver i n c l u d e d  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Burnaby, Surrey, New and  to  the High Growth Area r e p r e s e n t e d  the  Westminster, and  the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of  Richmond, D e l t a , Tsawwassen, P o r t Coquitlam, P o r t Moody, and White Rock.  Coquitlam  In each case, growth was  p o p u l a t i o n , not condominium developments.  Langley,  measured i n terms of  The next s t e p i n the sampling q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o every e i g h t h  to d i s t r i b u t e  u n i t i n the p r o j e c t s .  r e s u l t e d i n a t o t a l sample of 895 p l a n s of ten u n i t s or more.  p r o c e s s was  Due  This  u n i t s or 3% of a l l u n i t s i n to the l e n g t h of the q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e s , they were l e f t , along w i t h an e x p l a n a t o r y l e t t e r , a t each u n i t s e l e c t e d i n the sample.  As i t was  not p o s s i b l e t o  i d e n t i f y which occupants were tenants and which were owners p r i o r to the survey, c o p i e s of both the tenant and owners q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were e n c l o s e d w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o complete the a p p r o p r i a t e one  and r e t u r n i t by m a i l i n the envelope  provided.  In order t o p r o v i d e maximum c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not coded f o r a r e a .  Hence the sample r e s u l t s can only be  i n t e r p r e t e d f o r the combined a r e a s . Given Roberts  the p r i o r response  r a t e o b t a i n e d by Hamilton  of 50% u s i n g a s i m i l a r technique  and the p u b l i c ' s g r e a t e r  f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h condominiums, a 30% response In t o t a l , 202  owners q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and  were r e t u r n e d p r o v i d i n g a 26.4% expected.  response  The number of responses  and  r a t e was  expected.  34 tenants q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r a t e , very c l o s e to the  r e p r e s e n t 26.4%  of a l l e x i s t -  i n g u n i t s i n the sample but a somewhat h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of o c c u p i e d u n i t s s i n c e some p r o j e c t s were new occupied.  The  236  occupant responses  and o n l y  represent  partially  approximately  1% of a l l u n i t s c o n t a i n e d i n p r o j e c t s of 10 u n i t s or more. The  sample was  o r i g i n a l l y designed  for s t a t i s t i c a l  and  the sample determined  to r e f l e c t the expected  The  s t a t i s t i c a l v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s however, are  to a s c e r t a i n i n a q u a n t i t a t i v e f a s h i o n due  validity  response  rate.  impossible  to the survey  technique.  78.  The requirement of l e a v i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and not having a 100% response may  p r o v i d e some, though unknown, b i a s .  On a  p o s i t i v e note, the g e n e r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s between these f i n d i n g s and those of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s they are h i g h l y 4.4  reliable.  Owners' P r o f i l e There was  Survey.  a t o t a l o f 202 u s a b l e responses from the Owners'  As the data was  o f t e n c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o s e v e r a l groups  and the t o t a l number of responses were l i m i t e d , a l l the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used even i f some were p a r t i a l l y i n c o m p l e t e .  This  r e s u l t e d i n the t o t a l number of responses v a r y i n g s l i g h t l y over d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s but does not a f f e c t the o v e r a l l f i n d i n g s . majority 1973.  (80%) of the u n i t s i n the sample were purchased  The  after  T h i s ensures t h a t any s i m i l a r i t i e s between the f i n d i n g s  i n t h i s study and those o f Hamilton and Roberts a r e n o t due t o the same p o p u l a t i o n b e i n g sampled  but r a t h e r t h e r e are a c t u a l l y  s i m i l a r i t i e s between the two separate p o p u l a t i o n s . 4.4  (a) General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Survey  Respondents  T h i r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t of the responses were from townhouses, 35% from l o w - r i s e apartments, 26% from h i g h - r i s e apartments 7% from mixed townhouse and apartment developments  (mixed).  attempt was made t o i d e n t i f y which u n i t s i n the l a t t e r were townhouses and which were apartments  and No  group  and due to t h e i r  small  number they w i l l be excluded from the m a j o r i t y of the d i s c u s s i o n but have been i n c l u d e d i n the t a b l e s s e p a r a t e l y f o r c l a r i t y . the townhouses, the m a j o r i t y were t h r e e bedroom u n i t s and they average 2.89  bedrooms per  unit  (Table 18).  The  Of  overall  low-rise  79. and h i g h - r i s e apartments were more evenly d i v i d e d between one two bedroom u n i t s , averaging 1.67 The m a j o r i t y o f households  and 1.63  respectively.  (77%) c o n t a i n e d 2 a d u l t s w h i l e  20% were s i n g l e a d u l t households and 3% c o n t a i n e d more than adults.  and  Furthermore, most households were c h i l d l e s s  15% had one c h i l d and 16% had two or more c h i l d r e n . s i n g l e a d u l t s , 68% were women and 32% were men.  two  (69%) w h i l e Of the  As would be  expected, g i v e n t h e i r l a r g e r s i z e and g r e a t e r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r f a m i l i e s , the townhouses c o n t a i n e d the h i g h e s t average number of occupants hold  (2.85) and average number of c h i l d r e n per  (0.91).  Apartments  contained mainly  house-  singles  and c o u p l e s and had a low percentage of u n i t s w i t h c h i l d r e n , a v e r a g i n g 0.31  and 0.21  c h i l d r e n f o r l o w - r i s e and h i g h - r i s e  units.  T a b l e 19 c o r r e l a t e s the number o f bedrooms w i t h the number of occupants.  I f one were to assume t h a t one bedroom i s r e q u i r e d  f o r each couple or s i n g l e a d u l t and one majority of purchasers overcrowded  f o r each c h i l d ,  (60.5%) have excess space.  and the balance of 30.5%  the  Only 9% a r e  have the " c o r r e c t " number  of bedrooms f o r the number o f occupants.  Comparing the  average  number o f bedrooms with the average number o f occupants by s t r u c t u r e type  (Table 18), i n d i c a t e s the g r e a t e s t excess c a p a c i t y  e x i s t s i n townhouses which average one bedroom per person. likely future.  It i s  these people i n t e n d t o expand t h e i r household s i z e i n the The r a t i o of persons t o bedrooms i s not as low i n  apartments  where there i s 1.33  persons per bedroom.  TABLE 18 BASIC STRUCTURAL DATA S t r u c t u r e Type  TownHouse %  LowRise %  HighRise  Mixed  %  %  •.  Number o f Responses  32.7  34.7  25.7  Number o f Bedrooms 1 2 3 4  0.0 18.2 74.2 7.6  38.6 55.7 5.7 0.0  40.4 55.8 3.8 0.0  100.0 1.671  100.0 1.635  18.6 64.3 8.6 8.6 0.0  23.1 65.4 3.8 7.7 0.0  Total Average Number o f Occupants Per U n i t 1 2 3 4 5 o r more Total Average Number o f C h i l d r e n 0 1 2 3 4 Total Average  100.0 2.894  7.6 33.3 30.3 24.2 4.5 100.0 2.848 45.4 24.2 25.8 3.0 1.5 100.0 0.91  100.0 2.071 77.1 14.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.31 '  100.0 1.962 86.5 5.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.21  6.9, 14.3 21.4 64.3 0.0 100.0 2.500  14.3 57.1 14.3 14.3 0.0  Total Responses  100.0 24.8 41.1 31.7 2.5 100.0  15.8 54.0 14.9 13.9 1.5  100.0 2.286 71.4 14.3 . 14.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.43  68.8 15.3 14.4 1.0 0.5 100.0  4.4  (b) Socio-Economic  Variables  The socio-economic f a c t o r s of the respondents are d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e s 20 and 21 by age groups and by s t r u c t u r e type.  The  data v / i l l f i r s t be analysed by the age d i s t r i b u t i o n s t o compile a g e n e r a l p r o f i l e and then r e l a t e d to the s t r u c t u r e types. 4.4  (c) Age The b i - p o l a r i z a t i o n o f the age groups as was  Hamilton and Roberts and Eger was  found by  again evidenced here.  Forty-  two p e r c e n t o f the respondents were over 49 y e a r s o l d while were below 40 y e a r s o l d .  Only 9.4%  the head o f the household was  of the respondents  48%  indicated  between 40 and 49 y e a r s o l d .  There  i s a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of those over 49 i n t h i s study than was may  p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d (Table 22).  T h i s change  be e x p l a i n e d i n p a r t by the i n c l u s i o n o f V i c t o r i a i n t o the  sample f o r the c u r r e n t study.  F o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of V i c t o r i a ' s  a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n (over 14 years old) i s over 49 y e a r s o l d w h i l e 7 t h i s group r e p r e s e n t s o n l y 3 3% o f those i n Vancouver. 4.4  (d) Number o f C h i l d r e n The m a j o r i t y of households  (69.3%) were c h i l d l e s s f o l l o w e d  by those w i t h one or two c h i l d r e n .  The h i g h e s t average number  of c h i l d r e n were found i n the 30-39 age group household) The  and the 40-49 age group  lowest average was  The youngest  (0.71 c h i l d r e n per  (0.63 c h i l d r e n per household).  t h a t of the group over 49 y e a r s of age.  age group had an average of 0.49  c h i l d r e n which  i n d i c a t e d the m a j o r i t y had not y e t s t a r t e d t h e i r  families.  TABLE Correlation  Between  Household  19 Size  a n d Number o f  Bedrooms Number o f Bedrooms  Number o f Occupants  1  2  3  4  1  15  12  3  0  2  26  56  27  0  3  2  18  3  4  5  1 I 7  8  5  0  0  6  0  0  NOTE:  =  "Correct"  M  2 T  2 1  roi i  i  0  Occupancy  Below t h e r e c t a n g l e s  are overcrowded  Above  have e x c e s s  the rectangles  space  TABLE P r o f i l e o f Condominium  Under 30 .  20  83.  P u r c h a s e r s by Age Groups  30-•39  40--49  O v e r 49  No.  %  No.  %  No.  %  No.  1  2  0  0  1  5  13  15  7  16  14  27  5  26  32  38  16001-24000  19  42  17  33  10  53  23  27  Over 24000  18  40  20  39  3  16  17  20  Total  45  100  51  100  19  100  85  100  Professional  18  40  26  50  8  42  26  30  Semi-Skilled and s k i l l e d  20  44  18  35  8  42  14  16  Unskilled  4  9  3  6  2  11  2  2  Retired  0  0  0  0  0  0  42  49  Other  3  7  5  10  1  5  2  2  Total  45  100  52  100  19  100  86  100  %  Income Group Under  $8000  8001-16000  Occupation  '  Education Post Graduate  7  16  9  18  2  11  11  13  1-4 y e a r s P o s t Secondary  14  31  17  35  3  17  26  31  Vocational Technical  11  24  11  22  4  22  10  12  High School or l e s s  13  29  12  24  9  50  38  45  Total  45  100  49  100  18  100  85  100  Use o f 2nd . Mortgage  22  49  19  37  9  47  12  14  Use o f B.C. G o v t . 2nd M o r t g a g e  21  47  19  37  9  47  12  14  or  TABLE  P r o f i l e o f Condominium Under  30  No.  %  20  P u r c h a s e r s by Age Group C o n t .  30 - 39  40 - 49  No.  ' %  No.  56.9 21.6 21.6 0 2.0  13 3 2 1 0  %  Over 4 9  %  No.  Total" No.  %  Number o f Children  0  30  1 2 3 4  9 5 1 0  Average  66.0 20.0 11.1 2.2 0  0.49  29 11 11 0 1  0 .71  68.4 15.8 10.5 5.3 0  0.63  68 8 10  79.1 9.3 11.6  0  0  0  0 0.  33  140 69.3 31 15.4 28 13.9 2 1.0 1 0.5 0.48  TABLE  21  85.  B a s i c Demographic and Economic Data By S t r u c t u r e Type  S t r u c t u r e Type Townhouse  Age o f H o u s e h o l d Head  Low- R i s e  High - R i s e No.  . Mixed  Total  No.  %  No.  No.  %  No.  %  Under 30  15  23  16  23  7  13  7  50  30-39  45  27  41  12  17  8  15  5  36  52  40-49  7  11  7  10  5  10  0  Over 49  17  26  34  49  32  62  2  Average  39.9  Total  66  100  69  100  52  100  14  100  201  8  13  8  12  9  17  4  29  29  20  31  20  30  16  31  4  29  60  12  17  12  18  10  19  2  .14  High School or Less  36  24  33  27  40  17  33  29  72  Total  64  100  67  100  52  100  14  100  197  9  64  78  36  60  47.8  %  52.1  19 14  32. 9  . 85 45.  E d u c a t i o n o f Household Head Post  Graduate  1-4 Y e a r s  Post  Secondary Vocational  or Technical  . '" 4  O c c u p a t i o n o f Household Head P r o f e s s i o n a l or Managerial'  26  39  21  30  22  41  Semi-Skilled  24  36  20  29  11  21  Unskilled  6  9  3  Retired  4  7  21 •  Other  6  9  4  Total  66  100  69  2  3  15-  21  $8,001-$16,000  31  48  27  39  $16,001-$24 ,000  20  31  15  21  Over $24,000  12  18  13  19  14  Total  65  100  70  100  52  Total Family  5  2  4  0  0  11  30  17  32  0  0  42  6  1  2  0  0  11  53  100  14  100  202  7  13  0  0  24  17  33  2  14  77  14  27  5  36  54  27  7  50  46  100  14  100  201  Income  0 - $8,000  . 4.4  (e) E d u c a t i o n and The  86.  Occupation  l a r g e s t groups by e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l were those w i t h  h i g h s c h o o l or l e s s  (36.5%) and those w i t h one  of u n i v e r s i t y education  (30.5%).  t o f o u r years  The m a j o r i t y of those w i t h  h i g h s c h o o l or l e s s were i n the over 49 age group which the l e s s e r emphasis on formal p o s t secondary  reflects  e d u c a t i o n i n the  past.  Those w i t h some u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d a p p r o x i -  mately  30% of the respondents  old.  The  4 0-49  category w i t h  under 30,  30-39, and over 49 y e a r s  age group had the lowest p r o p o r t i o n i n t h i s  17%. 8  The  occupations  of the household  e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s d i s c u s s e d above.  heads correspond to the  The  l a r g e s t s i n g l e group  were c l a s s i f i e d as p r o f e s s i o n a l o r m a n a g e r i a l w i t h 38.6%.  Exclud-  i n g those t h a t had r e t i r e d , the p r o f e s s i o n a l / m a n a g e r i a l groups r e p r e s e n t e d 40% of those under 30 and betv/een 50% of those between 30 and  40 and  49 years o l d ,  39, and 59% of those over 49.  f i n d i n g s correspond w i t h p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y  These 9  Eger  where he noted the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s i n the o l d e s t age The  group.  second  l a r g e s t o c c u p a t i o n c l a s s was  the s k i l l e d  s e m i - s k i l l e d r e p r e s e n t i n g 30% of the respondents.  They were  evenly d i s t r i b u t e d a c r o s s the age groups i f those r e t i r e d excluded.  N a t u r a l l y those who  and  are  were r e t i r e d were e x c l u s i v e to  the over 4 9 age group. 4.4 (f) Income Groups The q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked  the respondents  to c l a s s i f y  their  t o t a l g r o s s f a m i l y income i n t o one of f o u r c a t e g o r i e s , under  87.  DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLDS 1  i I  TABLE Comparative  Age  22  Distributions  Roberts  1973  %  No.  Under  30  Survey  1977  %  No.  125  36.7  45  22.3  107  31.4  52  25.7  40 - 49  48  14.1  19  9.4  Over  61  17.9  86  30-39  49  Average  36 .55  , 42.6 45 .32  89.  $8,000; $8,000-$16,000; $16 ,001-$24,000; and o v e r $24 ,000. groups were p u r p o s e l y made broad as i t was c a t i o n s may  felt  narrower  cause some t o be r e l u c t a n t t o respond.  The  classifi-  In t o t a l  the  responses were e v e n l y d i v i d e d between those h a v i n g over $16,000 income and those below $16,000.  F i f t y p e r c e n t o f those with o v e r  $16,000 income a l s o had over $24,000. income i n B.C.  Given t h e average  a t the time of the survey was  family  a p p r o x i m a t e l y $18,000  per year"*"^, i t i s concluded t h a t condominiums a p p e a l l a r g e l y t o the moderate t o average  income groups as was  n o t e d i n the p r e v i o u s  ., 11 study. Table 23 compares the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f a m i l y incomes f o r the Hamilton and Roberts study, t h i s study, and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g income d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole i n each y e a r . S e v e r a l p o i n t s s h o u l d be noted.  F i r s t , there i s a considerably  g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of households  i n the lower income groups i n  the Hamilton and Roberts study evidenced here  (81.4% under $15,000) than i s  (50.2% under $16,000).  T h i s i s due  g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e i n incomes over the p e r i o d average of $11,225 i n 1973  ( i n c r e a s i n g from an  to-$16,915 i n 1976).  i n c r e a s e i n condominium p r i c e s s i n c e 1973  i n p a r t t o the  Secondly, t h e .  n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t the  p u r c h a s e r s have a l a r g e r income t o support a mortgage o f a s i m i 12 lar  loan-to-value r a t i o . The  second p o i n t of i n t e r e s t i n the comparisons  both surveys show l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n s of household  i s that  incomes i n the  $8,000 t o $16,000 income b r a c k e t than does the g e n e r a l p u b l i c . T h i s c o n f i r m s the e a r l i e r c o n c l u s i o n (above) t h a t condominiums appeal t o moderate income groups.  L a s t l y , t h i s study r e v e a l s a  l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f condominium p u r c h a s e r s i n t h e h i g h e s t income  TABLE  COMPARATIVE TOTAL FAMILY  Hamilton & Roberts Survey  Income Group 0-$8,000 8,001-15,000 15,001-20,000 Over 20,000 Average  British Columbia  Survey  1973  1977  1  %  Income - Group  19.3 62.1 12.0 6.6  38.7 35.2 15.1 11.1  Income  90.  23  0-$8,000 8,000-16,000 16,001-24,000 Over 24,000  INCOMES  British  1976  % 11.9 38.3 26.9 22.9  -$7,999 8,000-14,999 15,000-24,999 Over 25,000  11,225  % 28.9 21.9 29.2 19.9 16,915  S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Income D i s t r i b u t i o n s By S i z e C a t a l o g u e 13-206, 1973  SOURCE 2:  I b i d , 1976  : CMHC  CMHC 1 9 7 6  Disbribution  V a n c o u v e r and V i c t o r i a  SOURCE 3:  2  Income Group  SOURCE 1:  U n d e r $10,000 10,000-17,500 17,501-25,000 Over 25,000  Columbia  S u r v e y 1977  3  Survey Distribution  No.  %  ' No.  11 195 241 144  1.9 33.0 40.8 24.4-  24 77 54 46  Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , C o r p o r a t i o n , Ottawa, P. 82.  I n Canada,  No. 11.9 38.3 26.9 22.9  1977, C e n t r a l  $8,000 8,001-16,000 16,001-24,000 Over 24,000  Mortgage and H o u s i n g  group  (22.9%) than the g e n e r a l p u b l i c  (19.9%) which i s a l s o  s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t evidenced by Hamilton and Roberts (6.6%).  The s i g n i f i c a n t upward s h i f t i n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h i s  income group r e f l e c t s the broadening o f the condominium market. The new  second p o r t i o n o f Table 2 3 compares t h e CMHC data f o r  condominium p u r c h a s e r s , which i s c o l l e c t e d from t h e loan  a p p l i c a t i o n forms, and the survey data.  There i s a much l a r g e r  p o r t i o n o f purchasers i n the sample i n the lowest income group than i n t h e CMHC data.  T h i s may be e x p l a i n e d i n p a r t by the  i n c l u s i o n o f those p u r c h a s e r s on pensions who p a i d a l l cash f o r t h e i r u n i t and appeared  i n the survey b u t which would n o t appear  i n the CMHC l o a n a p p l i c a t i o n The  files.  second i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e i s t h a t t h e l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n  of households  (40.8%) i n the CMHC d a t a are i n t h e second h i g h e s t  income b r a c k e t ($17,501 t o $25,000) w h i l e the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n i n the survey $16,000).  (38%) a r e i n the second  lowest b r a c k e t  ($8,000 t o  Removing the lowest income group from t h e a n a l y s i s  does not change the r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n s .  P a r t o f t h i s i s due  to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the date o f s a l e o f t h e p u r c h a s e s , the CMHC data r e f e r s o n l y t o condominiums s o l d i n 1976. Hamilton  Secondly,  and Roberts noted a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n and h y p o t h e s i z e d  t h a t people may have exaggerated cation i n order to q u a l i f y .  t h e i r incomes on t h e loan a p p l i -  The d i s t r i b u t i o n was thereby  shifted  upwards which may have a l s o o c c u r r e d here. N e i t h e r the d i f f e r e n c e s noted between t h e income d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the p r e v i o u s study o r the 1976 CMHC d a t a c o n t r a d i c t s the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t condominiums p r i m a r i l y  appeal t o moderate t o average  income p u r c h a s e r s .  However, the r e c e n t r i s e i n p r i c e s of t h e  condominium u n i t s may  have e l i m i n a t e d some of the lower income  groups which appeared i n the p r e v i o u s study.  I t should a l s o be  noted t h a t a segment o f the condominium market has been  directed 13  at the wealthy and has met w i t h some success i n Vancouver Examining the d i s t r i b u t i o n of incomes by age group  (Table  20) r e v e a l s a s h i f t i n g downward i n the p r o p o r t i o n of upper income purchasers as you move from the youngest group t o the o l d e s t . T h i s i s s u r p r i s i n g g i v e n the f a i r l y even d i s t r i b u t i o n of occupat i o n s noted e a r l i e r and i n the f a c t the young group i s not l i k e l y t o have reached t h e i r f u l l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l y e t . distribution in  The  i s e x p l a i n e d by the number o f r e t i r e d p u r c h a s e r s  the o l d e s t group, s h i f t i n g t h e i r income d i s t r i b u t i o n downward  and, as r e v e a l e d i n the next s e c t i o n , the number of working wives i s g r e a t e s t i n the younger groups, thereby p r o v i d i n g two and s h i f t i n g t h e i r income d i s t r i b u t i o n 4.4  salaries  upwards.  (g) Two Wage Earner Households T a b l e 24 d i s p l a y s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of working spouses.  first in  p o i n t of i n t e r e s t i s t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of working  t h i s study  The  spouses  (41.2%) i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t found by  Hamilton and Roberts  (40.2%).  Secondly, comparing the p r o p o r t i o n  t h a t worked f u l l or p a r t time a t the time of purchase and at the time o f the survey r e v e a l s a s l i g h t drop  (47.3% t o 41.2%), the  m a j o r i t y of the change o c c u r r i n g i n the townhouse r e s i d e n t s . T h i s i s t o be expected as t h i s group i s the most l i k e l y t o be e n t e r i n g i n t o or are i n the c h i l d r e a r i n g stage which n e c e s s i t a t e one spouse l e a v i n g the work f o r c e .  would  TABLE  24  DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING SPOUSES  Working F u l l Time No.  %  '.  :  (AT TIME OF PURCHASE).'  Working P a r t Time No.  Not Working No.  %  W i f e ' s Age Under 30  35  67.3  3  5.8  14  26.9  30-39  7  33.3  12  57.1  2  9.5  40-49  1  16.7  1  16.7  4  66.7  Over 49  6  11.5  2  3.8  44  84.6  54  41.2  8  6.1  69  52.7  Under 30  22  64.7  2 •  5.9  10  29.4  30 - 39  22  68.8  3  9.4  7  21.9  40-49  4  57.1  0  0.0  3  42.9  Over 49  6  10.3  3  5.2  49  84.5  1  20.0  0  0.0  4  80.0  15  29.4  6  11.8  30  38.8  18  45.0  2  5.0  20  50.0  20  58.8  0  0.0  14  41.2  0  39  45.9  • 5  5.9  41  48.2  1  9  47.4  1  5.3  9  47.4  2  6  25.0  '1  4.2  17  70.8  3  0  0.0  1  50.0  1  50.0  4  0  0.0  0  0.0  Total Husband's Age  Household Under  Income  $8,000  $8,000-$16,000 $16,000-$24,000 Over $24,000 Number o f Dependent Children  1 ,\  100.0  94. TABLE 24(Contd.) Working  Working  Not  F u l l Time  P a r t Time  Working  No.  %  Townhouse  21  40.4  Low-Rise  Structure  ..;  %  No.  %  5  9.6  26  50.0  No.  Type  (a) A t Time o f Purchase  19  51.4  3  8.1  15  40.5  High-Rise  9  28.1  0  0.0  23  71.9  Mixed  5  50.0  0  0.0  5  50.0  Townhouse  16  30.8  4  7.7  32  61.5  Low-Rise  18  47.4  2  5.3  High-Rise  10  31.2  0  0.0  22  68.8  4  44.4  0  0.0  5  55.6  (b) A t Time o f Survey  Mixed  : 18  47.4  The most n o t i c e a b l e d i s t i n c t i o n between those w i t h a spouse working  or not working  households  i s d i s p l a y e d i n the  distri-  b u t i o n by age.  The m a j o r i t y (71%) of the spouses below 40 y e a r s  old  f u l l or p a r t time w h i l e o n l y a very s m a l l p e r c e n -  are working  tage over 40 are employed.  The d i s t r i b u t i o n i s much more, even  when the f a m i l y income i s examined with only a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of working  spouses i n the upper  income groups.  r e s u l t s o f the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n by age are confirmed by and Roberts.  However, they found more pronounced  Hamilton  trends over  the income' groups and by the number of c h i l d r e n ^ . 1  They found  t h a t the number of non-working spouses v/as g r e a t e s t i n the income groups 4.4  The  lower  and i n f a m i l i e s t h a t had dependent c h i l d r e n .  (h) S t r u c t u r e Type The, s t r u c t u r e types- are c l a s s i f i e d , as. townhouse, l o w - r i s e  apartment  or h i g h - r i s e apartment.  Townhouses are thought t o be  the most s u i t a b l e s t y l e f o r f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n as the u n i t s are  l a r g e r and have g r e a t e r surrounding open areas and a m e n i t i e s  than do apartments.  In c o n t r a s t , apartments  are thought t o be  more s u i t e d t o s i n g l e s or couples without c h i l d r e n and are g e n e r a l l y designed w i t h t h i s i n mind.  These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the s t r u c t u r e types are r e f l e c t e d i n the p r o f i l e s of the r e s p e c t i v e purchasers.  In support of t h i s p e r c e p t i o n , i t i s noted  t h a t those i n the 30-39 year o l d group, which had the h i g h e s t average number of c h i l d r e n , are found p r i m a r i l y i n townhouses (Table 21).  The m a j o r i t y of the o l d e s t group  as "empty-nesters" left;  can be  classified  i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r f a m i l i e s have grown up  they are c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l o c a t e d i n  apartments.  and  The d i s t r i b u t i o n by o c c u p a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n , income, and  the  i n c i d e n t of working spouses a c r o s s s t r u c t u r e types i s commensurate w i t h the f i n d i n g s t o date and need not be e l a b o r a t e d on. 4.4  (i) P r e v i o u s Tenure Knowledge of the p r e v i o u s tenancy of condominium owners i s  important both f o r the d i r e c t i n g of marketing  and a d v e r t i s i n g  and  to p r o v i d e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e i r p r o f i l e s .  The m a j o r i t y  of owners  of t h e i r  (62.4%) had r e n t e d p r i o r t o the purchase  of these 72% had apartments.  l i v e d i n l o w - r i s e (45.6%) or h i g h - r i s e  Of those t h a t had owned p r e v i o u s l y , 73.3%  s i n g l e f a m i l y detached  house and  18.7%  unit;  (26.4%) had  had condominiums.  a While  the number of p r e v i o u s condominium owners i s not l a r g e , they r e f l e c t a m o b i l i t y between u n i t s and a l e v e l of w i t h the concept, s u f f i c i e n t , f o r t h e people t o T a b l e s 25, 26,  27, and  do  satisfaction  repurchase.  28 d i s p l a y the p r e v i o u s tenure  classifi  c a t i o n by p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e type, age group, p r i c e of the condominium u n i t , and the l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The  data  combines t o show t h a t the m a j o r i t y of r e n t e r s are young, most f r e q u e n t l y had h i g h l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o s and purchased than average  p r i c e d townhouse and l o w - r i s e apartment u n i t s .  C o n v e r s e l y , p r e v i o u s owners were o l d e r , had and purchased  lower  the more expensive  l a r g e r down payments,  apartment u n i t s .  The p r e v i o u s tenure type c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d w i t h the given f o r moving are presented  reasons  i n Table 29; the r e s u l t s are as  a n t i c i p a t e d g i v e n the above f i n d i n g s .  By f a r the most f r e q u e n t l y  mentioned reason g i v e n by p r e v i o u s r e n t e r s was  to e s t a b l i s h  an  97. 25  TABLE  Distribution  of Previous Structural  Tenure Present  Type  Structural  Tenure  by  Present  Type  Owned Type  Type  Rented  No.  %  No.  %  Townhouse  17  25.8  49  74.2  Low-Rise  23  32.9  45  64.3  High-Rise  28  53.9  22  42.3  Mixed  4  28.6  10  Total  72  35.6  126  Other  Total  %  No.  0  0.0  66  100.0  2  2.9  70  100.0  2  3.8  52  100.0  71.4  0  0.0  14  100.0  62.4  4  2.0  202  100.0  No.  %  TABLE  -26 ...  D I S T R I B U T I O N OF PREVIOUS TENURE T Y P E BY AGE GROUP  Tenure  Age  Type  Group  Under  30  Owned  No.  Rented  %  No.  Other  %  No.  %  5  6.9  36  28.8  4  80.0  30 - 39  8  11.1  42  33.6  1  20.0  4 0 - 4 9  2  2.8  17  13.6  0  0.0  57  79.2  30  24.0  0  0.0  72  100.0  125  100.0  5  100.0  Over Total  49  DISTRIBUTION OF PREVIOUS TENURE  UNDER 50 Y E A R S O L D  50 YEARS OLD OR GREATER  100. TABLE  27  DISTRIBUTION OF PREVIOUS TENURE TYPE BY PRICE OF UNIT P r e v i o u s Tenure Type  Owned No.  Under Average  Price  Rented %  No.  Other %  No.  %  24  37.5  70  58.8  3  75  40  62.5  49  41.2  1  25  64  100.0  119  100.0  4  100.0  (By Year and S t r u c t u r e Type) Over Average  Price  (By Year and S t r u c t u r e Type) Total  101.  TABLE  28  DISTRIBUTION OF PREVIOUS TENURE BY LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIO  Owned  Rented  Other  %  %  %  Over 95%  0  9  0  80-95  9  47  25  70-79  6  16  25  50-69  11  12  25  25-49  6  3  25  68  12  0  P r e v i o u s Tenure  Under 25  102. e q u i t y f o l l o w e d d i s t a n t l y by those d e s i r i n g more space. demand f o r home ownership  was  the major m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h e i r move.  I t i s l i k e l y the l a c k of a s i z e a b l e down payment may r e s t r i c t i n g f a c t o r i n t h e i r purchase incomes of the young  The  have been a  d e c i s i o n g i v e n the h i g h e r  (predominantly r e n t e r s ) combined w i t h t h e i r  high loan-to-value r a t i o s .  Some developers have observed  this  f a c t o r and have used i t t o market the u n i t s by o f f e r i n g a p p e a l i n g ! low down p a y m e n t s ^ . The  reasons f o r moving expressed by the p r e v i o u s owners were  dominated by those wanting  l e s s space and l e s s upkeep.  f a m i l y house, of which the m a j o r i t y had owned, was  The  single  probably  becoming burdensome and no l o n g e r necessary as the owners' r e q u i r e ments changed.  The  low l o a n - t o - v a l u e r a t i o s i n d i c a t e s they are  u s i n g the e q u i t y from t h e i r house t o purchase the tendency  f o r t h i s group t o buy  the u n i t s .  Further,  the more expensive u n i t s com-  b i n e d w i t h t h e i r s u b s t a n t i a l e q u i t y shows they are l o o k i n g f o r more a m e n i t i e s and have the money to a c t on t h e i r wishes.  Design-  i n g of p r o j e c t s s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h i s group to i n c l u d e f e a t u r e s they would demand would l i k e l y meet w i t h success even i f they had t o be marketed at h i g h e r than average The  reasons  prices.  f o r moving are d i s p l a y e d by age group and  p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e type i n T a b l e s 30 and 31.  The  by  r e s u l t s confirm  those found when the p r e v i o u s tenure type was c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with the reasons g i v e n f o r moving.  The younger owners wanted  to e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y w h i l e those over 49 y e a r s o l d wanted l e s s space and upkeep.  103. One o f the i n t e r e s t i n g outcomes o f t h i s survey was the number o f o l d e r people d e s i r i n g a l e s s expensive expected  unit.  I t was  t h a t the o l d e r home owners would have traded down from  t h e i r home i n order t o f r e e some of t h e i r c a p i t a l t o p r o v i d e an a d d i t i o n a l income stream response  or f o r c u r r e n t consumption.  The low  t o t h i s q u e s t i o n and the s u b s t a n t i a l down payments d i s -  p l a y e d e a r l i e r i n d i c a t e the freedom from mortgage payments i s more h i g h l y v a l u e d . 4.4  (j) Loan-To-Value R a t i o s and T o t a l Monthly Payments T a b l e s 32 t o 34 c o n t a i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f l o a n - t o - v a l u e  r a t i o s and t o t a l monthly payments. f i n d i n g s d i s c u s s e d above.  Their r e s u l t s confirm the  The over 49 age group, which were  l a r g e l y p r e v i o u s owners o f s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s  purchased  t h e i r u n i t with l a r g e down payments and hence have low l o a n - t o v a l u e r a t i o s and monthly payments. were predominantly  The younger age groups, t h a t  r e n t e r s p r e v i o u s l y , had h i g h e r  loan-to-value  r a t i o s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y h i g h e r monthly payments. 4.4  (k) Future I n t e n t i o n s The q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked  the respondents  i f they intended t o  stay i n t h e i r p r e s e n t u n i t f o r the f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e . t h a t were i n t e n d i n g to move were asked  Those  t o s t a t e the type o f  tenure and s t r u c t u r e they intended t o move t o and t h a t which they would most p r e f e r .  There was very l i t t l e  d i f f e r e n c e between  t h a t which they p r e f e r r e d and t h a t which they were e x p e c t i n g t o move t o and t h e r e f o r e the p r e f e r r e d d i s t r i b u t i o n i s not presented. There was a problem encountered  as some people  s t a t e d they d i d  104.  TABLE 29 REASON FOR MOVING BY PREVIOUS TENURE TYPE FIRST REASON ONLY  P r e v i o u s Tenure Type  Ren t e d  Owned  other  No.  %  No.  Change i n household membership  16  23 .4  11  9. 0  2  40. 0  Desired less  10  14 . 7  4  3. 3  0  0. 0  25  36 . 8  3  2. 5  0  0. 0  3  4 .4  17  13. 9  0  0. 0  1  1 .5  1  0. 8  0  0. 0  Desired l e s s expensive u n i t  1  1 .5  5  4. 1  o  0. 0  To e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y  1  1 .5  56  45. 9  2  40. 0  Closer to transportation, job, e t c .  4  .5 . 9  2  1. 6  1  20. 0  Job t r a n s f e r o r change  2  2 .9  12  9.  0  0. 0  Other  5  7 .4  11  9. 0  o  0. 0  Reason  space  D e s i r e d l e s s upkeep D e s i r e d more l i v i n g Desired better conditions  space  neighbourhood  %  No.  8  1  %  105. TABLE  30  REASON FOR MOVING BY AGE GROUP TOTAL NUMBER OF REASONS  Age Group  Under 30  30-39 NO  No  40-49 %  Over 49 No. %  Total No. %  Reason Change i n H o u s e h o l d Membership  7  8.3  10  10.3  5  17.2  18  12.2  40  11.2  Desired less  space  1  1.2  3  3.1  1  3-4  21  14.2  26  7.3  Desired less  upkeep  3  3.6  '2  2.1  2  6.9  49  33.1  56  37.8  D e s i r e d more space  living  20  23.8  16  16.5  6  20.7  7  4.7  49  33.1  Desired better neighbourhood c o n d i t i o n s  4  4.8  8  8.2  0  0.0  4  2.7  16  4.5  D e s i r e d l e s s expensive unit  1  1.2  4  4.1  0  0.0  9  6.1  14  3.S  35  41.7  26  26.8  11  37.9  17  11.5  89  24.9  Closer t o transportation, job, e t c .  3  3.6  9  9.3  1  3.4  6  4.1  19  5.3  Job  2  2.4  9  9.3  1  3.4  8  5.4  20  5.6  Other  8  9.5  10  10.3'  2  6.9  9  6.1  29  8.1  Total  84  100.0  97  29  100.0  ]L48  100.1  To e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y  transfer  o r change  100.0  358 100.C  106. TABLE R e a s o n s f o r Moving Total Structure  Type  Reason Change i n h o u s e h o l d Desired  less  Desired less  membership  by S t r u c t u r e Type Responses  Townhouse  Low-Rise  High-Rise  No.  No.  No.  D e s i r e d more l i v i n g Desired better conditions  space  neighbourhood  %  %  %  Mixed No.  %  16  13.6  14  11.2  10  14.9  0  0.0  6  5.1  11  8.8  9  13.4  0  0.0  11  9.3  18  14.4  24  35.8  3  11.5  22  18.6'  14  11.2  6  9.0  7  10.5  4  6.0  0  0.0  space upkeep  31 <  7  5.9  5  4.0  2  1.7  7  5.6  5  7.5  0  0.0  31  26.3  34  27.2  16  23.9  Closer to transportation, job, etc.  8  30.8  4  3.4  6  4,8  7  10.5  2  7.7  J o b t r a n s f e r o r change  6.  4.8  3.  Desired  less expensive u n i t  To e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y  8  6.8  5  7.5  Other  1  11  9.3  10  8.0  3  4.5  5 -..,19'=-.  Total  118  100.0  125  100.0  67  100.0  26  100.  107. not i n t e n d t o move i n d i c a t e d where they would move t o .  As t h e  i n t e n t i o n o f the q u e s t i o n was t o i d e n t i f y the occupants' d e s i r e s these responses were i n c l u d e d . Table  35 d i s p l a y s the f u t u r e i n t e n t i o n s by age group and  s t r u c t u r e type. only  O v e r a l l the m a j o r i t y  36.3% p l a n t o move.  As would be expected h i g h e r  (53.3% o f those under 40 years p l a n t o move while  the m a j o r i t y  while  proportions  old) o f those i n the younger groups (74.6% o f those over 39 years o l d )  of the o l d e r groups p l a n t o s t a y . overwhelming m a j o r i t y  (63.7%) p l a n t o stay  Of those p l a n n i n g  t o move, the  (77.4%) i n t e n d t o own a s i n g l e f a m i l y home  (Table 36). Only 13% o f the respondents expressed an i n t e r e s t i n renting.  I t i s q u i t e e v i d e n t by these r e s u l t s t h a t many o f the  younger households view condominiums o n l y as temporary accommodat i o n b e f o r e moving t o a s i n g l e f a m i l y u n i t . 4.4  (1) Summary P r o f i l e The  a n a l y s i s o f the data by age group and s t r u c t u r e type  i n d i c a t e there a r e three submarkets r e p r e s e n t e d  by the condominium  purchasers:(a)  young (below 40 years old) apartment condominium d w e l l e r s , g e n e r a l l y without c h i l d r e n , having above average f a m i l y incomes as a r e s u l t o f both a d u l t s (where a p p l i c a b l e ) working. They purchased a condominium p r i m a r i l y t o e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y and w i l l l i k e l y attempt t o move t o a s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g as t h e i r incomes and f a m i l y s i z e i n c r e a s e s .  (b)  townhouse d w e l l e r s a r e predominantly 30 t o 39 yearso l d and have the h i g h e s t average number o f c h i l d r e n . Approximately h a l f of these respondents i n t e n d t o move t o a s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g i n the f u t u r e ,  108.  TABLE  32  DISTRIBUTION OF LOAN-TO-VALUE RATIO BY AGE GROUP  Age Group  Under 30  30- 39  40- 49  Over 49  1 s t Mtge 1 s t & 1 s t Mtge 1 s t & 1 s t Mtge 1 s t & L s t Mtge l s t & 2nd Mtge 2nd Mtge 2nd Mtge 2nd Mtge %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %  2.3  7.0  4.1  8.2  10.5  21.1  0.0  0.0  80 - 95  44.2  58.1  44.2  51.0  15.8  31.6  2.6  11.1  70 - 79  18.6  9.3  32.6  18.4  36.8  36.8  9.2  5.6  50 - 69.  16.3  9.3 .  20.9  12.2  26.3  5.2  15.3  15.3  Over 95%  25-49  7.0  4.7  0.0  0.0  10.5  5.2  12.5  8.3  Under 25  11.6  11.6  10.2  10.2  0.0  0.0  65.3  65.3  Average  44.45  46.36  50.84  55.35  60.86  66.76  43.06  47.58  109.  TABLE  33  DISTRIBUTION OF LOAN-TO-VALUE BY STRUCTURE TYPE  Structure Type  Townhouse  Lowrise  1st Mtge.  1st & 2nd Mtge.  Loan-toValue  %  %  Over 95%  3.2  12.9  0  80 - 95  40.3  40.3  70 - 79  12.7  50 - 69  1st Mtge.  1st & 2nd Mtge.  %  %  Highrise 1st Mtge.  1st & 2nd Mtge.  %  %  0  6.0  6.0  11.3  32.3  12.0  22.0  16.1  24.2  12.9  16.0  8.0  19.4  12.9  16.1  11.3  10.0  10.0  25 - 49  6.5  4.8  9.7  4.8  8.0  6.0  Under 25  12.9  12.9  38.7  38.7  48.0  48.0  Average  65.9  71.4  42.1  47.0  37.7  40.5  110.  TABLE  34  DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS BY' AGE GROUP  AGE GROUP Monthly Payment  Under 3 0 No.  0-$100  %  30  -  39  40  -  49  No.  %  No.  %  Over 4 9 No. %  1  2.3  3  5.9  0  0.0  21  28.4  101-200  1  2.3  1  2.0  1  5.3  29  39.2  201-250  0  0.0  4  7.8  3  15.8  5  6.8  251-300  3  6.8  8  15.7  1  5.3  7  9.5  301-350  6  13.6  6  11.7  5  26.3  3  4.1  351-400  9  20.5  11  21.6  3  15.8  1  1.4  401-500  9  20.5  8  15.7  5  26.3  5  6.8  15  34.1  8  15.7  0  0.0  1  1.4  0  0.0  2  3.9  1  5.3  2  2.7  501-700  Over 7 0 0  TABLE Future  Age  35  111.  Housing I n t e n t i o n s  Plan to  Stay  P l a n t o Move  No.  .%  No.  %  Total . No.  %  Group 19  43.2  25  56.8  44  23  100.0  44.2  29  55.8  .40-49  52  100.0  12  63.2  7  36.8  Over 49  19  74  100.0  86.1  12  13.9  86  100.0  128  63.7  73  36.3  201  100.0  Townhouse  33  50.0  33  50.0  Low-Rise  66  47  100.0  68.1  22  31.9  69  High-Rise  40  100.0  76.9  12  23.1  52  100.0  8  57.1  6  42.9  I  100.0  128  63.7  73  36.3  201  Under 30 30 - 39  Total.  Structure  Mixed Total  Type  4  100.0  TABLE 36 Choice  o f Next S t r u c t u r a l Type b y Age Group - F o r Those Who I n t e n d t o Move  Age  Group  Under 30 a o  No. Next Type  30 -• 39 p.  No.  : 4 0 - 49 No.  %  Over 49 No.  %  Total No.  %  Structural  Owned 24  77.4  28  82.4  6  75.0  7  50.0  65  Duplex  Single  Family  1  3.2  2  5.9  1  12.5  0  0.0  4  4.6  Townhouse  4  12.9  2  5.9  0  0.0  3  21.4  9  10.3  Apartment  2  6.5  2  5.9  1  12.7  2  14.3  7  8.1  Mobile  0  0.0  0  0.0  0  0.0  2  14.3  2  2.3  31 100.0  34  100.0  8  100.0  14  100.0  87  100.0  . 30.8  Home  Total  74.7  Rental 2  50.0  0  0.0  0.  0.0  2  28.6  4  Duplex  Single  Family  1  25.0  0  0.0  0  o.o  0  0.0  1  7.7  Townhouse  0  0.0  0  0.0  0  0.0  0  0.0  0  0.0  1  25.0  5  71.4  8  61.5  0  0.0  7  100.0  Apartment M o b i l e Home Total  • 0  0.0 .  4 100.0  1  100.0  1  0  0.0  0  1  100.0  Total Intending t o move  35 ;  35  Percentage o f t o t a l age g r o u p  77.8%  67.3%  1  100.0 0.0 100.0  9 47.4%  21  24.7%  0.0  0 • 13  100.0  1 00 49.8%  113 . (c)  4.5  the o l d e r (over 40 years o l d ) , empty n e s t group t h a t purchased p r i m a r i l y apartments. They are moving from t h e i r s i n g l e f a m i l y houses t o escape the r e q u i r e d upkeep and are u s i n g the e q u i t y from t h e i r p r i o r r e s i dence t o make s u b s t a n t i a l down payments. The majori t y of t h i s group do not i n t e n d t o move from t h e i r p r e s e n t accommodation.  Discriminant Analysis In the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n a m u l t i t u d e of demographic,  economic  and m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s were examined by the condominium type and the owners' age groups. markets w i t h i n the condominium  The a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h r e e sub-  market, young apartment p u r c h a s e r s ,  o l d apartment p u r c h a s e r s , and townhouse p u r c h a s e r s . a n a l y s i s was  structure  Further  then used to v e r i f y t h a t these groups d i d e x i s t  and t o i d e n t i f y the s i g n i f i c a n t  variables.  D i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was used f o r t h i s purpose.  It is a  mathematical t e c h n i q u e that, i d e n t i f i e s the v a r i a b l e s which, d i s c r i minate between  two or more groups by c a p i t a l i z i n g on the d i f f e r -  ences i n the r e s p e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Once a s e t of d i s c r i m i n a -  t o r v a r i a b l e s i s found f o r a known c l a s s i f i c a t i o n group they can be used t o p r e d i c t the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of an unknown group. Simply, the sample i s i n i t i a l l y c l a s s i f i e d i n t o known groups, say townhouse p u r c h a s e r s and apartment p u r c h a s e r s .  The  character-  i s t i c s of each s e t of p u r c h a s e r s are then examined t o f i n d those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t are most d i f f e r e n t between  the groups, say  the number of c h i l d r e n and household incomes are found t o be significant discriminators. ences between  I t can then be s a i d the major  differ-  the two p o p u l a t i o n s are the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  r e s p e c t i v e number of c h i l d r e n and incomes.  F u r t h e r , having  114 . i d e n t i f i e d the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s , the l i k e l y  purchase  d e c i s i o n of another group of people can be p r e d i c t e d . if  Conversely,  a townhouse development i s b u i l t , the type of p u r c h a s e r s can  be p r e d i c t e d and hence the d e s i g n and marketing of the p r o j e c t d i r e c t e d t o the people w i t h the c o r r e s p o n d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . D i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i s a s p e c i a l type of f a c t o r  analysis  t h a t s e p a r a t e s two or more groups by forming one or more l i n e a r combinations of the v a r i a b l e s each w i t h a score of the d i s c r i m i n ant f u n c t i o n s .  "The maxiumum p o s s i b l e number of f u n c t i o n s which  can be d e r i v e d i s one  l e s s than the number of groups,  are more v a r i a b l e s than groups. groups  i f there  In the case of having more  than v a r i a b l e s , then the number of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g f u n c t i o n s 17  can be e q u a l t o the d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . "  I f the s c o r e s  w i t h i n each group are q u i t e s i m i l a r w h i l e the s c o r e s between groups d i f f e r , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the groups can occur. a n a l y s i s takes p l a c e i n a step-wise procedure  The  s e l e c t i n g the b e s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i n g f a c t o r then the second b e s t and so on u n t i l none of the remaining v a r i a b l e s d i s c r i m i n a t e beyond the s t a t e d confidence The  interval.  t h r e e groups were i n i t i a l l y  s e p a r a t e d by age  and/or  p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e type as r e p o r t e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . young apartment  group was  d e f i n e d as those who  had the head of  the household below 40 years o l d and had purchased an unit.  The o l d apartment  had an apartment  The  apartment  group c o n s i s t e d of those over 39  that  u n i t w h i l e the townhouse group were a l l townhouse  purchases  r e g a r d l e s s of age.  The  responses from those i n mixed ,  apartment  and townhouse developments were not used as they would  115. i n t e r f e r e w i t h the treatment of the o t h e r groups and were too 18 few t o be analyzed alone.  There were 13 v a r i a b l e s  which are d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 37 along w i t h t h e i r  used  respective  means and standard d e v i a t i o n by group. In a n a l y z i n g the t h r e e groups t o g e t h e r , f o u r variables  significant  (at the 95% c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l ) were i d e n t i f i e d :  the use of second mortgages; the percentage o f working spouses; the age of the household head; and the number o f c h i l d r e n . Townhouse p u r c h a s e r s had the h i g h e s t i n c i d e n c e o f usage of second mortgages w i t h 52% i n comparison t o the young group  (38%) and the o l d apartment group  (22%).  had the h i g h e s t percentage of working spouses  apartment  S i m i l a r l y , they (79% v e r s u s 65%  f o r the young apartment group and 55% f o r the o l d apartment group) and the l a r g e s t average number o f c h i l d r e n .231 and  .284  (.919 v e r s u s  f o r young and o l d apartment p u r c h a s e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  The young apartment group had the youngest average age o f the househ o l d heads (29.3 y e a r s old) f o l l o w e d by the townhouse p u r c h a s e r s (39.5 y e a r s old) and the o l d apartment group  (59.6 y e a r s o l d ) .  The program then p r e d i c t e d the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the purcha s e r s u s i n g these v a r i a b l e s as d i s c r i m i n a t o r s .  The  predicted  versus observed r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 38, 73.4% of a l l the cases c o u l d be c o r r e c t l y c l a s s i f i e d .  While the model p e r -  formed r e a s o n a b l y w e l l i n c l a s s i f y i n g the young and the o l d apartment groups, 82.7% and 85.1% r e s p e c t i v e l y , the r e s u l t s were much p o o r e r f o r the townhouses  (51.6% c o r r e c t l y  classified).  R e f e r r i n g again to T a b l e 37, t h e r e i s evidenced a problem s i n c e the mean of s e v e r a l of the v a r i a b l e s are s i m i l a r between the young apartment and townhouse groups though d i f f e r e n t apartment group.  from the o l d  The n o t a b l e v a r i a b l e s b e i n g the l o a n - t o - v a l u e  TABLE 37 Profile  o f Condominium P u r c h a s e r s  Discriminate Young  116 .  Analysis Variables*  Apartment  Townhouse  Mean  S t . Dev.  Mean  U n i t Purchase P r i c e ($)  40908  11224  42933  Gross Family Income  2.904  0.955  2.613  68.5  33.0  382.58  Use o f 2nd Mtge. (%) Pre-Ownership  Old  S t . Dev.  Apartment  Mean  S t . Dev.  16762  46315  20734  0.894  2.432  1.021  71.0  31.4  31.5  36.4  143.67  345.50  153.56  38.5  49.1  51.6  17.3  38.2  29.3  4.9  Occupation  2.346  0.764  Education  2.558  1.127  Married  65.4  48.0  83.9  No. o f C h i l d r e n  0.231  0.509  .919  Working W i f e  65.4  48.0  79.0  0.327  0.550  0.258  Financial  Variables  Loan/Value (%)  Ratio  M o n t h l y Payment ($)  Demographic  (%)  50.4  21.6  41.4  22.6  42.2  56.8  49.9  39.5  12.9  59.6  12.3  2.129  0.914  1.784  0.955  2.742  1.187  2.743  1.250  37.1  66.2  47.6  Variables  Age o f H o u s e h o l d Head  Reason  :  197.14 163.30  (%)  (%)  f o r Moving  0.997 ; 41.0 0.571  .284  0.652  55.4  50.0  -0.122  0.548  117. r a t i o , monthly payments, reason f o r moving.  percentage of pre-ownership and the  Such s i m i l a r i t y e x c l u d e s the v a r i a b l e s from  the e q u a t i o n and hence reduces the p r e d i c t i v e c a p a b i l i t y of the technique. Tb a d j u s t f o r t h i s problem the a n a l y s i s was o n l y two groups a t one time. ed i n E x h i b i t 1.  repeated u s i n g  A summary of the r e s u l t s i s p r e s e n t -  In a l l cases the method was  a b l e to c l a s s i f y  approximately 80% o f the respondents c o r r e c t l y .  The  discrimina-  t i n g v a r i a b l e s between the townhouse group and each apartment group were the age o f the household head and the number of children. unit  Townhouses had the g r e a t e s t number of c h i l d r e n per  (0.919 v e r s u s 0.231  f o r the young apartment group and  0.284 f o r the o l d apartment group) medium age of the household heads f o r young apartments and 59.6  (Table 4.21)  and they had a  (39.5 y e a r s o l d v e r s u s 29.3  f o r o l d apartments).  The comparison of the young and o l d apartment groups  was  performed e x c l u d i n g the age of the household head as t h i s was primary means of i n i t i a l  classification.  The s i g n i f i c a n t  the  discrimin-  a t i n g v a r i a b l e s t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d were income, monthly payment, u n i t v a l u e , and the reason f o r moving.  The young apartment group  had h i g h e r average incomes, l a r g e r monthly payments but purchased l e s s expensive u n i t s than the o l d e r group.  T h i s r e f l e c t s the use  of the e q u i t y o f t h e i r p r i o r home by the o l d e r group as d i s c u s s e d previously.  The o l d e r people moved because they d e s i r e d  space and upkeep group was  less  (hence the minus s i g n , -0.122) w h i l e the young  l o o k i n g f o r more space  (hence the p o s i t i v e s i g n ,  0.327).  TABLE Number o f C a s e s C l a s s i f i e d  38  '' ' ' '  i n t o E a c h Group  Predicted  Young A p a r t m e n t  Observed  No.  Young  43  82.7  17  27.4  32  51.6  4  5.4  7  9.5  Apartment  Townhouse Old  Apartment  %  ll8  r  Townhouse No. 9.'.  % 17.3  Old  Apartment  Total  %  No.  %  0  52  100.0  13  21.0  62  100.0  63  85.1  74  100.0  No.  • °;  EXHIBIT 1 Results of Discriminant Classifications  Apartment vs. Townhouse  % Correctly Classified  Analysis Predicted vs. Observed  Young  Apartment vs. Townhouse  77.19%  Old  85.29%  Predicted Observed  Ynqaot.  Twnhsp.  Yngapt.  82.69  17.31  Twnhse.  27.42  72.58  Old  Apartment vs. Apartment  ( E x c l u d i n g Age o f H o u s e h o l d Head)  78.57%  - Use o f 2nd Mtge. - Age o f H s e h o l d head - Number o f Children  Predicted Observed Oldapt. Twnhse.  Young  Significant Variables  O l d a p t . TwnhsR. 90.54 20.97  9.46 79.03  - Percentage o f working wives - Aye o f h o u s e h o l d head - Number o f Children  Predicted Observed  Ynqaot.  OldApf-..  Yngapt.  84.62  15.38  Oldapt.  25.68  74.32  - F a m i l y income - T o t a l Monthly payment - Unit value - Reason f o r M o v i n g -  120. 4.6  Conclusion The evidence p r e s e n t e d here supports the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t  three submarkets do e x i s t w i t h i n the condominium  market:  apartment d w e l l e r s ; townhouse d w e l l e r s ; and o l d e r dwellers.  young  apartment  The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f the townhouse market  from  t h a t of apartments i s dependent mainly on the age of the household head and the number o f c h i l d r e n .  The average age o f the townhouse  p u r c h a s e r was midway between the average ages o f the young and o l d apartment p u r c h a s e r s .  Townhouse p u r c h a s e r s had a h i g h e r average  number of c h i l d r e n than e i t h e r apartment group.  E x c l u d i n g the age  v a r i a b l e , the apartment groups are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p r i m a r i l y by t h e i r f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n and t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n s .  The  younger  group had h i g h e r average incomes but lower down payments than the. older, group..  The younger group a l s o wanted more space w h i l e  the o l d e r group wanted  l e s s space and upkeep.  These  conclusions  c o n f i r m not o n l y the e x i s t e n c e of the t h r e e sub-markets but a l s o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p u r c h a s e r s i n d i c a t e d 4.7  earlier.  M o t i v a t i o n F o r P u r c h a s i n g a Condominium The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n examined  the m o t i v a t i o n s of p u r c h a s e r s  b r i e f l y i n compiling t h e i r p r o f i l e s .  I t was  r e s i d e n t s bought most of the townhouses  found the younger  and a p o r t i o n of the  apartments w i t h the d e s i r e t o e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y .  The  older  groups purchased p r e d o m i n a t e l y apartments because they wanted reduce t h e i r upkeep and space.  T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l examine the  f a c t o r s o f the purchase d e c i s i o n s i n g r e a t e r  detail.  to  121.  4.8  Condominium Versus I t was  expected  S i n g l e Detached House  the apartment d w e l l e r s b e i n g  c h i l d l e s s and concerned  predominantly  w i t h l e s s space and upkeep would not have  looked f o r a house p r i o r t o p u r c h a s i n g t h e i r condominium. ly,  Convers  townhouse r e s i d e n t s , being l a r g e l y f a m i l i e s w i t h c h i l d r e n or i  the c h i l d b e a r i n g age group, would c o n s i d e r a s i n g l e house and t h e r e f o r e would be expected purchasing t h e i r u n i t .  detached  t o shop f o r one p r i o r t o  These e x p e c t a t i o n s were l a r g e l y  confirmed  by an a n a l y s i s o f c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 39 as o n l y one-quarter  of a l l apartment owners and o n e - h a l f of a l l townhouse  owners looked f o r a house p r i o r t o buying a condominium. T a b l e 40 p r e s e n t s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of those who not c o n s i d e r a house f i r s t  d i d and d i d  c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d by the tenure  s t r u c t u r e type of the owner's p r i o r accommodation.  The  and frequen-  c i e s d i s p l a y e d i n t h i s t a b l e are very c l o s e t o those found  by  19 Hamxlton and Roberts 78.6%  .  Of those which had owned p r e v i o u s l y ,  d i d not look f o r a s i n g l e f a m i l y house p r i o r t o p u r c h a s i n g  their unit.  T h i s was  s i n g l e f a m i l y houses.  expected  as the m a j o r i t y a l r e a d y owned  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , o n l y 8% of p r i o r condominium  owners looked f o r a house i n d i c a t i n g a l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the concept the former  and a m o b i l i t y between u n i t s .  F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of  r e n t e r s d i d not c o n s i d e r a house f i r s t ;  there was  no  d i s c e r n a b l e p a t t e r n d i s p l a y e d by the r e n t a l s t r u c t u r e types. The  reasons  given i n previous studies f o r purchasing a  condominium u n i t r a t h e r than a s i n g l e detached overwhelmingly  house have been  the p r i c e or economic advantage and the freedom  TABLE  122.  39  T h o s e Who C o n s i d e r e d S i n g l e D e t a c h e d H o u s e Purchase  Present  of  Structure  a Condominium — by P r e s e n t  Looked No.  for  Il o u s e  First %  Prior.to  Structure  Did  Type  Not Look f o r House F i r s t  No.  %  Townhouse  34  52  31  48  Apartment  29  24  93  76  Total  69  34  132  66  123. from maintenance and upkeep  20  .  L o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s and  p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s much l e s s important. The for of  the  are a l s o mentioned  An i d e n t i c a l p a t t e r n was  but are  found i n t h i s  study.  respondents were allowed to i n d i c a t e up t o t h r e e reasons  t h e i r purchase of a condominium over a house; the f r e q u e n c i e s the t o t a l number of times each reason was mentioned  p l a y e d i n Table 41.  The p r i c e or economic advantage  i n t o t h r e e components:  segmented  Combined they r e p r e s e n t 45.9%  of the t o t a l T h i s was  of upkeep w i t h 2 8% of the t o t a l .  responses  f o l l o w e d by the  The reasons of l o c a t i o n  and the p r o v i s i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s were much, l e s s f i c a n t b e i n g 13.4% Examining  and 7.7%  unit  (15.6%); and lower down payment  making p r i c e the most important f a c t o r . freedom  was  a lower p r i c e f o r an e q u a l or b e t t e r  (20.3%); lower monthly payments (10.0%).  is dis-  signi-  of the t o t a l c h o i c e s r e s p e c t i v e l y .  the data by s t r u c t u r e type r e v e a l s t h a t  from upkeep i s more important t o apartment house p u r c h a s e r s as expected.  freedom  purchasers than town-  H i g h - r i s e r e s i d e n t s showed a g r e a t e r  p r e f e r e n c e f o r the l o c a t i o n f a c t o r and l e s s f o r the f i n a n c i a l ones than d i d the o t h e r s t r u c t u r e t y p e s .  Again t h i s i s expected  as  h i g h - r i s e b u i l d i n g s tend t o be b u i l t c l o s e r to the c e n t r a l a r e a s , t h e r e f o r e having s i g n i f i c a n t l o c a t i o n a l advantages  and they a l s o  tend t o be more e x p e n s i v e , thereby a t t r a c t i n g w e a l t h i e r people who 4.9  are l e s s concerned w i t h p r i c e . Important The  of  F e a t u r e s of the U n i t Purchase  f e a t u r e s of the u n i t purchased were examined on the b a s i s  t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s ; l o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , f e a t u r e s w i t h i n the u n i t ,  and f e a t u r e s of the p r o j e c t  ( i . e . , common f a c i l i t i e s  and  areas).  TABLE  40  Those Who C o n s i d e r e d S i n g l e Detached House P r i o r t o P u r c h a s e o f a Condominium - by P r e v i o u s S t r u c t u r e  Former  Owners  Previous  Structure  Looked f o r House First  Type  Did Not Look f o r Hous e F i r s t  No.  %  13  25  39  75  Semi-Detached  1  33  2  66  Townhouse  1  12.5  7  87.5  Low-Rise  0  0  2  100  High-Rise  0  0  2  100  M o b i l e Home  0  0  3  100  S i n g l e Detached  Total  Owners  No.  %  15  21.4  55  78.6  S i n g l e Detached  7  39  11  61  Semi-Detached  8  53  7  47  Townhouse  0  0  0  0  Former R e n t e r s -Previous  Structure  Low-Rise  21 \  39  33  61  High-Rise  14  42  19  58  0  0  0  0  50  42  70  58  65  34  125  66  M o b i l e Home T o t a l Renters  Total  Owners  and R e n t e r s  i  TA3LE  41  Reason f o r P u r c h a s i n g a Condominium o v e r a S i n g l e Detached House - by S t r u c t u r e Type  Townhouse No. Better  Location  %  Low-•Rise No.  %  ( T o t a l Reasons)  High -Rise No.  %  Total No.  %  19  10.8  19  11.6  24  18.6  68  13 .4  Lower F u l l P r i c e f o r Equal or Better Unit  45  25.6  34  20.7  16  12.4 103  20 .3  Lower Downpayment  22  12.5  15  9.1  10  7.3  51  10 .0  Lower Monthly Payments  23  13.1  34  20.7  .18  14.0  79  15 .6  Freedom o f E x t e r i o r Upkeep  41  23.3  50  30.5  42  32.6 142  28 .0  Recreational Facilities  17  9.7  5  3.0  10  9  5.1  7  4.3  9  Other  7.6  39  7 .7  26  5 .1  1 2 6 .  REASON FOR PURCHASING A CONDOMINIUM RATHER THAN A SINGLE DETACHED HOUSE  C l a s s i f y i n g the f e a t u r e s i n t h i s manner and p r o v i d i n g d e t a i l s w i t h i n each category should p r o v i d e developers w i t h g r e a t e r i n f o r mation  on what consumers d e s i r e .  i d e n t i f y the important complete  Asking the respondents t o  f e a t u r e i n the u n i t w i l l not p r o v i d e a  p i c t u r e , however, as they may d e s i r e o t h e r s t h a t were  not a v a i l a b l e i n the u n i t .  To c o r r e c t t h i s , data were a l s o  c o l l e c t e d on the f e a t u r e s the r e s i d e n t s would have l i k e d and would be w i l l i n g t o pay more f o r but were not p r o v i d e d i n t h e i r unit. The  r e s u l t s of t h i s s e c t i o n are examined o n l y on the b a s i s  of t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l type. the comparisons The  A n a l y z i n g by s t r u c t u r e type allows  w i t h p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t o be made.  important l o c a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s a r e d i s p l a y e d i n Table 42.  In t o t a l , the d i s t r i b u t i o n i s very uniform c o v e r i n g a wide range of the t r a d i t i o n a l l y  important f e a t u r e s .  P r o x i m i t y t o work,  shopping, p a r k l a n d , downtown, q u i e t neighbourhoods, maintained neighbourhoods a l l accounted of the t o t a l responses. the f i r s t  and w e l l  f o r approximately 10%  S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d u s i n g o n l y  choice selected.  The p r o p o r t i o n o f respondents  that  i n d i c a t e d t h a t l o c a t i o n was not a f a c t o r i n t h e s e l e c t i o n of the u n i t was 12.4%. Some s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the frequency o f the important f e a t u r e s c i t e d were d i s p l a y e d between the s t r u c t u r e types although they were i n the a n t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t i o n g i v e n the owners c h a r a c t e r istics.  Townhouse r e s i d e n t s c i t e d  maintained neighbourhood,  the c l o s e n e s s t o work, w e l l  and q u i e t neighbourhood  as the most  128. important f e a t u r e s r e f l e c t i n g t h e i r f a m i l y o r i e n t a t i o n . a l s o had  the  l a r g e s t percentage of respondents of any  type t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t l o c a t i o n was  not  r e s i d e n t s of l o w - r i s e u n i t s l i s t e d the bus  routes,  downtown, and  h i g h - r i s e s recorded  The  to shopping,  a q u i e t neighbourhood w h i l e those i n  the v i c i n i t y to parkland  lowest p r o p o r t i o n  structure  a f a c t o r , 15.9%.  closeness  the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned f e a t u r e s . the  They  and  shopping  as  High-rise dwellers  had  of respondents t h a t f e l t l o c a t i o n was  not  a f a c t o r i n the s e l e c t i o n of t h e i r u n i t . The  most o f t e n mentioned important f e a t u r e s w i t h i n the  were apparent good q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n average room s i z e or balcony  (17.8%), s c e n i c view  (10.5%) (Table 43).  room s i z e  (13.1%), and  (19.9%) and  a large patio listed  l a r g e r than average  (17.0%) most f r e q u e n t l y , w h i l e the order was  l o w - r i s e apartments being  (19.6%),  and  quality  (28.4%), s c e n i c view  than average room s i z e  (18.4%).  respondents i n d i c a t e d the  (19.9%), and  O v e r a l l only  5.0%  (21.2%), appliances  larger  of a l l  f e a t u r e s of the u n i t were not  i n i t s s e l e c t i o n , l e s s than h a l f those that s i m i l a r l y  important  indicated  location factor. F i f t y - e i g h t percent  of the  respondents i n d i c a t e d they would  have wanted some changes i n t h e i r u n i t and willing  in  H i g h - r i s e r e s i d e n t s most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d apparent good  quality construction  the  reversed  l a r g e r than average room s i z e  apparent good q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n (12.8%).  (22.0%), l a r g e r than  Townhouse r e s i d e n t s  apparent good q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n  unit  to pay  more f o r them.  The  they would have been  most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned  TABLE  129  42  Important L o c a t i o n a l Features o f the U n i t by S t r u c t u r e Type Townhouse  ( T o t a l Choices): Low- R i s e  Total  High-Rise  No.  %  No..  %  0 10.0 15.9  2 16 18  1.5 11.9 13.4  15 3.0 70 13.8 62 12.2  25  14.7  16  11.9  45  5.5  22  12.9  15  11.2  51 10.1  16  9.8  15  8.8  24  17.9  62 12.2  23 25  14.0 15.2  21 15  12.4 8.8  9 . 6.7 16 I -9  57 11.2 60 11.8  Surrounding Residents o f Similar Education  7  4.3  1  0.6  Surrounding Residents o f S i m i l a r Income Bracket  2  1.2  1  0.6  8 3 12  4.9 1.8 7.3  12 3 11  7.1 1.8 6.5  No.  %  No.  11 29 15  6.7 17.7 9.1  0 17 27  4  2.4  9  Near P a r k l a n d o r Recreational Facilities Quiet Neighbourhood  Close t o Schools Closeness  t o Work  Closeness t o Shopping Closeness Routes  t o Bus  Closeness t o Downtown  Well  Maintained  %  .  1  8.9  Neighbourhood Dwellings  Close t o Friends Other L o c a t i o n was n o t a Factor i n Selecting this Project  0.7  10  2.0  : 3  2.2  8  1.6  7 2 5  5.2 1.5 3.7  28 9 30  5.5 1.8 5.9  1 '  TABLE  Important Structure  Townhouse No.  %  Features Type  43  130.  of the U n i t  (Total  by  Choices)  Low- R i s e  High - R i s e  No.  No.  o  %  Total . No.  %  29  17.0  38  21.2  26  18.4  95  17.8  19  11.1  13  7.2  2  1.4  41  7.7  Unique Design Features  15  8.8  4  2.2  1  0.7  25  4.7  Superior  13  7.6  23  12.8  8  5.7  49  9.2  A p p a r e n t Good Quality Construction  34  19.9  35  19.6  40  28.4  117  22.0  Greater than Average Storage Space  11  6.4  18  10.1  10  7.1  42  7.9  18  10.5  19  10.6  17  12.1  56  10.5  16  9.4  20  11.2  28  19.9  70  13.1  10  5.8  7  3.9  5  3.5  26  4.9  6  3.8  2  1.1  4  2.8  12  2.3  Larger Sized  Than Average Rooms  Existence of Fireplace  Appliances  Large P a t i o Balcony Scenic  a  or  View  Other  Features of the U n i t were n o t Important  items were g r e a t e r than average  s t o r a g e space, f i r e p l a c e ,  than average s i z e d rooms and l a r g e p a t i o o r balcony S e v e r a l o f these items were a l s o mentioned  larger  (Table 44).  as the most important  reasons f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the u n i t which i m p l i e s t h a t these a r e w i d e l y d e s i r e d f e a t u r e s but are p r e s e n t l y found i n o n l y some projects. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the important f e a t u r e s o f t h e p r o j e c t are d i s p l a y e d i n T a b l e 45.  Well maintained common a r e a s , l a n d -  s c a p i n g , and covered p a r k i n g i n t o t a l were the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned  items.  Apartment r e s i d e n t s a l s o c i t e d these reasons  most f r e q u e n t l y , however, the order was changed t o covered p a r k i n g , w e l l m a i n t a i n e d common areas and l a n d s c a p i n g . townhouse respondents facilities  listed  l a n d s c a p i n g , adequate  The  playground  f o r c h i l d r e n , w e l l maintained common areas and t h e  e x i s t e n c e of a swimming p o o l most f r e q u e n t l y , again r e f l e c t i n g their family  orientation.  An important p o i n t should be noted from these r e s u l t s .  The  concern f o r the l a n d s c a p i n g and maintenance o f the common areas r e v e a l s t h e importance to the r e s i d e n t s .  o f the e x t e r i o r appearance  o f the p r o j e c t  T h e r e f o r e , one might expect t h a t the s a l e  p r i c e w i l l be d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by the c o n d i t i o n o f these f e a t u r e s . To enhance p r o p e r t y v a l u e s , the p r e s e n t owners might  ensure  areas a r e p r o p e r l y maintained and d e v e l o p e r s should note  these  their  importance when d e s i g n i n g the p r o j e c t . The d e s i r e d changes i n the p r o j e c t were i n d i c a t e d by 45% o f the respondents and are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 46. s t r u c t u r e t y p e s , the most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned  Considering a l l items were  44 '  TABLE  FREQUENCY OF  D E S I R E D CHANGES I N THE BY  Desired  Changes  Larger than Rooms Existence Unique  Average  Unit  Townhouse  Low-Rise  %  %  Features  Appliances  A p p a r e n t Good Q u a l i t y Construction Greater Space Large Scenic  than  Average  Storage  Total  %  %  16.7  9.1  18.8  14.7  18.5  19.7  13.2  15.7  11.1  10.6  9.4  10.5  11.1  1.5  9.4  6.8  7.4  4.5  5.7  6.8  13.6  22.6  18.3  11.1  15.2  11.3  13.1  5.6  16.6  3.8  8.4  1.9  9.1  5.7  5.8  . 16.7  ;  Patio  or  Balcony  View  Other Total  High-Rise  Sized  of a Fireplace  Design  Superior  i n the  UNIT  STRUCTURE T Y P E .' . •  Respondents  d e s i r i n g changes  i n the Unit  =  118  (58%)  • Important-Features  •• of  TABLE the  (Total  45  Project  by S t r u c t u r e  Choices)  Towi i h o u s e  L o w - R i se  H i g h - R i se  No.  %  Mo  No.  Common  33  21 .0  27  L a r g e Open G a r d e n o r Wooded A r e a w i t h i n t h e Development  22  14 . 0  10  Adequate  15  19 .6  21  13 .4  Well Landscaped Areas  Playground  Facilities  for  T V H P  %  19 .1  23  1  %  Total No.  %  19 .2  88  19 .5  .0  41  9 .1  7  O  3  2  1 .4  0  0  20  4 .4  5  3 .5  9  7 .5  39  8 .6  Children  Existence Pool  of  a Swimming  Existence Court  of  a  Tennis  0  0  0  0  1  0 .8  1  0 .2  Existence  of  a  Workshop  1  0. 6  5  3 .5  5  4. 2  11  2. 4  W e l l M a i n t a i n e d Common Areas  27  17.  30' 21. 5  26  21. 7  94  20. 8  Adequate Parking  Covered  16  10. 2  35  24. 8  32  26. 7  85  18. 8  Adequate  Visitor  7 9  4. 5 5. 7  4 10  2. 8 7. 1  7 1  5. 8 . 0. 8  4. o  6  18 23  3. 8  5. 1  13  9. 2  10  8. 3  32  7. 1  Parking  Other . Features of the P r o j e c t Were N o t I m p o r t a n t  134. recreational covered  and  facilities visitor  such  as  parking.  swimming p o o l o r t e n n i s c o u r t ,  The  desire  f o r more p a r k i n g  and 21  recreational  facilities  was  also  noted  by  Hamilton  and  Roberts  22 and  Norcross  .  I t would appear  that developers  should  undertake  some c a r e f u l m a r k e t a n a l y s i s . o n t h e demand f o r a d d i t i o n a l and  parking  amenities. Providing  feasible viding  extra parking f a c i l i t i e s  may  n o t be  i n the h i g h e r d e n s i t y apartment areas  of large  area r e c r e a t i o n a l  and  tennis courts.  for  these  required  items costs.  How  as w o u l d t h e  like  swimming  much more p e o p l e w o u l d be  i s unknown b u t The  facilities  i t is unlikely  same a r g u m e n t c a n n o t  be  economically  pools to  pay  i t would cover  the  as  willing  pro-  s t r o n g l y made f o r  townhouse d e v e l o p m e n t s as t h e y have l a r g e r open a r e a s w h i c h c o u l d accommodate r e c r e a t i o n a l trade-off  important  statement  f e a t u r e s of the  have b e e n r e v e a l e d a b o v e . tradeoffs  in  i n the  Table The  larly buying  the  unit,  be  the  of t h e i r  single unit.  Again  the  price  is  made.  both present  however.  and  certain  The  most i m p o r t a n t The  results  desired,  are  respondents area  of  presented  47. r e a s o n most f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d  t r u e f o r the  respondents  the below average  important  cannot  are necessary  w h i c h was  selection  the e x t r a s e l l i n g  In p l a n n i n g a development,  between the a r e a s  were t h e r e f o r e a s k e d concern  or e x t r a p a r k i n g .  b e t w e e n t h e e x t r a c o s t and  unknown so a d e f i n i t i v e The  facilities  price  price,  i n t h e y o u n g e r age units.  feature followed closely  f e a t u r e s of the p r o j e c t .  was  The  by  this  particu-  g r o u p s and  L o c a t i o n was the  was  the next  those most  f e a t u r e s of the u n i t  o l d e r age  and  g r o u p showed a g r e a t e r  TABLE  46  FREQUENCY OF D E S I R E D CHANGES I N T H E P R O J E C T BY STRUCTURE  Desired  Changes  i n the Project  TYPE..  Townhouse  .Low-Rise  High-Rise  Total  %  %  4.-8 :f ••'.V'-i..'2.2-\.v''  0.0  3.3  L a r g e O p e n G a r d e n o r Wooded Areas W i t h i n t h e Development  6.3  7.4  9.2  Adequate Playground for Children  9.5  0.0  0.0  3.9  12.7  23.4  44.4  22.4  15.9  13.0  22.2  15.8  9.5  15.2  3.7  9.9  4.8  4.3  3.7  3.9  Well  L a n d s c a p e d Common  Areas  Facilities  Existence  o f a Swimming  Existence  o f a Tennis  Existence  o f a Workshop  Well Maintained  Common  Pool  Court  Areas  13.0 "  Adequate  Covered  Parking  25.4  15.2  3.7  17.8  Adequate  Visitor  Parking  7.9  13.0  14.8  12.5  3.2  0.0  0.0  1.3  Other Total  Respondents  d e s i r i n g changes  i n t h e P r o j e c t = 90 (45%)  136. preference age  f o r l o c a t i o n a l f a c t o r s both i n comparison t o the  groups and  the o t h e r f e a t u r e s .  p r i c e d u n i t s were f a i r l y evenly  Those buying above average  d i v i d e d between the l o c a t i o n a l  f a c t o r s , f e a t u r e s w i t h i n the u n i t , and  f e a t u r e s of the p r o j e c t .  To summarize, the p r o j e c t s t h a t are designed f o r the  lower  p r i c e b r a c k e t w i l l be purchased l a r g e l y by the younger age t h a t are mainly concerned with the p r i c e . should The  t h e r e f o r e be  other^  The  desired  s a c r i f i c e d i n l i e u of m a i n t a i n i n g  groups  features a low p r i c e .  above average p r i c e d u n i t s c a t e r i n g t o the o l d e r group are  evenly  d i v i d e d between the l o c a t i o n , f e a t u r e s o f the u n i t  f e a t u r e s of the p r o j e c t .  The  t r a d e - o f f s should  these groups r a t h e r than between them and The  f i n a l item examined concerning  and  be made between  the p r i c e .  the f e a t u r e s of the u n i t  are those t h a t were s a l e s a t t r a c t i o n s at the time of purchase but have been used i n f r e q u e n t l y s i n c e then. mentioned category  was  pools  T h i s was  (Table 48).  The  t h a t of the sauna, steam bath, and w h i r l f o l l o w e d by the games room  s u r p r i s i n g l y the swimming p o o l . U n f o r t u n a t e l y translated into proportions u n i t are unknown. to reach 4.10  most f r e q u e n t l y  Further  and  the r e s u l t s cannot be  as the f e a t u r e s a v a i l a b l e t o each investigation i s therefore  d e f i n i t e conclusions  on t h i s  required  item.  L e v e l of S a t i s f a c t i o n f o r Condominium Owners The  l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced  have a g r e a t e f f e c t on the  f u t u r e of the concept.  l a s t p a r t of the owners' q u e s t i o n n a i r e l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n and t i o n with  by the owners w i l l As  i n q u i r e d i n t o the  i n t o t h r e e areas s p e c i f i c a l l y ;  the management, the behaviour o f r e n t e r s and  criticisms.  such  the  general satisfac-  specific  137.  TABLE 47 Host Important Reason f o r The Selection of the Units  Reason  Location No.  %  Feature of the Unit No. %  Features o f the Project No. %  No.  Price  Other %  No.  %  Structure Type Townhouse  7  15.2  11  28.9  15  42.9  36  49.3  0  Low-Rise  0.0  22  47.8  14  36.8  10  28.6  20  27.4  2  High-Rise  100.0  16  34.8  10  26.3  10  28.6  17': 23.3  0  0.0  Total  46  100.0  38  100.0  35  100.0  73  100.0  2  100.0  Under 30  7  15.2  8  21.0  6  17.1  22 ' 30.1  0  30 - 39  0.0  5  • 10.9  9  23.7  7  20.0  28  38.4  1  50.0  40-49  7  15.2  2  5.3  4  11.4  6.8  0  Over 49  0.0  27  58.7  19  50.0  18  51.4  18  24.7  "1  50.0  Under Average 18 P r i c e (By Year and Struc- ' ture Type)  39.1  13  34.2  11  31.4  55  75.3  1  50.0  Over Average P r i c e (By Year and Structure Type)  60.9  25  65.8  24  68.6  18  24.7  1  50.0  Age Group  5.  Price of Unit  28  TABLE 48  .  F r e q u e n c y o f Unused S a l e s A t t r a c t i o n s  Unused S a l e s  Attractions  Swiriming P o o l  by S t r u c t u r e  Townhouse  Low-Rise  No.  No.  %  %  Type  Hiqh-Rise  Total  No.  Wo.  15  17.6  3  4.3  1  0  0.0  0  0.0  2  9  10.6  8  11.4  16  18.8  11  Playgrounds  2  2.4  Garden A r e a s  -6 .  Workshop Other  %  1.4  22  9.0  2.9  2  0.1  11  15.9  30  12.3  15.7  15  21.7  48  19.7  0  0.0  0  0.0  3  1.2  7.1  2  2.9  6  . 8.7  14  5.7  0  0.0  5  7.1  8  11.6  "15  6.1  2  2.4  4  5.7  2  2.9  8  3.3  P r o j e c t does riot have any common f e a t u r e s  20  23.5  24  34.3  20.3  58  23.8  M l the features used r e g u l a r l y  15  17.6  13  18.6  14.5  44  18.0  Tennis  Court  Sames Room Sauna, Steam, B a t h , Whirlpool  '  are 10  139. 4.11  General L e v e l of S a t i s f a c t i o n The  l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n  e x t e n t o f the pre-purchase  i s l i k e l y t o be i n f l u e n c e d by the  knowledge o f the condominium concept.  In t u r n , the l e v e l of knowledge may depend on the method o f purchase.  T a b l e 49 d i s p l a y s both the source o f purchase  and the  p e r c e i v e d l e v e l o f i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from t h e source.  The  m a j o r i t y o f purchases were made from the developers o r t h e i r s a l e s agents  (74.5%), o n l y 25.5% were r e s a l e s .  Of the s a l e s made  by the d e v e l o p e r , 88% were from the d e v e l o p e r ' s own salesmen, the r e s t b e i n g made through an independent  agent.  Sixty-four percent  o f the purchases made from a p r e v i o u s owner were a l s o handled by an independent  agent.  Hamilton and Roberts h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the developer's agents, b e i n g s p e c i a l i s t s , would b e t t e r i n f o r m t h e purchaser  than  23 a l t e r n a t e sources  .  The evidence they r e c e i v e d was n o t c o n c l u s i v e  but they concluded the d e v e l o p e r ' s salesmen good j o b o f e d u c a t i n g the p u r c h a s e r s .  had done a r e a s o n a b l y  Independent agents were  found t o be e i t h e r very good o r very poor, w i t h no middle Furthermore, to educate  position.  w h i l e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the vendor or h i s agent  the p r o s p e c t i v e purchasers was r e c o g n i z e d , the p u r c h a s e r  h i m s e l f must a l s o bear p a r t o f the burden. c o n c l u s i o n s a r e i n accordance  O v e r a l l , these  w i t h the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s  Of a l l p u r c h a s e r s , 32% f e l t they were very w e l l 44% were moderately  earlier  study.  informed,  w e l l informed and 23.5% were p o o r l y informed.  There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n based on the type o f vendor.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the few number o f  purchases made from the developer through an independent  agent  TABLE  140.  49  E x t e n t o f P u r c h a s e r s Knowledge by Method o f P u r c h a s e  Source o f Purchase  V e r y w e l l i nformed No.  %  Modej r a t e l y Ini [formed  Po o r l y I n f ormed  No.  No.  %•  %  From D e v e l o p e r Developer's  Salesman  Independent  Agent  Total  41  32.0  57  44.5  30  23.4  3  16.7  12  66.7  3  16.7  44  30.1  69.  47.3  33  22.6  44.4 .  6  33.3  4  22.2  From P r e v i o u s Owner Directly  from Owner-  Independent Total Grand  Total  Agent  8 11  34.4  12  37.5  9  28.1  19  38.0  18  36.0  13  26.0  63  32.1  87  44 .4  46  23.5  141. or d i r e c t l y  from the owner makes the e v a l u a t i o n of the agent's  performance  r e l a t i v e t o the o t h e r s p r e c a r i o u s .  Combining  the  s a l e s made from both types o f vendors through an independent agent, the same p r o p o r t i o n  (77%) of p u r c h a s e r s were very w e l l  or moderately w e l l informed as those t h a t purchased from the vendor d i r e c t l y or through h i s own  agent.  Independent  agents  then do not appear t o be any b e t t e r o r worse a t i n f o r m i n g purchasers than the o t h e r s o u r c e s . The owners were asked t o what e x t e n t t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g condominium l i v i n g have been s a t i s f i e d .  Eighty-eight  p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d t h a t they were very w e l l or moderately w e l l satisfied.  Only 12% of the respondents i n d i c a t e d b e i n g moder-  a t e l y o r very d i s s a t i s f i e d and the a n a l y s i s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n by age group, income group, s t r u c t u r e type, u n i t ' s purchase p r i c e , management type, o r l e n g t h o f r e s i d e n c e p r o v i d e d no p a t t e r n s of s a t i s f a c t i o n .  clear  However, the l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n  does appear t o be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the e x t e n t o f p r e purchase knowledge  (Table 50).  Developers and agents h a n d l i n g  condominiums, i n t e r e s t e d i n the long run s u c c e s s of the  condo-  minium concept, c o u l d p l a y an important r o l e i n p r o p e r l y educating t h e i r The  customers.  r e s u l t s d i s c u s s e d above p a r a l l e l e d those r e c e i v e d when  the owners were asked i f ,  knowing what they d i d of condominium  l i v i n g a t the time of the survey, would they s t i l l have purchased their unit.  E i g h t y p e r c e n t responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y ,  than the response on the Hamilton and Roberts  8% h i g h e r  (1973) study.  The  r e s u l t s r e v e a l the l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n with condominium has remained high and i s not a major problem 4.12  living  area.  S p e c i f i c Problem Areas The p a r t i c u l a r areas t h a t have r e c e i v e d  the past  owner complaints i n  are the management and the behaviour o f r e n t e r s i n the  projects.  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e  provided  a d e f i n i t i o n o f management  f o r the respondents t o ensure there would be no c o n f u s i o n  as t o  24 the meaning  .  categories:  p r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s and the condominium  association.  The types o f management were d i v i d e d i n t o two  P r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s are independent  companies t h a t perform the a c c o u n t i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , v i s o r y d u t i e s on b e h a l f Projects the  o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n  and super-  for a fee.  t h a t are managed by the condominium a s s o c i a t i o n have  same d u t i e s performed, v o l u n t a r i l y by members o f t h e s t r a t a  corporation,  u s u a l l y by the s t r a t a c o u n c i l .  O v e r a l l , 8 0.9%  of the respondents were s a t i s f i e d w i t h the management. The p r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s d i d not r a t e as h i g h l y as the condominium a s s o c i a t i o n as only  75% were s a t i s f i e d under  t h e i r d i r e c t i o n v e r s u s 91% f o r the condominium a s s o c i a t i o n .  This  may be the r e s u l t of two f a c t o r s both p e r t a i n i n g t o the f a c t t h a t management f i r m s tend t o manage the l a r g e r p r o j e c t s s e c t i o n on condominium management).  Firstly,  (see l a t e r  the l a r g e r average  s i z e o f the p r o j e c t s means the same number of p r o j e c t s may be p o o r l y managed by both the p r o f e s s i o n a l f i r m s and the condominium a s s o c i a t i o n , yet a greater against  number o f responses would be recorded  the p r o f e s s i o n a l management group.  Secondly, the l a r g e r  TABLE  50  143.  E x t e n t o f P u r c h a s e r ' s Knowledge by t h e Level of Satisfaction Level of Satisfaction  Very w e l l  satisfied  Moderately  satisfied  Moderately  dissatisfied  Very  dissatisfied  Total  Ver y W e l l I n f ormed  Mod e r a t e l y Well Informed  PoeD r l y Inf<Drmed  No.  No.  No.  %  %  %  Tc t a l No.  %  31  44.9  28  40.6  10  14.5  69  100  32  29.4  49  45.0  28  25.7 109  100  3  17.6  10  58.8  4  23.5  17  100  0  0  2  28.6  5  71.4  7  100  89  44.1  47  23.3 202  100  66  32.7  144. the p r o j e c t , the more d i f f i c u l t the r e s i d e n t s and the problems. and  i t i s to be i n c o n t a c t w i t h a l l  the more d i f f i c u l t  i t i s to f u l l y  T h i s would cause g r e a t e r  l o s s of c o n t r o l and  explain a l l  f e e l i n g of a l i e n a t i o n  hence g r e a t e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on  the  p a r t of the owners. 4.13  Reaction The  of Tenants  information  part question  covering  t h a t was  the r e n t e r s was  collected in a  designed t o have o n l y those t h a t had  hand knowledge of r e n t e r s i n the p r o j e c t respond as t o behaviour.  first  their  In doing so t h i s would e l i m i n a t e those t h a t were  merely r e p e a t i n g  heresay and  t r u e scope o f the problem. however as j e c t yet  four  g i v e a c l e a r e r i n d i c a t i o n of  the  There were some problems encountered  66 respondents s t a t e d they knew of r e n t e r s i n the  88 responded t o the q u e s t i o n  the t e n a n t s .  regarding  pro-  the behaviour of  Normally t h i s c o u l d c a s t doubt on the v a l i d i t y  of  the r e s u l t s , however, s i n c e the r e s u l t s are n e a r l y unanimous this  compensates f o r the c o l l e c t i o n problem. 9 6.6  was  percent  g e n e r a l l y worse than t h a t of other owners.  understand how son  of the respondents s t a t e d the r e n t e r s ' b e h a v i o u r  or why  to those of other  ted the d i f f e r e n c e was seriousness  It is difficult  the r e n t e r s ' behaviour i s so poor i n compariowners.  One  of the management f i r m s  more p e r c e i v e d  than r e a l a c c o r d i n g  of the complaints they r e c e i v e r e g a r d i n g  I n f o r m a t i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e to c o n f i r m the b i a s , i f any.  to  suggesto  the  renters.  t h i s h y p o t h e s i s or  explain  145. 4.14  S p e c i f i c C r i t i c i s m s Concerning  Condominiums  The most important s p e c i f i c c r i t i c i s m s a r e d i s p l a y e d i n Table 51.  They f o l l o w the same p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d i n the  p r e v i o u s study w i t h the l a c k of soundproofing the most common complaint f o l l o w e d by "people problems." accounted of  Poor  soundproofing  f o r 40.5% of the f i r s t mentioned complaints and 22.1%  the t o t a l .  The poor a t t i t u d e of o t h e r owners  (19.1% and  19.5%) was next f o l l o w e d by u n c o n t r o l l e d c h i l d r e n 9.7%).  On the b a s i s o f s t r u c t u r e type  (9.2% and  (Table 52) the complaint  of poor soundproofing was most p r e v a l e n t from apartment r e s i d e n t s as expected g i v e n t h e i r h i g h e r d e n s i t y .  The complaints a g a i n s t  c h i l d r e n was h i g h e s t i n townhouse responses, a g a i n as expected g i v e n the g r e a t e r number of c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t . The r e p e t i t i o n of poor soundproofing as the s i n g l e most frequent complaint g i v e s cause projects.  t o q u e s t i o n the d e s i g n of the  As i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the f e a t u r e s o f the u n i t ,  however, a b a l a n c i n g between c o s t and b e n e f i t s must be a c h i e v e d . Without of  f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n on the p r i c e e l a s t i c i t y  o f the v a l u e  soundproofing t o the consumers a c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the  d e s i g n of the u n i t s cannot be reached. The complaints a g a i n s t condominium l i v i n g a r e l a r g e l y the r e s u l t of higher density l i v i n g concept i t s e l f .  r a t h e r than a problem  I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t complete  unanimity  ever be achieved between a group of people l i v i n g close association. i n v o l v e d w i l l ensure  w i t h the will  in relatively  Only c o o p e r a t i o n and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f those a reasonable l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r a l l .  TABLE  51  146.  Most i m p o r t a n t C r i t i c i s m s Of Condominiums  Number o f Times M e n t i o n e d . Criticisms  First No.  %  Second No.  %  Third No.  %  Total No.  %  Poor S o u n d p r o o f i n g  53 40.5  10 10.0  3  4.5  66 22.1  Poor  10  7.6  21 21.0  6  9.0  37 12.4  5  6  9.0  25  Construction  Lack o f P r i v a c y  '  3.8  14 14.0  Poor A t t i t u d e o f O t h e r Owners  25 19.1  14 14.0  Uncontrolled  Children  9.2  Uncontrolled  Pets  I. 5 7  5.3  6  6.0  3  2.3  •• 5  11  8.4  Poor  Management  Poor Upkeep Other  2  3.8  9  19 28.4  9.0  8 11.9  17 17.0  12 17.9  4  8.4  58 19.5 29  9.7  34 11.4  5  7.5  18  6.0  5.0  4  6.0  12  4.0  4.0  4  6.0  19  6.4  TABLE Most Important C r i t i c i s m First  Structure  Type  52  by S t r u c t u r e Type -  Mentioned  Townhouse  %  Low-Rise  %  Mixed  High-Rise  Criticism  No.  Poor S o u n d p r o o f i n g  13  27.7  25  55.6  13  44.8  2  20  3  6.4  1  2.2  3  10.3  3  30  4  8.5  1  2.2  0  0  0  0  11  23.4  7  15.6  6  20.6  1  10  Poor  Construction  Lack of P r i v a c y Poor A t t i t u d e o f O t h e r Owners  No.  No.  %  No.  %  Uncontrolled  Children  7  14.9  3  6.7  1  3.5  1  10  Uncontrolled  Pets  4  8.5  1  2.2  0  0  0  0  Poor Management  2  4.3  3  6.7  0  0  2  20  Poor Upkeep  2  4.3  0  0  1  3.5  0  0  Other  1  2.1  4  4.4  5  17.2  1  10  10  100  Total  47 100  45 100  29 100  148. Given the g e n e r a l l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n noted e a r l i e r and the frequency w i t h which condominium owners purchase o t h e r condominiums , i t i s n o t l i k e l y the complaints expressed i n t h i s section are overly 4.15  Tenant's  serious.  Profile  The primary i n t e n t i o n o f the tenants q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t o determine  the p r o p o r t i o n of condominium r e s i d e n t s t h a t were  tenants.  These r e s u l t s have been d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y .  secondary  i n t e n t i o n was t o p r o v i d e a p r o f i l e t h a t c o u l d be com-  pared t o the owners.  A  As o n l y 34 tenant q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e -  turned o n l y some g e n e r a l statements w i l l be made; the s m a l l response does not permit e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s . The m a j o r i t y o f the households had no c h i l d r e n  (62%).  (88%) c o n t a i n e d 2 a d u l t s and  The household heads tended t o be much  younger than those i n condominiums as 56% were under 30 years old  and o n l y 24% over 4 0 years o l d .  The tenants tended t o have  a s i m i l a r income d i s t r i b u t i o n t o condominium owners as a p p r o x i mately o n e - h a l f were below $16,000 and the o t h e r h a l f above. The of ing  respondents were asked i f they c o n s i d e r e d the purchase  a s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g o r a condominium u n i t p r i o r t o r e n t their unit.  The overwhelming m a j o r i t y i n both cases d i d not  c o n s i d e r any purchase  (76.5% and 71.4% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .  There  were t o o few responses as t o the reasons why they d i d not purchase to p r o v i d e r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s .  When asked t h e i r f u t u r e  intentions,  50% d e f i n i t e l y planned t o purchase a home w i t h i n the next years w h i l e another 17.6% were u n c e r t a i n .  five  Of those i n t e n d i n g  149. to purchase, 4.16  88%  i n t e n d t o purchase a s i n g l e  family dwelling.  Conclusion A t the s t a r t of t h i s chapter s e v e r a l o b j e c t s were o u t l i n e d :  to p r o v i d e a p r o f i l e of the e x i s t i n g motivations  f o r purchase,  f a c t i o n w i t h the concept. was  owners, i d e n t i f y  and to e s t a b l i s h  their  t h e i r l e v e l of s a t i s -  These o b j e c t i v e s have been met.  It  found the p r o f i l e of the owners, t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n s and  the  l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n has and Roberts  study i n 1973.  of condominiums i s not due  changed very l i t t l e  from the  T h i s i n d i c a t e s the p r e s e n t  oversupply  t o u n a n t i c i p a t e d changes i n the  of consumers or a g e n e r a l l e v e l of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h concept but r a t h e r i s due  Hamilton  type  the  to an over zealous development i n d u s t r y .  150. FOOTNOTES 1.  Hamilton, S.W. and Roberts, R., Condominium Development and Ownership, Real E s t a t e Board of G r e a t e r Vancouver, Vancouver, 1973.  2.  Eger, A.F., "Choice i n Housing", Housing: I t s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1976.  3.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t .  4.  Hamilton, S.W., D a v i s , I . , and Lowden, J . , Condominium Development i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, The R e a l E s t a t e C o u n c i l o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1971.  5.  Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , N a t i o n a l Survey of Condominium Owners, Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , Toronto, 1970.  6.  N o r c r o s s , C , Townhouses and Condominiums: R e s i d e n t s ' L i k e s and D i s l i k e s , The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.c, 1973.  7.  S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1971 Census of Canada, P o p u l a t i o n Age- Groups, C a t a l o g u e 92-715, Volume I, P a r t 2, A p r i l ,  1973.  8.  The respondents i n d i c a t e d they were employed i n one of 13 c a t e g o r i e s which were l a t e r reduced t o 5. Professionals c o n s i s t e d of p r o f e s s i o n a l s and managerial p o s i t i o n s , semis k i l l e d and s k i l l e d were tradesmen, s a l e s , s e r v i c e , and c l e r i c a l workers, the "other" c a t e g o r y i s made up of homemakers, s t u d e n t s , and those t h a t c l a s s i f i e d themselves as o t h e r , the u n s k i l l e d and r e t i r e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s need no explanation.  9.  Eger, op. c i t . , p.  17.  10.  The average f a m i l y income i n B.C. d u r i n g 1976 was $16,915. (Source: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, Income D i s t r i b u t i o n by S i z e i n Canada, Catalogue 13-206, 1976.) T h i s f i g u r e was a d j u s t e d upwards by 8% t o g i v e an e s t i m a t e d f i g u r e of $18,270.  11.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t . , . p.  12.  A $40,000 u n i t w i t h a 20% down payment, monthly p r o p e r t y taxes o f $50.00 and a mortgage a t 11% would r e q u i r e a minimum o f $17,000 income t o q u a l i f y f o r a 25% debt s e r v i c e ratio.  13.  Brown, Ian, That C l a s s y Touch - Condominiums Promise a Way . of L i f e , F i n a n c i a l Post, Maclean-Hunter, Toronto, O n t a r i o , J u l y 2, 1977.  27.  151. 14.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t . , p. 43.  15.  Ibid.  16.  R i c k e t t s , Mark, No Down Payment Lures the Renters, F i n a n c i a l P o s t , Maclean-Hunter, Toronto, June 4, 19 77, p. 2.  17.  Eger, op. c i t . , p. 11.  18.  The 13 v a r i a b l e s used were:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.  p. 27.  household income loan-to-value r a t i o e x i s t e n c e o f second mortgage percentage o f p r e v i o u s home ownership e x i s t e n c e of working spouse t o t a l monthly payments condominium purchase p r i c e marital status age o f household head o c c u p a t i o n o f household head number o f c h i l d r e n e d u c a t i o n o f household head reason f o r moving  19.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t . , p. 37.  20.  See Appendix 4.1.  21.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t . , p. 44.  22.  N o r c r o s s , op. c i t . pp. 8 and 10.  23.  Hamilton and Roberts, op. c i t . , p. 35.  24.  The d e f i n i t i o n o f management which was p r o v i d e d was as follows:"management" r e f e r s t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the by-laws, maintenance fund, e t c . , not t o the c a r e t a k i n g o r maintenance function i t s e l f . "  l  152. Chapter 5 Condominium Development 5.1  and Management  Introduction T h i s chapter w i l l d e a l w i t h the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the condo-  minium market t h a t are r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r the development of the  p r o j e c t s and t h e i r management on completion. be examined  The developers w i l l  f i r s t w i t h the o b j e c t i v e of d e f i n i n g the composition  of the development s e c t o r and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f i r m s involved. projects  The management and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  5.2  condominium  i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the s t r a t a c o u n c i l s and the  p r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s . but  o f the  Both groups w i l l be  examined  the major emphasis w i l l be on the management f i r m s . Data C o l l e c t i o n and Sample. S i z e - Developers Two  sources of data were used i n the examination of condo-  minium d e v e l o p e r s .  First,  the name of the d e v e l o p e r s was  l e c t e d from the s t r a t a plans r e g i s t e r e d i n the Land Offices.  T h i s method p r o v i d e d  col-  Registry  comprehensive i n f o r m a t i o n  on  the a c t i v i t i e s of d e v e l o p e r s but i t i s l i m i t e d by the f o l l o w i n g factors: a) some names were i l l e g i b l e , b) the p r a c t i c e of e s t a b l i s h i n g a s e p a r a t e company f o r the development of each s t r a t a p r o j e c t , and d i s s o l v i n g the company on completion o f the p r o j e c t .  Consequently a  s i n g l e p r i n c i p a l or group of p r i n c i p a l c o u l d be respons i b l e f o r s e v e r a l developments but t h e i r name could not be l i n k e d t o a l l p r o j e c t s ,  153. c) the use o f s u b s i d i a r y f i r m s t o develop the p r o j e c t s . Again the l i n k i n g o f the s u b s i d i a r i e s t o g e t h e r and t o the parent was not possible,"'" d) f i r m s changing  t h e i r name.  Where the change was known  the development a c t i v i t i e s were grouped under a s i n g l e code, e) time and budget c o n s t r a i n t s p r e c l u d e d the c o l l e c t i o n o f all  the d e v e l o p e r s ' names i n the Kamloops Land R e g i s t r y  O f f i c e , however i n 50% o f the p r o j e c t s the developer was identified. U t i l i z i n g the L.R.O. data i t was p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y the d e v e l 2 opers o f 94% o f the u n i t s and 90% o f the p r o j e c t s . The  second  data source was a survey o f developers  d u r i n g the summer o f 1977. L.R.O. l i s t  The names were i d e n t i f i e d  from the  of d e v e l o p e r s , however there was s i g n i f i c a n t 3  c u l t y i n c o n t a c t i n g the r e g i s t e r e d f i r m s . of  conducted  diffi-  T h i s was the r e s u l t  the l i m i t a t i o n s i n the o r i g i n a l data and subsequently the  companies n o t b e i n g l i s t e d i n the telephone or b u s i n e s s ories.  direct-  S i x t y - f i v e f i r m s a c t i v e i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  and V i c t o r i a markets were sent q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and 25 were r e turned completed.  These f i r m s accounted  f o r 35% of the 13,325  u n i t s i n these m e t r o p o l i t a n areas and 26% of the 18,925 u n i t s developed of  i n the p r o v i n c e , d u r i n g the 1976-1977 p e r i o d .  these f i r m s were a l s o i n t e r v i e w e d .  Eleven  154. 1  Developers'  Activities  In t o t a l , 1,261 separate  developers'  from the L.R.O. r e c o r d s , t h i s i n i t s e l f  names were i d e n t i f i e d  i n d i c a t e s there a r e a  l a r g e number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s a c t i v e i n t h i s aspect of the condominium market.  The i d e n t i f i e d f i r m s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  43,664 u n i t s and 2,128 p r o j e c t s from 1968 t o November 30, 1977. The  d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f these d e v e l o p e r s '  a c t i v i t i e s are d i s p l a y e d  i n Table 53. The firms  f i r s t p o i n t t o note i n Table  53 i s t h a t the m a j o r i t y o f  (78%) had produced only one p r o j e c t , these  46% o f the p r o j e c t s and 35% o f the u n i t s . firms  accounted f o r  Conversely,  (1%) had done more than 10 p r o j e c t s but these  of the p r o j e c t s and 24% o f the u n i t s .  o n l y 14  i n v o l v e d 15%  Comparing the a c t i v i t y i n  terms o f the number o f u n i t s produced a s i m i l a r dichotomy. four p e r c e n t  Thirty-  o f the f i r m s had done only 1-2 u n i t s , e s s e n t i a l l y  duplexes, w h i l e  77 f i r m s  (6%) had produced over 99 u n i t s .  The  l a t t e r f i r m s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 21% o f the p r o j e c t s and 56% of the u n i t s .  One may now conclude t h a t while  cant number of entrepreneurs  there are a s i g n i f i -  o n l y a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n are r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n o f a l l developments. The  same c o n c l u s i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o the M e t r o p o l i t a n *  Vancouver and V i c t o r i a areas  (Table 54).  E i g h t y percent o f the  * I t should be noted t h a t these t a b l e s r e f e r t o the a c t i v i t y o f the d e v e l o p e r s w i t h i n each subarea and t h e r e f o r e adding the number of f i r m s i n any one s i z e category a c r o s s the three areas w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y equal the number of f i r m s i n t h a t category when the p r o v i n c e as a whole i s c o n s i d e r e d . Regional t o t a l s , however, w i l l always sum t o the p r o v i n c i a l t o t a l .  TABLE D E V E L O P A.  ER  53  A C T I V I T Y  P R O V I N C E  DEVELOPER'S PROJECT DISTRIBUTION #  Projects per Firm  B.  FIRM* #  Firms  #  UNIT  #  Projects  Units  S  D I S T R I BUT  C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S ION  DEVELOPERS * AVERAGE PROJECr SIZE DISTRIBUTION (UNITS)  1-2  3-9  10-19  20-39  40-59  60-99  100-499  500+ 0-2.99  3-4.99 5--9.99  10-19.99  20-29.99  30-49.99  50-99.99  100+  1  979  979  15167  427  135  145  179  54  23  16  0  427  57  78  145  105  105  46  16  2  143  286  4812  0  54  15  23  19  23  9  • 0  48  6  15  23  19  23  8  1  3- 4  81  271  5803  0  26  3  7  9  13  22  1  25  A  1  6  13  14  13  4  2  5- 9  44  278  7335  0  0  16  1  2  3  20  2  16  1  3  4  3  8  9  0  10-19  8  111  1879  0  0  0  4  0  1  2  1  4  0  1  0  0  3  0  0  20+  6  203  8668  0  0  0  0  2  0  0  4  2  0  0  0  1  1  1  1  DEVELOPER'S UNIT DISTRIBUTION #  Units par Firm  PROJECT  #  J Firms  Projects  1- 2  427  427  3- 9  215  327  1157  10-19  179  291  20-39  214  40-59  #  2  3-4  0  0  135  54  26  2514  145  15  3  306  6018  179  23  86  180  4081  54  60-99  63  146  4540  100-499  69  260  8  191  500+  Units  1  FIRM'S DISTRIBUTION 5-9  CHARACTERI S T ICS DEVELOPERS' AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE DISTRIBUTION (UNITS)  10-19  20+  0-2.99  3-4.99  5-9.99  0  0  0  427  0  0  0  0  0  73  78  16  0  0  16  3  15  7  1  4  0  4  1  6  19  9  2  0  2  2 .  0  23  23  13  3  1  0  0  13360  16  9  22  20 '  2  0  11141  0  0  1  2  1  4  853 427  10-19.99 0  20-29.99  30-49.99  50--99.99  100+  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  145  0  0  0  0  24  105  74  .0  0  2  9  19  31  23  0  0  2  5  9  24  23  o  0  0  0  2  8  22  19  18  0  0  0  0  1  2  3  2  '  6  4  156 .  TABLE  D E V E L O P E R  C.  A C T I V I T Y  53  -  (cont'd)  P R O V I N C E  DEVELOPER'S AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE  Average Developer's Project Size  F I R M ' c #  Firms  Projects  0- 2.99  522  3- 4.99  #  U N I T  #  C H A R A C T E R I S  D I S T R I B U T I ON  40-59  DISTRIBUTION  500+  1  2  3-4  5-9  10-19  20+  0  0  427  48  25  16  4  2  0  0  0  57  6  4  1  0  0  2  2  0  0  78  15  6  3  1  0  24  g  5  2  0  145  23  13  4  0  o  0  105  19  9  8  1  105  19  14  3  0  1  0  0  74  31  24  22  2  105  23  13  8  3  1  0  0  0  0  23  23  19  3  46  3  4  9  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0  18  2  16  1  2  0  0  1  10-19  20-39  PROJECT  Units  1-2  3-9  810  1619  427  73  16  4  2  0  68  88  327  0  64  3  1  0  5- 9.99  103  164  1154  0  78  15  6  10-19.99  185  258  3762  0  0  145  20-29.99  142  245  5844  0  0  30-49.99  153  321  11744  0  50-99.99  68  198  13861  20  44  5353  100+  T I C S  60-99  100-499  f i r m s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and had developed only one  project.  76%  One  percent  the f i r m s i n each area r e s p e c t i v e l y had j e c t s i n v o l v i n g 32%  i n Metropolitan and  Victoria  l e s s than 1%  developed 10 or more pro-  of the u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  13% of the u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a .  and  Examining the number  of u n i t s per f i r m i n each area r e v e a l s a s i m i l a r t r e n d . can be concluded  of  Again i t  t h a t a s m a l l number of f i r m s are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  a . s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of the development i n each area. a l s o noted t h a t these  It i s  f i r m s are i n the l a r g e s t c a t e g o r i e s i n  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver but moreso i n the medium range i n Metropolitan Victoria.  The  most s i g n i f i c a n t number of f i r m s i n each  area are s m a l l i n terms of number of u n i t s and number of p r o j e c t s Comparisons between the r e s t of the P r o v i n c e other r e g i o n s cannot be made w i t h any  accuracy  due  area and t o the  the data  c o l l e c t i o n problems i n the Kamloops L.R.O. as noted p r e v i o u s l y . Having examined the d e v e l o p e r s ' the two 5.3.2  activities  p o l a r extremes w i l l be examined i n g r e a t e r The  Table  Top  j e c t s and  55 presents  58.9%  twenty f i r m s .  detail.  The  the top twenty f i r m s i n terms of the numbe top f i v e firms produced 62.5%  of the u n i t s of the t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n T h i s accounted f o r 7.4%  of the u n i t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  The  of u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  of the of the  of the p r o j e c t s and additional fifteen  i n c r e a s e d the percentage of t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n 34.1%  terms  Twenty  of u n i t s produced.  and  i n general  The  t o 11.7%  first  protop 20.1%  firms  of p r o j e c t s  conclusion that  can be drawn i s t h a t even w i t h i n the group of the l a r g e s t f i r m s there i s a s m a l l number t h a t dominate i n terms of  production.  158 .  I  TABLE Province # Projects  n<=>r f i rn 1  Firms  $ 979  % 78  2  143  3-4  5-9  Projects # %  Units # %  54  DEVELOPER ACTIVITY BY R3GION  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  Metropolitan V i c t o r i a  Firms # %  Firms . # %  Projects # %  Units # %  979  46 15167  35  557  80  11  286  13  4812  11  65  9  130  11  2356  8  213 35  81  6  271  13  5803  13  39  6  132  11  3818  13  21  8  44  3  278  13  7335  17  23  3  144  12  5397  18  10  10-19  8  <1  111  5  1879  4  6  <1  87  7  3233  11  20+  6  <1  203  10  8668  20  4  <1  149  12  6183  21  Total 1261 100 2128 100 43664 100 I units per f i r m  557 . 46 8663  29  1  <1  26  5  52  1  69  13  0  0  0  0  0  0  3-9  215  17  327  15  1157  3  102  15  151  13  531  2  54  10-19  179  14  291  14  2514  6  81  12  123  10  1159  4  20-39  .214  17  306  14  6018  14  105  15  150  13  3024  40-59  86  7  180  9  4081  9  55  8  100  8  60-99  63  5  146  7  4540  10  32  5  69  100-499  69  5  260  12 13360  30  42  6  8  <1  191  9 11141  26 1261 100 2128 100 4 3664 100  7  1  57 15  322 100 501 100 8511 100  40 112  26  223  4  59  18  59  12  118  1  19  87  20  307  6  65  20  94  19  353  4  41  15  78  18  568  10  61  19  95  19  847  10  10  34  12 • 44  10  942  17  80  25 108  22 2201  26  2592  9  11  4  22  5  550  10  21  7  53  987  12  6  2284  8  19  7  48  11 1385  25  17  5  29  6 1205  14  189  16  9674  33  9  3  33  9 15 32  28  19  6  63  13 2800  33  147  12  9846  33  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  694 101 1199 100 29650 100  280 100 429 100 5507 100  0-2.99  522  41  810  38  1619  4  314  45  4 50.  38  900  3  135  3-4.99  68  5  88  4  327  <1  31  4  32  3  117  0  22  8  8  164  8  1154  3  44  6  61  5  438  1  24  9  91  1  153  13  2243  8  48 188  375  7  88  27 180  36  360  4  2  17  5  23  5  83  1  9  11  321  6  33  10  43  9  291  3  ' 40  14  62  14  944  17  63  20  84  17 1188  14  50  16  66  13 1589  19  45  14  69  14 2429  29  21 5  7  29  6 1748  21  2  7  1  10  185  15  258  12  3762  142  11  245  12  5844  13  69  10  100  8  2419  8  23  8  41  10 1009  30-49.99  153  12  321  15 11744  27  87  13  211  18  7842  26  23  8  37  9 1360  18 25  50-99.99  68  5  198  9 13861  32  44  6  160  13 11550  39  11  4  17  4 1121  20  20  3  44  2  12  14  2  32  11- - 100 29 6 50 100  0  135  20-29.99  14  0  8  103  4141  0  35 47  5-9.99  3  11  322 100 501 100 8511 100  44  10-19.99  694 100  <1  3  112  4 36G4 100  20  13  2  1261 100 2128 100  20  <1  540  r  10  1  23  -  <1  12  270  Total  1  18  39  5353  13  14 1013  270  100+  13  15 1147  62  2  size  11 1141  76  15  4  853  :  54  17  20  i  4  924  427  #  5  17  280 100 429 100 5507 100  #  50 4875 17 1276  71  694 100 1199 100 29650 100  Projects Units  77 249 13 86  249 43  34  developers' project  76 213 12 70  Firms # %  46 17  427  Total Average  Pr D j e c t s Units % t • % #  50 2560 16 941  1-2  500 +  Rest o f P r o v i n c e  2  1  2 .<.!  280 100 429 100  242  4  5507 100  823  322 100 501 100 8511 100  159. T A B L E  PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT  -  55  TOP 20 DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF UNITS  percentage of Average Project Size  15  pSuctdon ^oauction Units Project  Percentage f a l l production (B.C.) Project Units G  # Project  # Units  1 -5  172  9,347  54.3  62.5%  58.9%  7.4%  6 -10  39  2,754  70.6  14.2  17.4  1.6  5.9  TO£  il  20.1%  -15  35  2,074  59.3  12.7  13.1  1.5  4.5  16 -20  29  1,686  58.1  10.5  10.6  1.2  3.6  275  15,861  57.7  100.0  11.7%  34.1%  TOTAL  100.0%*  * Rounding Error (1) Average f o r a l l Projects i n B.C.  19.8 units/proj.  160. A l l o f the top f i v e f i r m s i n terms of u n i t s are i n the top ten f i r m s i n terms of p r o j e c t s .  Of the other  f i f t e e n , however,  o n l y f o u r a r e i n the top twenty f i r m s i n terms o f p r o j e c t s . dominance o f the p r o d u c t i o n  The  o f u n i t s v i s - a - v i s the p r o d u c t i o n of  p r o j e c t s i s e x p l a i n e d by the average p r o j e c t s i z e .  The average  p r o j e c t s i z e f o r the top twenty f i r m s was 57.7 u n i t s per p r o j e c t versus  18.8 f o r the p r o v i n c e .  The  top f i v e f i r m s i n terms o f p r o j e c t s  responsible  (Table 56) were  f o r 50% o f the p r o j e c t s and 56% o f the u n i t s o f the  top twenty f i r m s .  The p r o d u c t i o n  o f the top f i v e f i r m s accounted  f o r 7.8% o f the p r o j e c t s and 14.2% of the u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e . The  remaining f i r m s accounted f o r an a d d i t i o n a l 7.8% o f a l l pro-  j e c t s and 11.3% o f a l l u n i t s developed i n the p r o v i n c e .  The  average p r o j e c t s i z e o f these twenty f i r m s i s c o n s i d e r a b l y than t h a t of the top f i r m s i n terms o f u n i t s .  smaller  Much o f t h i s i s  a t t r i b u t e d t o the f a c t t h a t e i g h t of the l a r g e s t f i r m s i n terms of p r o j e c t s o n l y produced duplexes  ( t o t a l l i n g 116 p r o j e c t s , 232  units). The presented  f i r m s t h a t had the l a r g e s t average p r o j e c t s i z e are i n Table  57.  Only two o f these f i r m s were i n the top  twenty i n terms of u n i t s , and o n l y one was i n the top twenty i n terms of p r o j e c t s .  F u r t h e r , these f i r m s o n l y accounted f o r 1.9%  of a l l u n i t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, f a r l e s s than t h a t o f the other two "top twenty".  Therefore  the f i r m s p r o d u c i n g  average p r o j e c t s i z e s are not r e s p o n s i b l e  the l a r g e s t  for a significant  p r o p o r t i o n o f the number o f u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  161. T A B L E  56  PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENTS -• TOP 20 DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF PROJECTS  PROJECTS  # UNITS  AVERAGE PROJECTS SIZE  1- 5  183  6,606  6-10  84  TOP  % OF TOP 20 PRODUCTION  % OF ALL PRODUCTION (B.C.)  PROJECTS  UNITS  PROJECTS  36.1  50.0%  55,9%  7.8%  14.2%  2,998  35.7  23.0  25.4  3.6  6.5  UNITS  11-15  56  1,627  29.1  15.3  13.8  2.4  3.5  16-20  43  583  13.6  11.7  4.9  1.8  1.3  TOTAL  366  11,814  32.3  100.0%  100.0%  15.6%  25.5%  (1)  Average f o r a l l P r o j e c t s i n B.C.  19.8  units/project.  1621  TOP TWENTY DEVELOPERS IN TERMS OF AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE  % OF TOP 20's PRODUCTION PROJECTS  UNITS  ECTS SIZE  5  7  1,221  174.4  15.9%  6-10  5  727  145.4  11.4  11-15  6  698  116.3  13.6  19-20  26  2,707  104.1  TOTAL  44  5,353  121.6  TOP  #  PROJECTS  % OF ALL PRODUCTION (B.C.) PROJECTS  UNITS  22.8%  2.6%  0.3%  13.6  1.6  0.2  13.0  1.5  0.3  .. 59.1  50.6  5.8  1.1  100.0  100.0  11.5  1.9  UNITS  f  i-  B.C. Average project size  =  19.3 units per project.  163. One i s cautioned  on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the l a s t  conclusion.  I t r e f e r r e d t o the average p r o j e c t s i z e s w h i l e the f o l l o w i n g top twenty r e f e r s t o the d e v e l o p e r s of the l a r g e s t p r o j e c t s .  These  p r o j e c t s ranged i n s i z e from 507 u n i t s t o 150 u n i t s i n a s i n g l e phase and account f o r 9.3% o f the u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  Ten of  these p r o j e c t s were developed by the top s i x f i r m s i n terms of u n i t s and p r o j e c t s .  An a d d i t i o n a l 15% of the p r o j e c t s were  developed by f i r m s i n the top ten i n terms of u n i t s . largest forty projects sidered,  I f the  (507 u n i t s t o 129 u n i t s i n s i z e ) are con-  75% of them were developed by f i r m s i n the top twenty  i n terms of u n i t s .  From the p r e c e d i n g  information  be concluded t h a t the l a r g e s t twenty f i r m s  i t can  i n terms of u n i t s  o b t a i n e d t h i s s t a t u s by e i t h e r p r o d u c i n g s e v e r a l medium-sized projects  (35% of the f i r m s produced 13 o r more p r o j e c t s , aver-  aging 51.5 u n i t s p e r p r o j e c t )  or a few l a r g e - s i z e d  projects  (65% produced l e s s than 10 p r o j e c t s , averaging 73.8 u n i t s per project). The  geographical  d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p r o d u c t i o n  o f the top  twenty f i r m s i n terms of u n i t s i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 58. f i r m s a r e h e a v i l y c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n market.  Vancouver  Ninety-two p e r c e n t of the p r o j e c t s and u n i t s these  developed l i e w i t h i n  t h i s area and they r e p r e s e n t  o f the u n i t s and 13% of the p r o j e c t s  were developed by the top f i v e 5.3.3  firms  20% o f the pro-  j e c t s and almost one h a l f of the u n i t s i n t h i s r e g i o n . 28%  These  i n Metropolitan  Further, Vancouver  firms.  Small Development Firms Small d e v e l o p e r s are d e f i n e d  as those having produced l e s s  164 .  TABLE  58  PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY BY AREA - TOP 20 FIRMS IN TERMS OF UNITS  METROPOLITAN VANCOUVER  METROPOLITAN VICTORIA  % OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IN REGION  % OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IN REGION  TOP FIRMS  PROJECTS  UNITS  PROJECTS  UNITS  1- 5  161  8,613  12.8%  28.2%  3  6-10  37  2,654  2.9%  8.7%  0  11-15  27  1,608  2.1%  5.3%  7  16-20  29  1,686  2.3%  5.5%  0  TOTAL (1-20)  254  14,561  20.1%  47.7%  1,262  30,502  100%  100%  TOTAL IN REGION  REST OF PROVINCE  PROJECTS  UNITS  PROJECTS  UNITS  147  0.7%  2.7%  0  0.0%  448  1.6%  0  10  432  % OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT IN REGICN PROJECTS  UNITS  PROJECTS  UNITS  8  587  1.2%  5.7%  0.0%  2  100  0.3%  1.0%  8.1%  1  18  0.1%  » 0.2%  0.0%  0.0%  0  0  0.0%  0.0%  595  2.3%  10.8%  11  705  1.7%  6.8%  5,528  100%  100%  646  10,381  100%  100%  165. than 3 p r o j e c t s or under ten u n i t s , t h e i r a c t i v i t y was p r e v i o u s l y where i t was t i o n o f the  f i r m s and  projects  and  of the p r o j e c t s and  p r o d u c i n g under 10 u n i t s . and  Referring  The  produced and  produced duplexes  balance of the the  full  the  a s i n g l e duplex except f o r one Sixty-three only one  Sixteen  u n i t s i n s i z e and  f i r m s p r o d u c i n g only  p e r c e n t of the  (average p r o j e c t p r o j e c t d i d only  1-2  35%  of the  u n i t s a l l of them developed  which was  a strata lot subdivision.  firms producing 3-9  u n i t s d i d so i n The  three  0-2.99, 3-4.99, and  .of Table 53  shows the d e v e l o p e r ' s average p r o j e c t s i z e .  average  smallest  5-9.99 u n i t s per p r o j e c t .  Part C Eighty-  f i r m s producing 0-2.99 u n i t s per p r o j e c t project.  doing  project.  categories,  average d i d so i n only one  units  firms  firms  p r o j e c t , none produced more than 4 p r o j e c t s .  p e r c e n t of the  a  project  (1.6%) of the  p r o j e c t s i z e s were evenly d i s t r i b u t e d amongst the  two  firms  range i n terms of number of  20 l a r g e s t p r o j e c t s d i d o n l y one Of  firms  field.  firms doing o n l y one  average p r o j e c t s i z e .  d i d p r o j e c t s of over 100 the  noted f o r  i t can be seen t h a t o f the  of those doing only one  were d i s t r i b u t e d a c r o s s  units.  Vancouver, V i c t o r i a  e x i t i n the condominium development  44%  units.  These f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e the s i g n i f i c a n t  doing under 3 p r o j e c t s , 38%  s i n g l e duplex.  o f the  A s i m i l a r t r e n d was  again t o Table 53  s i z e 0-2.99) and  46%  were found i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  the r e s t of the P r o v i n c e .  ease of e n t r y  a s m a l l share of the  f i r m s p r o v i n c i a l l y produced l e s s than 3  i n v o l v i n g 59%  Similar proportions  shown they accounted f o r a l a r g e p r o p o r -  p r o j e c t s but  N i n e t y p e r c e n t of the  noted  There were, however, 6  on (1%)  166. which d i d t e n o r more such p r o j e c t s , these were noted  previously  i n the d i s c u s s i o n of the top 20 f i r m s i n terms o f p r o j e c t s duced.  pro-  The two f i r m s producing 20 o r more duplex p r o j e c t s were  i n the top 5 f i r m s i n terms of p r o j e c t s but were not i n the top one  hundred and s i x t y d e v e l o p e r s i n terms o f u n i t s .  5.3.4  Developers' A c t i v i t y Over time The  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d e v e l o p e r s ' a c t i v i t y p r o v i n c i a l l y over  time i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 59 and condensed i n T a b l e 60. 1968 t o 197 7 there  has been a t r e n d  more p r o j e c t s and u n i t s per year however, there  towards more f i r m s  (Table  59).  From  doing  Proportionally,  has been o n l y a v e r y modest t r e n d towards  firms  doing more p r o j e c t s per year and a d e c l i n e i n f i r m s doing a l a r g e number o f u n i t s per year  (Table  s i z e has decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y to 13.62 u n i t s per p r o j e c t .  of more, but s m a l l e r  from 1968 t o 1977, from 44.6  over the past decade i s more the  i n the number o f f i r m s and the development p r o j e c t s , than through a t r e n d towards pro-  ducing l a r g e r p r o j e c t s .  A s i m i l a r t r e n d was noted i n the Metro-  p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a areas. that despite  The average p r o j e c t  Thus, the r a p i d growth i n condo-  minium u n i t s t h a t has o c c u r r e d r e s u l t o f an i n c r e a s e  60).  t h i s trend,  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note  60% of the twenty l a r g e s t p r o j e c t s have  been developed s i n c e January 1, 1976. 5.3.5  Developers of Unique The  Projects  d e v e l o p e r s of two unique types o f p r o j e c t s were s e l e c t e d  f o r f u r t h e r examination, f i r s t ,  the d e v e l o p e r s o f n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l  167.  TABLE  59  DEVELOPERS ACTIVITY BY YEAR AND''SIZE B.C. NUMBER OF FIRMS  # PROJECTS PER FIRM PER YEAR  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  1  4  17  33  65  76  104  160  223  328  319  2  0  1  3  5  9  9  12  21  32  39  3- 4  1  0  2  2  3  4  5  14  12  12  5- 9  0  0  0  1  1  1  2  3  12  8  10-19  0  0  0  0  0  2  1  2  4  3 0  20+  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  # UNITS PER FIRM PER YEAR 1- 2  0  8  7  16  17  45  86  142  159  3- 9  0  4  11  11  18  19  34  70  96  10-19  1  8  17  15  19  35  37  56  35  20-39  1  7  20  24  36  41  55  62  47  40-59  0  3  4  6  11  13  21  27  24  60-99  1  • 5  8  9  10  14  16  15  12  100-499  2  3  6  8  8  12  13  15  6  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  2  2  500+  1 6 8  . !  TABLE  59  (cont'd)  DEVELOPERS ACTIVITY BY YEAR AND SIZE B.C. NUMBER OF FIRMS DEVELOPERS AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE PER YEAR  1968  1969  1970  1971  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  0-2.99  0  0  10  9  16  21  50  100  177  196  3-4.99  0  0  1  4  5  7  6  9  17  28  5-9.99  0  0  1  7  6  10  9  13  32  40  10-19.99  1  5  8 .  15  19  19  37  41  48  34 29  20-29.99  0  7  5  11  14  19  19  40  45  15  28  34  34  39  35  30-49.99  2  1  5  13  50-99.99  1  3  6  9  10  10  20  23  23  15  1  2  2  5  4  6  5  3  8  4  100+  169  TABLE  60  SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPERS A ACTIyTT-T BY YEAR - B.C.  #  %  #  %  #  %  #  %  #  %  %  #  ff  1977  1976  1975  1974  1973  1972  1971  1970  1969  1968  %  #  %  96  370  97  17  4  11  3  81 330  85  337  88  59  15  44  12  %  #  %  98 372  #  PROJECTS PER FIRM PER YEAR  1-4  5  100  18  100  38  100  72  99  88  99  117  98  177  98  258  5+  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  1  1  1  3  2  3  2  5  UNITS PER FIRM PER YEAR  1-39  2  40  13  72  27  71  55  75  66  74  90  75  140  78  212  40+  3  60  5  28  11  29  18  25  23  26  30  25  40  22  51  DEVELOPERS AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE  -19.99  1  20  5  28  20  53  35  45  46  52  57  48  102  76  163  62 274  70  298  78  4  80  13  72  18  47  38  55  43  48  63  52  78  24  100  38 115  30  83  32  OVERALL AVERAGE PROJECT SIZE (UNITS/PROJECT)  20+  44.6  35 .3  28.0  32.3  28.2  25.7  25 .5  2  19  20.8  16.6  13.62  170 p r o j e c t s and  secondly, those t h a t were r e s p o n s i b l e  conversions.  (Non-residential  cussed i n Chapter 6.) and  and  A l l non-residential  mixed r e s i d e n t i a l and  p r o j e c t s are  dis-  (warehouse, commercial,  commercial) d e v e l o p e r s were small  terms of both p r o j e c t s and  units.  r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s , only  10%  18%  conversion  f o r condominium  Of the  39 d e v e l o p e r s of non-  d i d more than one  d i d more than 10 u n i t s , and  in  project,  only  nore d i d more than 65 u n i t s .  Non-  r e s i d e n t i a l developers concentrated t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i n t h i s ment of the market; only  7.6%  of the d e v e l o p e r s of  p r o j e c t s d i d r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s as w e l l , and  seg-  non-residential  none were  involved  i n the development of support s t r u c t u r e , bare land or l o t subdivision projects.  The  d e n t i a l market d i d only  developers who two  projects  n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l ) , and  none of the  more than t w e n t y - f i v e  units.  were a c t i v e i n the (one  r e s i d e n t i a l and  residential projects  Thus one  may  resione  contained  conclude t h a t non-  r e s i d e n t i a l condominium d e v e l o p e r s are s m a l l d e v e l o p e r s a c t i v e only i n t h i s  submarket.  Condominium c o n v e r s i o n The  a l s o tends t o be  d e v e l o p e r s of f o u r t y - s i x c o n v e r s i o n  f i e d from the d a t a . volved  d i d only one  t h i s conversion  such p r o j e c t .  Further,  c o u l d be  identi-  f o r 69%  o f the  firms,  p r o j e c t represented t h e i r e n t i r e a c t i v i t y i n A f u r t h e r 21%  condominium p r o j e c t .  Thus, only  d i d two  projects  activity  N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f the d e v e l o p e r s i n -  condominium market.  versions  a "one-shot"  were i n v o l v e d  9.5%  of the  i n only one  firms  the other  a c t i v e i n con-  or more non-conversion condominium p r o j e c t s .  F i v e p e r c e n t of the  f i r m s which d i d condominium c o n v e r s i o n  project  171. were i n the top twenty firms i n terms of number o f u n i t s and number o f p r o j e c t s ; none o f these d i d more than one  conversion  project. 5.4.1  Developers' C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : The  The Survey  respondents t o the d e v e l o p e r s ' survey i n c l u d e d the  d e v e l o p e r s o f t h i r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t o f the u n i t s , and p e r c e n t o f the p r o j e c t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  fourteen  Vancouver, and f i f t e e n  p e r c e n t o f the u n i t s and s i x p e r c e n t o f the p r o j e c t s i n Metro4  politan Victoria.  The respondents i n c l u d e d  seven o f the twenty  l a r g e s t producers o f u n i t s , and f o u r o f the top twenty producers of p r o j e c t s , i n the p r o v i n c e  of B r i t i s h Columbia.  I t also  includes  n i n e d e v e l o p e r s who had developed only one o r two p r o j e c t s , and f o u r which developed fewer than f o r t y u n i t s . includes  Thus the  survey  a reasonable c r o s s - s e c t i o n o f f i r m s a c t i v e i n the i n d u s t r y ,  although i t does omit the l a r g e number o f duplex d e v e l o p e r s who are a c t i v e i n the p r o v i n c e . On the b a s i s of t h i s survey, a d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f f i r m s a c t i v e i n the i n d u s t r y d u r i n g and  during  the  following sections.  the 1976-1977 p e r i o d ,  the t e n year p e r i o d commencing i n 1968, i s p r e s e n t e d i n  sponses were t a b u l a t e d  F o r purposes o f a n a l y s i s , developer r e according  t o three  arbitrary size classes  on the b a s i s of the t o t a l number o f u n i t s they had produced, small  (fewer than 60 u n i t s ) ; medium  (more than 200 u n i t s ) . t r y according  T h i s permits c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the indus-  t o both g e n e r a l  developer s i z e .  (61-200 u n i t s ) , and l a r g e ,  aspects and v a r i a t i o n a c c o r d i n g  to  172. 5.4.2  Developers' The  Involvement i n the Condominium Market  e x t e n t t o which developers  development i s examined i n two  are i n v o l v e d i n condominium  ways, f i r s t  t o t a l income d e r i v e d from t h e i r a c t i v i t y the r a n k i n g of r e a l e s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s (Table 62).  Twelve p e r c e n t  developments w h i l e  100%  to be  and  50%  (57%)  T h i r t y percent  from t h i s source.  The  The medium and  of  small firms ten-  of the s c a l e , 67%  of medium  of s m a l l f i r m s r e c e i v e d l e s s than h a l f t h e i r income from  of the sources  development f i r s t  These f i g u r e s c o r r e l a t e w i t h the rank-  of revenue f o r the respondent f i r m s .  Thirty-seven percent  of a l l the f i r m s ranked condominium  as a source  of revenue.  Other areas  ance were m u l t i p l e u n i t r e n t a l development ment (12.5%), was  of a l l f i r m s  r e c e i v e d over t h r e e - q u a r t e r s  found a t the o p p o s i t e end  condominium developments. ing  secondly,  of t h e i r income from condominium  t h e i r income from condominiums. ded  and  i n order of importance  35% d e r i v e d under 25%  m a j o r i t y of l a r g e f i r m s  (Table 61)  their  o f the respondent f i r m s were a c t i v e  only i n condominium developments. d e r i v e d between 75 and  the percentage of  and  commercial development  noted when the t o t a l rankings  when the percentage of income was  (16.7%),  (12.5%).  are c o n s i d e r e d . considered,  of  land The  importdevelop-  same t r e n d  As was  seen  large firms placed  more importance on condominium development than s m a l l or medium firms.  They a l s o tended to be more a c t i v e i n land development  l e s s a c t i v e i n commercial development than the o t h e r groups. the b a s i s of t h i s evidence  one  secondary.  On  can conclude t h a t l a r g e f i r m s view  condominium development as a primary a c t i v i t y w h i l e f i r m s c o n s i d e r i t as  and  the  smaller  TABLE  61  PERCENTAGE OF INCOME DERIVED FROM CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT By Percentage o f In com* 2 A l l F i r m s .  size  Large  Medium  Small  75 - 100%  30.0%  57.2%  11.1%  25.0%  50 - 74%  20.0%  14.3%  22.2%  25.0%  25 - 49%  .15.0%  14.3%  22.2%  0.0%  0 - 24%  35.0%  14.3%  44.4%  50.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  Total  Response Rate = 8 0 %  174.  T A B L E  MDST  A L L  D E V E  L  IMPORTANT  0 P E R S  AREAS  OF  REVENUE  62  FOR  CONIX MINIuTl DEVELOPERS  MEDIUM DEVELOPEFS  SM?JX DEVELOPERS  I JARGE  TOTAL  1st  DES/ELOPERS  2nd  3rd  TOTAL  28.6%  0.0%  31.8%  TOTAL  1st  2nd  3rd  TOTAL  1st  2nd  3rd  31.6%  31.3%  16.7%  33.3%  33.3%  27.8%  33.3%  12.5%  57.1%  14.3  15.8  14.1  16.7  33.3  16.7  22.2  22.2  12.5  14.3  16.7  11.1  0.0  16.7  9.1  4.2  14.3  5.3  7.8  16.7  16.7  0.0  11.1  0.0  12.5  14.3  8.3  0.0  14.3  0.0  4.5  8.3  14.3  5.3  9.4  0.0  16.7  16.7  11.1  11.1  0.0  0.0  4.2  0.0  28.6  0.0  9.1  Land Development  12.5  28.6  26.3  21.9  0.0  0.0  33.3  11.1  11.1  62.5  14.3  22.2  14.3  33.3  22.7  Multiple Unit Rental Development  16.7  4.8  10.5  10.9  33.3  0.0  0.0  11.1  22.2  0.0  0.0  8.3  0.0  14.3  33.3  13.6  Commercial/ Industrial Investment  ' 0.0  5.3  1.6  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  16.7  4.5  0.0  Residential Real Estate Services  0.0  0.0  3.1  16.7  0.0  0.0  11.1  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  11.1  0.0  0.0  4.5  8.3  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  AREA/RANKING  1st  2nd  Condominium/ Development  37.5%  23.8%  Commercial Development  12.5  Industrial Development Single Family Residential Development  TOTAL  RESPONSE RATE  . 3rd  =  96%  • 33.3% 55.6%  29.2  The one  data r e p r e s e n t e d i n the  f o l l o w i n g two  s e c t i o n s and  on the management of completed p r o j e c t s by the  (Section  the  developers  5.4.5) r e f e r s to a s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t each respondent  had  developed. 5.4.3  Project The  Financing  development of r e a l e s t a t e p r o j e c t s g e n e r a l l y  utilizes  three b a s i c sources of f i n a n c i n g - the d e v e l o p e r ' s i n t e r n a l funds and  l i n e s of c r e d i t , i n t e r i m or c o n s t r u c t i o n  term) and the  f i r s t mortgage f i n a n c i n g  financing  (long-term).  T a b l e 63  sources of f i n a n c i n g f o r the respondent f i r m s .  banks and  (shortdisplays  Chartered  t r u s t companies are the most h e a v i l y r e l i e d on  sources  of funds which r e f l e c t s t h e i r dominance i n the r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage market. ~* The; m a j o r i t y the  chartered  of f i r m s  (58%)  banks w h i l e 12.5%  l i n e of c r e d i t .  The  chartered  and  large firms respectively)  across  funds.  r e l i e d on  firms placed  the  t h e i r own  banks  small  u t i l i z e d interim financing  (82.5% v e r s u s 33.3% and  i n no  cent of the  funds or t h e i r  the g r e a t e s t and  62.5%  instances  reliance  funds from the c h a r t e r e d  l a r g e d e v e l o p e r s d i d not  use  on  f o r the medium d i d they  Medium s i z e d f i r m s were spread f a i r l y  a l l sources of f i n a n c i n g w h i l e the  ately received  t h e i r own  from  large firms  use  evenly  predomin-  banks. Twenty-five p e r any  external  sources  other than t h e i r l i n e of c r e d i t . The  sources o f f i r s t mortgage f i n a n c i n g were more evenly  d i v i d e d than those of i n t e r i m f i n a n c i n g w i t h the (29.2%) and  the  t r u s t companies  chartered  banks  (33.3%) being the dominant s o u r c e s .  176.  SOURCE OF FINANCING BY TYPE AND DEVELOPER'] SIZE INTERIM  FIRST  FINANCING  SOURCE  MORTGAGE FINANCING  SOURCE OF INTERIM + FIRST MORTGAGE THE SAME  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  SMALL  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  SMALL  85.7%  29.2%  50.0%  22.2%  14.3%  20.8%  42.9%  22.2%  0.0%  11.1  14.3  33.3  12.5  33.3  57.1  8.3  0.0  11.1  14.3  0.0  11.1  0.0  8.3  0.0  11.1  14.3  4.2  0.0  11.1  0.0  16.7  12.5  33.3  0.0  16.7  37.5  11.1  0.0  4.2  0.0  11.1  0.0  NONE -  12.5  25.0  11.1  0.0  12.5  0.0  22.2  14.3  TOTAL .  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  37.5%  42.9%  55.5%  14.3%  62.5%  57.11%  44.5%  85.7%  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  58.3%  62.5%  33.3%  COMPANY  8.3  0.0  MORTGAGE LOAN CO.  4.2  OTHER  CHARTERED BANK  SMALL e  TRUST  •  RESPONSE RATE  = 96%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  SOURCE.NOT THE SAME  177.  The  l a r g e f i r m s tended t o use  sources  the c h a r t e r e d banks more than  w h i l e the s m a l l e r developers  panies.  r e l i e d more on t r u s t com-  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t none of the l a r g e f i r m s  went without f i r m s and  long-term mortgage funds but  14.3%  22.2%  of medium s i z e d  of s m a l l f i r m s d i d .  Approximately 37%  of a l l f i r m s used f i r s t mortgage and i n t e r i m  f i n a n c i n g from the same l e n d e r . c h a r t e r e d banks.  Over one  Forty-three percent  h a l f of these were w i t h  of l a r g e f i r m s used  same l e n d e r f o r both l o a n s , a l l of which were made w i t h banks.  On  the other hand o n l y 14.3%  same l e n d e r f o r both loan types and t r u s t companies.  The  The  ancing  the t r u s t  the with  distributed here i s  s h o r t term  fin-  ( u s u a l l y the same  the s m a l l f i r m s arrange t h e i r i n t e r i m f i n a n c i n g  w i t h the c h a r t e r e d banks and  t h e i r f i r s t mortgage f i n a n c i n g w i t h  companies.  In the p e r s o n a l ing  t h e i r long and  (where needed) with the c h a r t e r e d banks  lender) w h i l e  chartered  these were a l l arranged  p a t t e r n t h a t i s evidenced  of the l a r g e f i r m s a r r a n g i n g  the  of the s m a l l f i r m s had  medium s i z e d f i r m s were again  amongst a l l the sources. one  other  f i n a n c i n g was  i n t e r v i e w s , developers  not g e n e r a l l y a problem.  revealed that obtainT h i s must be  somewhat as the c u r r e n t poor market c o n d i t i o n and  qualified  corresponding  long a b s o r p t i o n p e r i o d s have caused l e n d e r s to be more c a u t i o u s than i n the p a s t . and  Greater  s c r u t i n y of the borrower's covenant  the p r o j e c t ' s m a r k e t a b i l i t y i s g i v e n b e f o r e the l o a n s  are  approved. 5.4.4  Development Process The  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was  not designed  s p e c i f i c a l l y to  investi-  T A B L E  64  AVERAGE DEVELOPMENT PERIOD (MONTHS)  S T R U C T U R E LOW RISE  HIGH RISE  T Y P E TOWNHOUSE  TOTAL  ALL DEVELOPERS Municipal Approval  5.7  10.0  Construction  9.3  13.2  11.4  11.4  20.8  18.0  18.7  TOTAL Start of Construction to Date of Registration  15.1 7.9  10.8  9.5  7.2  8.4  8.8  179. gate the development process but q u e s t i o n s r e f e r r i n g to t h r e e areas were asked.  These i n c l u d e d the l e n g t h of the development  p e r i o d , the method of i n i t i a t i o n ,  and  the d e v e l o p e r ' s  of  the consumer's p r e f e r e n c e s .  of  developers of m u l t i p l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s r e a d e r s are  to D.D.Ulinder and M.A. The  Goldberg  For a more d e t a i l e d  perception  7  or M.A.  Goldberg  8  examination referred  .  average m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l and c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d s are  shown i n Table 64.  Goldberg  and U l i n d e r c i t e d a major  concern  by d e v e l o p e r s over the long d e l a y s encountered i n the a p p r o v a l 9 process. In a l l i n s t a n c e s the c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d was l o n g e r 4  than t h a t needed to r e c e i v e m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l , but the d i f f e r e n c e was  not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the case o f townhouse and h i g h - r i s e develop-  ments.  R e f e r r i n g back t o Chapter  2, S e c t i o n 2.3.2, townhouse  and  h i g h - r i s e p r o j e c t s , tended, to. be. larger, than, l o w - r i s e developments .... Hence i t i s p o s s i b l e these developments r e q u i r e d r e z o n i n g , l a n d use c o n t r a c t s , or e x t e n s i v e impact for  the l o n g e r a p p r o v a l p e r i o d s .  s t u d i e s , t h e r e f o r e accounting N e v e r t h e l e s s , the  f o r m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l n e a r l y doubled h i g h - r i s e s and The  the development p e r i o d f o r  townhouses.  t a b u l a t i o n of the development p e r i o d by the s i z e of the  f i r m d i d not r e v e a l any did  requirements  systematic d i f f e r e n c e s .  What v a r i a t i o n  e x i s t appeared to be e x p l a i n e d by the type of development  r a t h e r than the s i z e of f i r m . T a b l e 65 t a b u l a t e s the responses ing  the i n i t i a t i o n  f i r m s planned  of the development.  the p r o j e c t f i r s t ,  to the the q u e s t i o n  concern-  T h i r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of the  then s e l e c t an a p p r o p r i a t e  site.  180. The balance r e v e r s e d the p r o c e s s , f i r s t p l a n n i n g the development. Goldberg  The  then  same d i s t r i b u t i o n s were found  i n an e a r l i e r s t u d y . ^  and s m a l l f i r m s (86%)  selecting a site,  by  The m a j o r i t y of l a r g e ( 7 5 % )  s e l e c t e d a s i t e f i r s t then planned  the  p r o j e c t w h i l e the medium s i z e d f i r m s were more e v e n l y s p l i t ween the two p r o c e s s e s .  T h i s i s l i k e l y due  f i r m s c o n s t r u c t i n g mainly to  bet-  t o the medium s i z e  l o w - r i s e p r o j e c t s which do not have  be t a i l o r e d as s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the s i t e as do townhouse and  h i g h - r i s e developments. The  f i n a l q u e s t i o n regarded  the d e v e l o p e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n of  market p r e f e r e n c e s of consumer groups. t u r e s , as p e r c e i v e d by the d e v e l o p e r s , ful  The most important (Table 66,)  fea-  f o r a success-  condominium p r o j e c t aimed at the lower income groups were  low p r i c e , l o c a t i o n , and location).  low down-payment  (or simply p r i c e  For the upper income group the most important  and features  were p e r c e i v e d to be l o c a t i o n , l a y o u t of the u n i t and the s i z e of the u n i t  (or l o c a t i o n and f e a t u r e s of the  unit).  When these r e s u l t s are compared w i t h the most  important  6  reasons  f o r the s e l e c t i o n of the u n i t as i n d i c a t e d by the owners  (Chapter 4, Table 47)  the developers appear t o have a c c u r a t e l y  assessed the d e s i r e s of the lower  income group.  Forty-three  percent o f owners with incomes below $16,000 i n d i c a t e d p r i c e t h e i r most important t i o n as the primary  reason, f o l l o w e d by 26% who reason  indicated  f o r the s e l e c t i o n bf t h e i r u n i t .  the o t h e r hand, the upper income group  (over $24,000 per  showed a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n of primary  reasons  as  locaOn  year)  f o r the  s e l e c t i o n of u n i t s than the p o l a r i z a t i o n i n d i c a t e d by the d e v e l o p e r s .  181.  TABLE  65  METHOD OF DEVELOPMENT  Developer All  firms  Large  Size  Medium  Small  34.8%  25%  57.1%  14.3%  65.2% Select site then plan p r o j e c t  75%  42.9%  85.7%  Plan project then s e l e c t s i t e  Response r a t e  = 9 2% .  182. TABLE  66  DEVELOPERS' PERCEPTION OF CONSUMER PREFERENCE  )  Most i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s f o r lower income g r o u p s : Features  lst  2nd  Total  Size of units  0  1  1  Location  6  5  11  L a y o u t and d e s i g n o f u n i t s  0  4  4  Low downpayment  7  2  9  Low p r i c e  7  7  14  0  1  1  0  0  0  1  2  0  0  Good r e c r e a t i o n a l Good p l a y g r o u n d  facilities  facilities  Good a m e n i t i e s w i t h i n t h e u n i t  1  -  (Dishwasher, c a r p e t s , e t c . ) Other  0  Most i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s f o r h i g h e r income g r o u p s : Features  lst  2nd  Total  Size of units  3  4  7  17  4  21  L a y o u t and d e s i g n o f u n i t s  2  9  11  Low downpayment  0  0  0  0  0  0  Location  Low p r i c e Good r e c r e a t i o n a l Good p l a y g r o u n d  facilities  facilities  Good amemities w i t h i n t h e u n i t  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  4  4  0  0  0  (Dishwasher, c a r p e t s , e t c . ) Other  183. 5.4.5  Condominium Management By Developers One of the more c o n t r o v e r s i a l areas  involvement o f developers projects.  i n the p a s t was the  i n the management of t h e i r  completed  Some of the management c o n t r a c t s were a l l e g e d t o be  very long term and l u c r a t i v e and there are areas where c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t charges may a r i s e i f the developer  i s a l s o the manager.  In response t o these problems the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t was amended t o allow the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n t o c a n c e l any management c o n t r a c t on three months n o t i c e . In g e n e r a l , the developers  surveyed  do not appear t o be  greatly i n t e r e s t e d i n the management of the completed p r o j e c t s . Table for,  67 r e v e a l s t h a t only 8.7% o f a l l f i r m s are s t i l l and p l a n t o continue  responsible  the management o f t h e i r p r o j e c t .  Approximately 70% o f the f i r m s a r e no longer r e s p o n s i b l e and 60% of these managed the p r o j e c t f o r s i x months or l e s s . Considering  the responses by developer  l a r g e r f i r m s have a g r e a t e r p r o p e n s i t y managers.  s i z e i t appears the  f o r c o n t i n u i n g t o a c t as  Approximately 43% of the s m a l l developers  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r management but none p l a n t o c o n t i n u e . of the medium and l a r g e developers ment p l a n t o r e t a i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y . two  still  One-half  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r manage-  One o f these  reasons f o r t h e i r involvement i n management.  profitability  are s t i l l  firms revealed One was i t s  and the other was the f e e l i n g t h a t the long-term  v i a b i l i t y o f the condominium concept depended on the s a t i s f a c t o r y o p e r a t i o n of the e x i s t i n g p r o j e c t s .  They f e l t t h a t t h e i r  property  management d i v i s i o n was best s u i t e d t o ensure the owners' s a t i s f a c tion.  The l a c k of involvement by the s m a l l f i r m probably  is a  TABLE 67 DEVELOPER INVOLVEMENT All  firms.  IN CONDOMINIUM MANAGEMENT  Large 22.2%  (100.0%)  30.4%  (100.0%)  22.2%  - plan to r e l i n q u i s h management  21.7%  (71.4%)  11.1% (50%)  11.1% (50%)  - plan t o continue management  8.7%  (28.6%)  11.1% (50%)  11.1% (50%)  (100.0%)  78.8%  78.8%  S t i l l responsible f o r management  Not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r management  69.6%  (100.%)  Medium  (100.0%)  (100.0%)  Small 42.9%  (100.0%)  42.9%. (100.0%) 0  57.1%  (0%)  (100.0%)  - d u r a t i o n o f management p r i o r t o relinquishing* 0-6  (60.0%)  (33.3%)  (100.0%)  (50.0%)  7-12  (20.0%)  (33.3%)  (0)  (25.0%)  12 +  (20.0%)  (33.3%)  (0)  Response Rate = 96% •Response Rate = 8 3 %  •  (25.0%)  185. r e f l e c t i o n of t h e i r l e s s e r commitment to the administrative 5.4.6  The  capacity  was  to cope w i t h the management  Present S i t u a t i o n and  In Chapter Two, discussed.  Section  I t was  u n i t s they had  the c u r r e n t  43.5%  Of  condition  a large  inven-  are a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n the  Approximately 5 3% of the t o t a l number of  these 56.5%  (1544  of  functions.  poor market  s o f t p r i c e s and  produced s i n c e January 1,  t h e i r ownership. vacant and  2.6,  These c o n d i t i o n s  d e v e l o p e r s ' responses.  a lack  Future E x p e c t a t i o n s  evidenced by  t o r y of u n s o l d u n i t s .  f i e l d and  1975  under  (2004 u n i t s ) were u n s o l d  u n i t s ) were r e n t e d .  pondents d i d not have any  were s t i l l  Only 13%  and  of the  res-  (rented or vacant) u n i t s .  T a b l e 68 d i s p l a y s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e v e l o p e r s having unsold units.  There i s a tendancy f o r the  greater  number of u n i t s vacant or r e n t e d  Approximately 43%  of the  small  i s a l s o a tendancy o f s m a l l  l a r g e d e v e l o p e r s t o have a than do the  f i r m s do not h o l d any  firms holding  discussed  above.  F i r s t , many o f the  p r o j e c t s p r i o r t o the date of the they are  l i k e l y t o be h o l d i n g  definition,  ( J u l y 1977)  Secondly, the  to be  r e p o r t i n g the  tendancy of small  units l i k e l y  and  are  completed therefore Also  by  there-  inventories.  f i r m s t o h o l d vacant r a t h e r  stems from t h e i r i n a b i l i t y ,  units  pattern  unsold u n i t s .  largest  than  firms.  recently  l a r g e f i r m s have produced more u n i t s and  f o r e the most l i k e l y  rented  vacant and  There  the g e n e r a l  f i r m s had  survey  units.  i n the r e n t i n g of  they tend t o r e n t more u n i t s than do the s m a l l e r There are s e v e r a l reasons e x p l a i n i n g  firms.  unsold u n i t s rather  r e n t i n g . Large f i r m s are the more p r e v a l e n t and  smaller  financially,  than to  186.  TABLE  68  DEVELOPERS HAVING UNSOLD UNITS WHICH ARE VACANT Oil RECITED  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  SMALL  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  0  13.0%  0.0%  0.0%  42.9%  17.4%  0.0%  1-25  21.7  0.0  28.6  26.1  37.5  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  NO.OF UNITS  RENTED UNSOLD UNITS  VACANT UNSOLD UNITS  UNSOLD UNITS RENTED OR VACANT  12.5  ' SMA'fJj  ALL • FIRMS  ' LARGE  12.5%  42.9%  69.6%  37.5  28.6  13.0  MEDIUM  MEDIUM  SMALL  62.5%  62.5%  85.7%  12.5  25.0  0.0 14.3  26-50  17.4  0.0  37.5  14.3  17.4  0.0  25.0  28.6  8.7  0.0  12.5  51-100  21.7  25.0  12.5  14.3  17.4  25.0  25.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  101-200  17.4  50.0  0.0  0.0  13.0  37.5  0.0  0.0  4.3  12.5  0.0  0.0  8.7  25.0  0.0  0.0  8.7  25.0  0.0  0.0  4.3-  12.5  0.0  0.0  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  201+  *ROUNDING ERROR RESPONSE RATE = 92%  100%  187. maintain  the excess h o l d i n g c o s t s o f these u n i t s f o r a lengthy  period.  I f one p r o j e c t i s not s u c c e s s f u l i n terms o f s a l e s , these  types o f f i r m s may be f o r c e d out o f b u s i n e s s  and hence would not  appear i n the survey. In l i g h t o f the p a t t e r n s d i s p l a y e d by f i r m s having u n i t s the responses t o the q u e s t i o n concerning interesting  unsold  f u t u r e plans i s  (Table 69). Approximately 42% o f the f i r m s had condo-  minium p r o j e c t s planned f o r the f u t u r e . more l i k e l y t o have p r o j e c t s planned  The l a r g e f i r m s were  (55.6% versus  37.5% o f  medium and 28.6% o f s m a l l firms) and they p l a n more p r o j e c t s p e r firm  (3.0 versus  2.3 and 1.5 f o r medium and s m a l l f i r m s r e s p e c t i v e l y )  than do the other groups.  T h i s perhaps i s . i n d i c a t i v e o f the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f condominium development d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s chapter.  The l a r g e r f i r m s , w i t h g r e a t e r i n t e r n a l  r e s o u r c e s , g r e a t e r involvement and  financial  ( i n terms o f c o r p o r a t e  activities)  l a r g e r overhead expenses which r e q u i r e more continuous  are p l a n n i n g  future projects.  Smaller  firms, with smaller  activity, cash  r e s e r v e s , a l e s s e r c o r p o r a t e emphasis on condominium development, and  g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y i n a d j u s t i n g the l e v e l o f a c t i v i t y ,  appear  to be a w a i t i n g a change i n the c o n d i t i o n s which c u r r e n t l y c h a r a c t e r i z e the condominium market, and housing 5.5.1  markets i n g e n e r a l .  Condominium Management The  S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t allows the management of a p r o j e c t t o  be performed by the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n d i r e c t l y through the s t r a t a c o u n c i l o r i n d i r e c t l y , through a p r o p e r t y management f i r m . l a t t e r case the management f i r m does not a c q u i r e the r i g h t s ,  In the  188. T A B L E  69  DEVELOPMENT FIRMS WITH PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGES (AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY - JULY, 1977)  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  % o f Firms with Projects Planned Average Number Projects Planned per Firm  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  SMALL  41.6%  55.6%  37.5%  28.6%  2.3  3.0  2.3  1.5  188. T A B L E  69 .  DEVELOPMENT FIRMS WITH PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGES (AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY - JULY, 1977)  BY DEVELOPER SIZE  % o f Firms w i t h Projects Planned Average Number Projects Planned per F i r m  ALL FIRMS  LARGE  MEDIUM  SMALL  41.6%  55.6%  37.5%  28.6%  2.3  3.0  2.3  1.5  189. d u t i e s , and powers of the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n but  rather acts  under the d i r e c t i o n o f the c o r p o r a t i o n with the f i n a l d e c i s i o n s remaining  i n t h e i r hands.  As a p o r t i o n of t h i s study,  a  survey  of p r o p e r t y management f i r m s i n v o l v e d i n r e s i d e n t i a l condominium management and The  of r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a c o u n c i l s was  remainder of t h i s chapter p r e s e n t s  s u l t s o f t h i s survey,  data was  a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e -  the methods of enforcement of the by-laws.  Data C o l l e c t i o n and The  Sample S i z e  c o l l e c t e d from q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d  condominium management f i r m s and  to s t r a t a c o u n c i l s .  f i r m s were i d e n t i f i e d by l i s t i n g s i n c l a s s i f i e d i n the Yellow Pages of the telephone and V i c t o r i a and  to  Management  advertisements  d i r e c t o r i e s f o r Vancouver  the s t r a t a c o u n c i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  councils contacted Owners' Survey  out.  f o c u s i n g on a p r e s e n t a t i o n of the major  problems encountered and 5.5.2  carried  Strata  f o r t h i s l a t t e r survey were i d e n t i f i e d by  (Chapter  4).  Through t h i s process i d e n t i f i e d and mailed  the  condominium management f i r m s were  a Property  Managers' Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  Seven-  teen management f i r m s responded t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e - s i x of which were subsequently  interviewed  i n person.  Sixty-four residential  s t r a t a c o u n c i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were completed and the 120  r e t u r n e d out o f  t h a t were d i s t r i b u t e d .  Respondent management f i r m s r e p o r t e d managing a t o t a l of r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s , (21, 218 all  r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s , and  units). 71.9%  This represents  of a l l u n i t s , i n the  50.0%  347 of  strata  p r o j e c t s which c o n t a i n 10 or more u n i t s i n the combined Metro-  190. p o l i t a n Vancouver and  V i c t o r i a areas.  12  T h i s corresponds to  the  r e s u l t s of the r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a c o u n c i l surveys which i n d i c a t e t h a t 43.8%  of the p r o j e c t s were self-managed w h i l e 56.3%  were  managed by p r o f e s s i o n a l management f i r m s . The  proportion  of u n i t s r e p r e s e n t e d i n the management f i r m  sample d i d vary between the Vancouver and V i c t o r i a a r e a s , although i n both areas a l a r g e enough sample was reliable results. managed 301  o b t a i n e d to p r o v i d e  Twelve f i r m s a c t i v e i n the Vancouver area  strata projects  of a l l p r o j e c t s , and  77.0%  (19,466 u n i t s ) r e p r e s e n t i n g of a l l u n i t s , o f . t h e  total residential  projects containing  10 or more u n i t s .  In V i c t o r i a ,  managed 46 p r o j e c t s  (34.1%) c o n t a i n i n g  1,752  There were a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  55.2%  units  f i v e firms (41.3%).  average s i z e of  the  p r o f e s s i o n a l l y managed r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s between the  two  metropolitan  a r e a s , although p r o f e s s i o n a l l y managed p r o j e c t s  were l a r g e r than the  average f o r a l l p r o j e c t s of 10 or more  u n i t s i n both areas.  In Vancouver, the average s i z e of  p r o f e s s i o n a l l y managed p r o j e c t s was  64 u n i t s per  the  project while  the o v e r a l l average f o r p r o j e c t s of 10 or more u n i t s was In V i c t o r i a the  46  units.  average s i z e of p r o f e s s i o n a l l y managed r e s i d e n t i a l  s t r a t a p r o j e c t s was 10 or more u n i t s .  38 u n i t s versus 31 u n i t s f o r a l l p r o j e c t s The  l a r g e r - t h a n - a v e r a g e s i z e of the  s i o n a l l y managed p r o j e c t s r e f l e c t s the  of  profes-  fact that larger  projects  are more s u i t a b l e to be managed p r o f e s s i o n a l l y as economics of s c a l e lower the per  u n i t c o s t , and  the  l a r g e r s i z e r e q u i r e s more  management time than most c o u n c i l s can d i r e c t l y  provide.  191. 5.5.3  Management Firms P r o p e r t y management f i r m s engaged i n management of r e s i d e n -  tial  condominium p r o j e c t s d i s p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t degree of p r i o r  experience  i n r e a l e s t a t e and p r o p e r t y management, o f  condominium p r o p e r t y . p r i o r experience  Only  18% of respondent  non-  managers had  i n these areas; 53% had e x p e r i e n c e  no  i n both  pro-  p e r t y management and other non-management r e a l e s t a t e a c t i v i t i e s , (brokerage,  development, e t c . ) , 6% had p r i o r r e a l e s t a t e  i n areas o t h e r than p r o p e r t y management, and  experience  18% had p r i o r  pro-  p e r t y management experience but had not been a c t i v e i n o t h e r a s p e c t s of r e a l e s t a t e .  Thus, approximately  70 p e r c e n t of the  condominium p r o p e r t y managers have had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e management.  Only  18% of the respondent  i n property  f i r m s were connected  with,  companies which were i n v o l v e d i n the development of condominium projects. P r o p e r t y management f i r m s a l s o demonstrated a h i g h degree o f involvement  with t h e i r c l i e n t s t r a t a c o u n c i l s .  Ninety-four  percent  send a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o each g e n e r a l meeting o f each p r o j e c t they manage, and  seventy percent submit monthly r e p o r t s to t h e i r  clients.  Each of the s i x f i r m s t h a t were c o n t a c t e d through  follow-up  i n t e r v i e w s t a t e d t h a t they r e g u l a r l y i n s p e c t e d each  project  (as o f t e n as once a week), and t h a t they  invited  a  contact  w i t h the s t r a t a c o u n c i l whenever problems arose i n the p r o j e c t . N i n e t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of the p r o p e r t y managers were bonded 13 w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as p r o p e r t y managers. I t i s the p r a c t i c e t h a t the s t r a t a c o u n c i l ' s a c c o u n t i n g  records  192.  MANAGERS PRIOR EXPERIENCE  193. be  k e p t by  records  the  property  manager,  i n 54%  were i n d e p e n d e n t l y a u d i t e d  some managers r e q u i r e d audited  immediately  t h e i r management In  that  the  on  of  347  projects,  a regular  basis.  projects' records  p r i o r to the  initiation  and  be  their  Further,  independently  termination  of  contacts.  a recent  article  i n a l o c a l magazine, c r i t i c i s m  was  14 levelled the  a t condominium p r o j e c t managers.  survey  indicate that  management f i r m s of  operate  Further,  three-quarters  of  management f i r m s  the  as  degree of the  condominium  involvement with  the  with  the  activities  of  cases:  c o n d o m i n i u m management, s u c h p r o b l e m s may  Perhaps m o d i f i c a t i o n s  to  management w o u l d r e d u c e councils  expectations  of  the  Management o f  and  the  strata over  incidence  of  of  property  the  be  Act  managers.  condominium in a field  directly  Strata Titles  expected by  as  and  a l s o be  of  by  investors  with  respect  have b o t h  - the  young  strata councils.  these problems  p e r s o n s who  pro-  i n pro-  to  further:  managers become more f a m i l i a r w i t h  occupied  occupants  these problems w i l l 5.5.4  the  and  management o f p r o p e r t y  of  project  indicated that  p u b l i c i z e d problems of  m a n a g e r s stem f r o m a m i n o r i t y  however, as  results  u n i t owners i n p r o j e c t s managed by  j e c t s managed b o t h u n d e r c o n t r a c t  a)  of  owner's s u r v e y  were s a t i s f i e d  I t would appear t h a t perty  majority  the  i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l manner, b o t h i n t e r m s  b u s i n e s s p r a c t i c e and  corporations.  the  Yet  the  the  owner-occupiers  reduced.  Projects  Budgets: A  1973  Columbia  s t u d y by  R.S.  indicated that,  R o b e r t s on i n the  condominiums  fourteen  in  residential  British condominiums  -  194. t h a t were examined, the m a j o r i t y (57%) had c u r r e n t o p e r a t i n g expenses which were i n excess of the t o t a l common a r e a (or 15 maintenance) charges.  A c c o r d i n g t o the response  i n the  strata  c o u n c i l and p r o j e c t managers surveys c a r r i e d out i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s study, the i n c i d e n c e of such d e f i c i t s i s no l o n g e r as prevalent:  o n l y 8.5%  of the p r o j e c t s covered by these  had d e f i c i e n c i e s between o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s and  surveys  revenues.  T h i s change stems, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , from the i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i ence of both s t r a t a c o u n c i l s and p r o p e r t y management f i r m s . A g r e a t e r (although by no means dramatic)  i n c i d e n c e of  d e f i c i e n c i e s occurs i n the area of contingency r e s e r v e s . approximately  In  18% of the surveyed p r o j e c t s managed by p r o p e r t y  managers and by s t r a t a c o u n c i l s , the a c t u a l s i z e of contingency r e s e r v e s was  below the l e v e l t h a t the s t r a t a c o u n c i l deemed t o  be a p p r o p r i a t e .  In the m a j o r i t y of such cases r e p o r t e d by  p r o p e r t y managers,* t h i s d e f i c i e n c y was p r o j e c t s b e i n g r e l a t i v e l y new,  the r e s u l t of the s u b j e c t  and consequently not h a v i n g y e t  b u i l t the contingency fund t o the d e s i r e d  level.  P a r e n t h e t i c a l l y , d i s c u s s i o n of the adequacy of the a c t u a l l e v e l of contingency r e s e r v e s cannot  c e n t e r simply on  of t h i s amount v i s - a - v i s the d e s i r e d l e v e l .  analysis  The d e s i r e d  of t h i s r e s e r v e i s e s t a b l i s h e d by the s t r a t a c o u n c i l .  level  Consequently,  even i f the d e s i r e d l e v e l i s m a i n t a i n e d , i t w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y be s u f f i c i e n t t o meet the requirements maintenance.  Some respondents  of f u t u r e r e p a i r s  and  to the p r o j e c t managers survey  i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n t h e i r o p i n i o n , some s t r a t a c o u n c i l s had a * S i m i l a r i n f o r m a t i o n was survey.  not a v a i l a b l e from the s t r a t a  council  tendency to underestimate the r e q u i r e d s i z e o f the c o n t i n g e n c y r e s e r v e and, o c c a s i o n a l l y , the o p e r a t i n g budget, i n order t o reduce the l e v e l of monthly owner charges.  Again t h i s appears  to be a problem which w i l l be minimized w i t h i n c r e a s e d e x p e r i e n c e , b)  Major  Problems:  Both p r o p e r t y managers and s t r a t a c o u n c i l s which manage t h e i r own p r o j e c t s , were asked t o rank the problems which were, i n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e , o f g r e a t e s t s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the management of are  r e s i d e n t i a l condominiums: shown on T a b l e s 70 and 71.  the t a b u l a t i o n o f these r a n k i n g s From these responses t h e r e appears  to be two major c l a s s e s of problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h such p r o j e c t s , those which are a f u n c t i o n of the degree of i n t e r p e r s o n a l  contact  which i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d e n s i t y and p h y s i c a l arrangement  of  space i n condominium p r o j e c t s and those which are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the unique, and r e l a t i v e l y new,  form of tenure r e p r e s e n t e d  by condominium ownership. The f i r s t c a t e g o r y o f problems i n c l u d e s the f r e q u e n t l y ment i o n e d problems o f u n c o n t r o l l e d c h i l d r e n and p e t s , and, f r e q u e n t l y , the l e v e l of n o i s e made by o t h e r r e s i d e n t s .  less Such  problems a r e , perhaps, t o be expected i n f a m i l y owned housing which i s b u i l t a t medium and h i g h d e n s i t i e s . and c o n s t r u c t i o n may  While good d e s i g n  somewhat reduce such problems, the u l t i m a t e  s o l u t i o n w i l l be i n the area of t o l e r a n t and r e s p o n s i b l e behaviour on the p a r t of the occupants.  C e r t a i n l y , these problems are not  unique t o condominium p r o j e c t s , as many occupants and owners of r e n t a l r e s i d e n t i a l and owner-occupied s i n g l e - d e t a c h e d will  readily  attest.  properties  196.  T A B L E  70  Ranking_of Most S i g n i f i c a n t Management Problems By Management Firms  Problems  R a n k i n g lst  2nd  3rd  Total  1.  Uncontrolled Children  3  1  1  5  2.  Uncontrolled  4  5  0  9  3.  E x c e s s i v e Noises by Residents  0  1  3  4  4.  Breaches o f By-Laws  4  1  3  8  5.  E d u c a t i n g Owners o f R i g h t s and D u t i e s  4  3  1  8  Collection of Common Expenses  0  1  2  3  7.  L e v e l o f Common P^xpenses  0  1  1  2  8.  Other  2  0  3  6.  Pets  1  197.  T A B L E  71  Ranking o f Most S i g n i f i c a n t Management Problems by S t r a t a C o u n c i l s  R a n k i n g s  Problems  Children  lst  2nd  3rd  Total  4  4  2  10  1.  Uncontrolled  2.  U n c o n t r o l l e d Pets  2  3  3  8  3.  E x c e s s i v e N o i s e by Residents  1  3  2  6  4.  Breaches o f By-Laws  2  2  3  7  5.  E d u c a t i n g Owners o f R i g h t s and D u t i e s  7  2  4  13  6.  C o l l e c t i o n o f Common Expenses  4  3  1  8  7.  L e v e l o f Common Expenses  1  1  1  3  8.  Other  1  9  '  5  3  19 8. One  problem  area which might be expected on the b a s i s of  the owner survey d i d not appear  as a s i g n i f i c a n t problem  to s e l f -  managing s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n s nor t o p r o p e r t y management f i r m s . While both the study by Roberts and the owners' survey c a r r i e d out i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s study  (Chapter 4) i n d i c a t e d a d e f i n -  i t e b i a s a g a i n s t tenants i n condominium p r o j e c t s on the p a r t o f owners, such a b i a s i s not shared by the two respondent i n v o l v e d i n management o f these p r o j e c t s . j e c t managers and 32% o f t h e respondent  groups  Only 29% o f the p r o -  strata councils  indicated  t h a t they had r e c e i v e d more than the average number of complaints against tenants. The  second category o f problems a r e unique t o condominium  projects.  The ' s e l f - r e g u l a t i n g ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s powers o f the  owners through t h e i r s t r a t a c o u n c i l i s , a t . l e a s t. u n t i l w i t h condominium l i v i n g culties.  i s more widespread,  familiarity  bound t o c r e a t e d i f f i -  Thus both managers and e s p e c i a l l y s t r a t a  councils,  e x p e r i e n c e d s i g n i f i c a n t problems i n e d u c a t i n g owners i n the r i g h t s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  F u r t h e r , c o l l e c t i o n o f common  area charges was o f concern, p a r t i c u l a r l y t o s t r a t a who a r e most d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d :  councils  note, however, t h a t the l e v e l  of common area charges was not seen t o be o f s i g n i f i c a n c e by e i t h e r the c o u n c i l o f owners or p r o p e r t y managers. problem  F i n a l l y , the  o f e n f o r c i n g by-laws and t a k i n g a c t i o n where breaches o f  these r e g u l a t i o n s o c c u r r e d was o f s i g n i f i c a n t concern t o both groups of respondents.  As t h i s problem  a c t u a l l y encompasses  both the e d u c a t i o n and c o l l e c t i o n problems, investigation.  i t warranted  further  19 9. c)  By-law Enforcement: Both self-managing  were asked to l i s t  s t r a t a c o u n c i l s and p r o p e r t y managers  the order i n which a p p r o p r i a t e powers were  used i n the enforcement o f by-laws: on Table The  first  72.  the r e s u l t s are t a b u l a t e d  Both groups f o l l o w e s s e n t i a l l y the same  procedure.  step i s to apply moral suasion i n the form of a  of telephone  letter  c a l l a d v i s i n g the o f f e n d i n g occupant or owner of  problem and a s k i n g t h a t i t be c o r r e c t e d . respondents r e p o r t e d t h a t t h i s was  In the m a j o r i t y of  the cases,  the only a c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o  c o r r e c t the problem. I f the c o n t r a v e n t i o n of the r u l e s c o n t i n u e s , *  the  strata  c o u n c i l e x e r c i s e s i t s powers under the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . w i l l r e s u l t i n e i t h e r f i n e s being  l e v i e d or p r i v i l e g e s  the c o m m o n . f a c i l i t i e s being, suspended. order i s s u e d under m u n i c i p a l nuisance c o r r e c t the s i t u a t i o n , dog  impounded).  regarding  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a court by-laws may  ( f o r example, by having  T h i s l a t t e r course  This  be used t o  an u n c o n t r o l l e d  i s seldom f o l l o w e d , as i t  creates substantial hard-feelings. I f the a c t i o n to t h i s l e v e l has not c o r r e c t e d the problem the next  step i s to l e v y f u r t h e r f i n e s , u s u a l l y i n i n c r e a s i n g  amounts.  I f the f i n e s are not p a i d , a l i e n , i n the amount o f  the o u t s t a n d i n g  f i n e p l u s the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f e e s and  r e g i s t r y c o s t s , may  be p l a c e d a g a i n s t the t i t l e  of the  * I f a p r o p e r t y management f i r m i s i n v o l v e d , they w i l l the s t r a t a c o u n c i l f o r a d e c i s i o n as to the subsequent of a c t i o n to be  followed.  land strata  contact course  200 T A B L E  Ranking  o f M e t h o d s Used -  Strata  72  t o E n f o r c e By-Laws  Councils  Method  R a n k i n g 1st  2nd  3rd  4th  21  2  1  0  24  Total  1.  Moral Suasion  2.  Powers u n d e r t h e Strata T i t l e s Act  4  8  0  0  12  Municipal By-Laws  0  2  5  0  7  1  1  1  1  4  3.  4.  Nuisance  Other  Ranking  of. M e t h o d s U s e d - Management  t o E n f o r c e By-Laws Firms  Method  R a n k i n g 1st  1.  Moral  Suasion  2.  Powers under the S t r a t a T i t l e s Act  3.  Municipal By-Laws  4.  Other  Nuisance  2nd  3rd  4 th  Total ... e —  • 1  0  0  15  2  12  0  0  14  0  0  3  1  4  1  0  2  1  4  14  201 lot.  I f the f i n e s are s t i l l  not p a i d the f i n a l step would be  to apply f o r a c o u r t s a l e o f the u n i t t o c o l l e c t the o u t s t a n d i n g charges and thus t o remove the o f f e n d i n g owner. D e s p i t e the v a r i o u s means t o enforce the by-laws, s e v e r a l managers complained they were not e f f e c t i v e o r are n o t pursued beyond the moral s u a s i o n l e v e l even when the problem i s not corrected.  O f t e n , by the time s t r o n g a c t i o n i s taken t o c o r r e c t  the problem, s e v e r a l months had passed and the o f f e n c e may have occurred repeatedly.  T h i s causes s i g n i f i c a n t h a r d s h i p s  owners, sometimes r e s u l t i n g  i n them l e a v i n g the p r o j e c t .  f o r othe The  enforcement methods p e r se were n o t c r i t i c i z e d , but r a t h e r the r e l e c t a n c e on the p a r t o f the s t r a t a c o u n c i l t o e x e r c i s e these powers.  202 .  Footnotes 1.  The l i n k i n g of names of s u b s i d i a r i e s and m u l t i p l e development f i r m s w i t h the same p r i n c i p a l s would be p o s s i b l e i f a d e t a i l e d examination o f the r e g i s t e r o f companies was made but time and budget c o n s t r a i n t s d i d not make t h i s p o s s i b l e .  2.  I d e n t i f i e d d e v e l o p e r s ' a c t i v i t i e s accounted percentages of a c t i v i t y  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  i n the p r o v i n c e : T O T A L  3. 4.  Units  Projects  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver  99.0%  95.4%  Metropolitan V i c t o r i a  00.9%  99.3%  Rest o f P r o v i n c e 7 7 . 7 % 76.9% S i m i l a r d i f f i c u l t y was encountered by Hamilton and Roberts, 197 3, i n t h e i r attempt t o i n v e s t i g a t e condominium d e v e l o p e r s . Surveyed d e v e l o p e r s ' a c t i v i t y accounted f o r the f o l l o w i n g percentages o f a c t i v i t y i n the p r o v i n c e : TO  T A E  Units  Projects  32.9%  13.5%  14.7%  5.9%  Rest o f P r o v i n c e  3.9%  1.1%  T o t a l - Province  23.9%  8.6%  M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver Metropolitan V i c t o r i a  •  5.  C h a r t e r e d banks and t r u s t companies p r o v i d e d 27% and 39% of the funds f o r a l l r e s i d e n t i a l mortgage l o a n s i n 1976 i n B r i t i s h Columbia r e s p e c t i v e l y . Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , Ottawa, 1976, T a b l e 36, P. 30.  6.  Revealed i n an i n f o r m a l survey of f i f t e e n l e n d e r s and brokers i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  7.  Goldberg, M.A., and U l i n d e r , D.D., " R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behaviour: 1975", Housing: I t ' s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, T h e U r b a n Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y o f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976.  203. 8.  Goldberg, M.A., R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behaviour: Some E m p i r i c a l F i n d i n g s , F a c u l t y o f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia.  9.  Goldberg, M.A.,  and U l i n d e r , D.D., op. c i t . , P. 295.  10.  Goldberg, M.A.,  op. c i t . , P. 24.  11.  S t a t u t e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966, Chapter 46, New S.B.C. 1974, C. 89. S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t , S e c t i o n 10.  12.  During the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the management r e v e a l e d t h a t the p r o j e c t s managed by the almost e x c l u s i v e l y o f a t l e a s t 10 u n i t s . f o r e f e l t t h a t a comparison on t h i s b a s i s most meaningful. The sample covers 20.5% and 5 8.9% of a l l u n i t s i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n  13.  Firms t h a t were a c t i v e i n non-condominium p r o p e r t y management which i n v o l v e d an agency f u n c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o l e a s i n g , are r e q u i r e d t o be l i c e n s e d under the Real E s t a t e A c t , a l l s t a t e d t h a t bonding was a requirement o f good business p r a c t i c e .  14.  S a g i , Douglas, "Mondo Condo (A Man's Home May be H i s Hassle.)", Vancouver Magazine, V o l . 10, No. 3, March 1977, pp. 36-39.  15.  Roberts, R.S., Condominium Housing i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, u n p u b l i s h e d t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973, p. 86.  f i r m s i t was f i r m s were I t was t h e r e would be the of a l l p r o j e c t s areas.  204.  Chapter  Six Condominiums:  Unique Features  and  Special Considerations 6.1  T a x a t i o n of Condominiums Condominiums are g e n e r a l l y t r e a t e d as any o t h e r r e a l p r o p e r t y  for  t a x a t i o n purposes,  however some p e c u l i a r i t i e s do a r i s e .  This  s e c t i o n w i l l h i g h l i g h t the d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the r e a l p r o p e r t y a t i o n and a)  f o r the income t a x a t i o n treatment  Real P r o p e r t y  tax-  of condominiums.  Taxation  Under the Assessment A c t any  r e a l property i s assessed at i t s  " a c t u a l v a l u e " and t h i s v a l u e i s d i v i d e d between the l a n d the improvements  ( S e c t i o n 24, Assessment A c t ) .  a wide d i s c r e t i o n on the d e t e r m i n i n g  the  The A c t p r o v i d e s f o r  f a c t o r s a p p l i c a b l e to the  " a c t u a l v a l u e " but i n p r a c t i c e i t i s u s u a l l y the " f a i r market value."  To separate the a c t u a l value i n t o the l a n d and  ment p o r t i o n s the " l a n d r e s i d u a l approach" i s used.  improve-  This  proced-  ure i s no d i f f e r e n t f o r condominiums than any o t h e r type of r e a l property. sources:  The problems c o n c e r n i n g condominiums a r i s e from t h r e e f i r s t , the c o n v e r s i o n of e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s t o s t r a t a  u n i t s , secondly, the treatment s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n s and  of the common f a c i l i t i e s of the  finally,  the l e v e l of s e r v i c e t h a t i s  r e c e i v e d f o r the taxes p a i d . Upon c o n v e r s i o n of an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g to a s t r a t a p r o j e c t a re-assessment i s performed under S u b s e c t i o n 24 the Assessment A c t .  (6)  (b)  ( i i i ) of  T h i s i n c l u d e s b u i l d i n g s t h a t e x i s t e d a t the  time of the assessment " f r e e z e " which f i x e d the assessed value  as  205. t h a t o f t h e 1974 a s s e s s m e n t r o l l . cant  because i t w i l l  Firstly, 1974  rolls.  value the in  This  rolls  now w i l l  likely  factor will  of the s t r a t a  any i n c r e a s e  f o r two  t h a n t h a t on t h e  S e c o n d l y , b u t more  i n the level  similar  be g r e a t e r  importantly, than  be i n c r e a s e d .  i t s value  This  of services provided  s i t u a t i o n . e x i s t s where a s t r a t a  The a s s e s s e d  value  is still  u n i t ' s condominium v a l u e ,  the  taxation w i l l  under a s i n g l e The  x  title  by t h e  u n i t s ' share  strata  not t h e i r  the value  r e n t a l value.  Generally,  t h a n i f i t h a d been  i n t h e common a r e a s  l o t by v i r t u e o f S e c t i o n  u n i t s ' share  p r o j e c t i s being  i s included  i n the value  33 o f t h e S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t .  sale p r i c e or f a i r  market v a l u e  any a d j u s t m e n t n e c e s s a r y  o f t h e common a r e a s .  determined.  This  to  strata  strata  There a r e however, s t r a t a  l o t , or a separate  c o r p o r a t i o n has p u r c h a s e d .  VR 120, A r b u t u s V i l l a g e , an The  adjacent  piece  l e a s e payments i n c l u d e  a share  reflect  F o r example,  to the s t r a t a of the r e a l  included  projects T h e y may  of property  the r e c r e a t i o n a l centre  b u i l d i n g and i s l e a s e d  of the  i s implicitly  where t h e a m m e n i t i e s do n o t f o r m p a r t o f common a r e a s . a separate  built  f o rr e n t a l purposes.  u n i t s may be u s e d w i t h o u t  the  results  c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f  t h e r e f o r e be g r e a t e r  T h i s means t h e e x p e c t e d  be  reasons.  soon be e l i m i n a t e d when t h e c u r r e n t  lot will  the  in  is signifi-  dollars.  rented.  the  be g r e a t e r  l e a s e h o l d and hence t h e t a x w i l l  A  of  the tax l i a b i l i t y  are put i n t o use.  u n i t value  without tax  the value  increase  The r e - a s s e s s m e n t  Strata  which Plan  i s located i n corporation."'"  property  taxes.  206. As the c e n t r e i s not p a r t of the s t r a t a p r o j e c t , i t i s taxed separately.  In t h e o r y , t h i s w i l l not cause any i n e q u a l i t y i n  the l e v e l o f t a x a t i o n because i f the r e c r e a t i o n a l c e n t r e were p a r t o f the p r o j e c t , i t would be c a p i t a l i z e d i n t o the value of the s t r a t a l o t s , t h e r e f o r e i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r v a l u e and hence, taxes.  In p r a c t i c e , the market may or may not r e c o g n i z e the  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l o f common area charges, p r o p e r t y  taxes,  and v a l u e o f the a s s e t s o f the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n and a d j u s t the p r i c e a c c o r d i n g l y . The  f i n a l problem f a c i n g condominiums i s the equating o f  s e r v i c e w i t h the l e v e l o f taxes t o produce a " f a i r " r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r types o f p r o p e r t y .  return i n  I t has a l r e a d y been shown  t h a t the c o n v e r s i o n o f an e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g t o a s t r a t a p r o j e c t can r e s u l t i n h i g h e r taxes without of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d .  any improvement i n the l e v e l  In the eyes of t h e t a x i n g a u t h o r i t i e s ,  no i n e q u a l i t y e x i s t s as a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y i s assessed on the basis of i t s actual value. An a d d i t i o n a l problem occurs i n i n s t a n c e s o f s t r a t a  develop-  ments t h a t have e x t e n s i v e roadways w i t h i n t h e i r boundaries, t i c u l a r l y , b a r e l a n d , support townhouse p r o j e c t s .  par-  s t r u c t u r e s , s i n g l e detached or  F i r s t , a l l the common f a c i l i t i e s  including  the roadways, sewer p i p e and water pipe are i n s t a l l e d by the developer  and presumably the c o s t s a r e i n c l u d e d i n the p r i c e  of the u n i t s .  Secondly,  w i t h i n the p r o j e c t , some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  w i l l not p r o v i d e the same s e r v i c e s as t o those p r o p e r t i e s f r o n t i n on m u n i c i p a l roads.  F o r example, snow removal and garbage  t i o n w i t h i n the p r o j e c t may be l e f t  collec  t o the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n t o  207.  provide.  The s t r a t a l o t owners are t h e r e f o r e paying taxes on the  same b a s i s as other  property  owners but are r e c e i v i n g a lower  q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e .  b)  Income Tax - Owners Condominiums  are t r e a t e d i n the same manner as s i n g l e f a m i l y  detached d w e l l i n g s ple residences. ded  f o r the purposes of c l a s s i f y i n g them as p r i n c i -  The u n i t ' s share i n the common p r o p e r t y  is inclu-  as p a r t o f the condominium and hence r e c e i v e s the same t r e a t -  ment.  One p o i n t t h a t should  be noted f o r those t h a t i n t e n d t o  purchase a u n i t t h a t w i l l be rented owners w i l l occupy the u n i t .  u n t i l a l a t e r date when the  A t the date the u n i t ceases t o be  r e n t a l and becomes owner occupied  a change i n use o c c u r s .  When  t h i s happens there i s a deemed s a l e and repurchase a t f a i r market value c)  and a c a p i t a l g a i n s  Income Tax Condominiums  tax l i a b i l i t y may  result.  Investors have f a c i l i t a t e d the involvement of s m a l l  i n v e s t o r s i n the r e a l e s t a t e market by a l l o w i n g p o r t i o n s of b u i l d i n g t o be purchased r a t h e r than the e n t i r e p r o j e c t .  The  demand has been a c c e l e r a t e d by the r a p i d l y r i s i n g p r i c e s of r e a l e s t a t e i n the 1970's, the exemption of new r e n t a l u n i t s from the r e n t r e s t r i c t i o n s under the L a n d l o r d and  and Tenant A c t ,  the p r o v i s i o n f o r d e d u c t i n g r e n t a l l o s s e s from other  for Class  31 arid 32 b u i l d i n g s .  Developers have a l s o been f o r c e d  i n t o the i n v e s t o r c a t e g o r y i n some cases, absorption  r a t e causing  income  as a r e s u l t o f the slow  the u n i t s to be r e n t e d .  The r u l e s  i n g to i n v e s t o r s i n g e n e r a l w i l l be examined, then the  apply-  developers'  208 *  s i t u a t i o n w i l l be The  considered.  f i r s t p o i n t to note i s t h a t where the p r o p e r t y i s h e l d  by an i n d i v i d u a l , the income r e c e i v e d i s c l a s s i f i e d as  "passive  income" u n l e s s e x t e n s i v e s e r v i c e s are p r o v i d e d i n connection w i t h the p r o p e r t y .  P a s s i v e income i s "taxed immediately  h i g h r a t e of 46% p l u s the excess  at the  of the p r o v i n c i a l r a t e over  2 10%."  S i m i l a r l y , i f the p r o p e r t y  income d e r i v e d w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d n e c e s s a r i l y a c t i v e business again p r o v i d e d .  i s h e l d by a c o r p o r a t i o n , the as business income but  income u n l e s s e x t e n s i v e s e r v i c e s are  Only a c t i v e b u s i n e s s  income q u a l i f i e s f o r the  s m a l l b u s i n e s s d e d u c t i o n which p r o v i d e s f o r the reduced o f 21% on the f i r s t The  not  tax r a t e  $100,000 o f income.  onerous t a x a t i o n of r e n t a l income does not d e t e r i n v e s t -  ment as much of the revenue i s w r i t t e n - o f f a g a i n s t the c o s t allowance  claimed.  capital  Of p a r t i c u l a r importance i s the p r o v i s i o n  for c l a s s i f y i n g m u l t i p l e - u n i t r e s i d e n t i a l buildings constructed between November 18,  1974  depreciable properties.  and January 1, 1976  as C l a s s 31 and  Such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l l o w s  l o s s e s , c r e a t e d by the c a p i t a l c o s t allowance  claimed  of net income, t o be deducted from other income.  32  taxable i n excess  T h i s does not  apply t o any o t h e r t a x a t i o n c l a s s e s of r e a l p r o p e r t y except  where  they are h e l d by a r e a l e s t a t e c o r p o r a t i o n or a r e a l e s t a t e p a r t nership. Condominiums posed a s m a l l c o m p l i c a t i o n as t o whether they constituted a "multiple family r e s i d n e t i a l b u i l d i n g " e s p e c i a l l y where o n l y one  was  owned.  Interpretation Bulletin  IT-304  f i e d the s i t u a t i o n by s t a t i n g t h a t each u n i t i s c l a s s i f i e d the b u i l d i n g i t s e l f would be c l a s s i f i e d  clarias  i f i t were not d i v i d e d  209. into strata lots.  Further  b u i l d i n g are owned by  where two  or more u n i t s i n the same  the same taxpayer they are c l a s s i f i e d  a s i n g l e b u i l d i n g with a s i n g l e c a p i t a l c o s t . the taxpayer's h o l d i n g s  disposed  of and  gain, recapture,  If a portion  are s o l d h i s a d j u s t e d  consequently h i s c a p i t a l c o s t i s apportioned  c o s t base  of  and  between the  part  the p a r t r e t a i n e d f o r determining h i s c a p i t a l or t e r m i n a l l o s s .  Condominiums b u i l t on  leased  land can be c a t e g o r i z e d  d e p r e c i a t i o n purposes under s e v e r a l c l a s s e s . acquires  as  the u n i t a f t e r 1975  for  Where an owner  the b u i l d i n g p o r t i o n of the purchase  p r i c e i s c l a s s i f i e d as C l a s s 3 or 6.  Where the b u i l d i n g q u a l i f i e s  under C l a s s 31 or 32 the u n i t i s t r e a t e d i n the same manner. any  other  case the c a p i t a l c o s t i s d e p r e c i a t e d  under C l a s s  which i s the normal treatment of b u i l d i n g s s i t u a t e d on  In  13  leased  lands. For the purpose of determining the c a p i t a l c o s t allowance a l l o c a t i o n between the 4 and  land and  b u i l d i n g must be made.  5 of I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n IT-304 apply  quoted i n  and  an  Paragraphs  have been  full.  "For c a p i t a l c o s t allowance purposes, where a u n i t or s t r a t a l o t i n c l u d e s l a n d , the u s u a l a l l o c a t i o n of c o s t between land and b u i l d i n g i s r e q u i r e d to be made. T h i s might a r i s e , f o r example, where a ground f l o o r apartment i n c l u d e s an outdoor p a t i o , or where a row-type condominium u n i t i n c l u d e s a f r o n t or back yard which i s not p.art of the common p r o p e r t y . " "Where a u n i t or s t r a t a l o t i s purchased, the purchaser a c q u i r e s an u n d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t i n the common elements or p r o p e r t y appurtenant to such u n i t or l o t . To the extent t h a t the common elements or p r o p e r t y i n c l u d e l a n d , a l l o c a t i o n of c o s t between the u n d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t i n such land and the i n t e r e s t i n the b u i l d i n g or b u i l d i n g s i s a l s o r e q u i r e d to be made. The c o s t of a c q u i s i t i o n of the u n d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t i n the common areas of the b u i l d i n g or b u i l d i n g s i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the d e s c r i p t i o n or p l a n , or the owner's p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of any c a p i t a l e x p e n d i t u r e s made thereon, forms p a r t of the c a p i t a l c o s t of the b u i l d i n g p o r t i o n of h i s u n i t or l o t . "  210.  Developers  who  are f o r c e d or choose to r e n t condominiums  t h a t were o r i g i n a l l y intended f o r s a l e f a c e two  s p e c i a l problems.  Firstly,  f o r the  a taxpayer's  i n v e n t o r y i s not e l i g i b l e  of c a p i t a l c o s t allowances  a c c o r d i n g t o R e g u l a t i o n 1102  o f the f e d e r a l Income Tax A c t .  deduction (1)  (b)  However,  " I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n IT-128 s t a t e s t h a t a taxpayer w i l l normally be allowed t o t r e a t income p r o d u c i n g p r o p e r t y f o r tax purposes i n the same manner as he handles h i s a c c o u n t i n g That i s , c a p i t a l c o s t allowance to c a p i t a l  w i l l be d e d u c t a b l e  on  conversion  property.  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n IT-102 d e a l s w i t h the c o n v e r s t i o n of i n v e n t o r y to or from c a p i t a l p r o p e r t y , i n n e i t h e r case i s t h e r e a deemed d i s p o s i t i o n .  Where the c o n v e r s i o n i s from i n v e n t o r y t o  c a p i t a l p r o p e r t y the o r i g i n a l c a p i t a l c o s t i s e q u a l t o a l l the o u t l a y s t h a t are reasonably those c u r r e n t l y d e d u c t a b l e .  a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e p r o p e r t y other However, these c o s t s are l i m i t e d  than to  those a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d and do not i n c l u d e a p r o v i s i o n f o r p r o f i t Where the c o n v e r s i o n i s r e v e r s e d , c a p i t a l p r o p e r t y becoming i n v e n t o r y , the f a i r market value a t the date of c o n v e r s i o n  will  be the c o s t of i n v e n t o r y f o r the purpose of the t r a d i n g p r o f i t . However " i n c a l c u l a t i n g the g a i n or l o s s on the d i s p o s i t i o n of the p r o p e r t y under s u b s e c t i o n 40(1) ( d e f i n i t i o n o f taxpayer's c a p i t a l g a i n or l o s s ) the a d j u s t e d c o s t base. . . i s based on the o r i g i n a l a c t u a l c o s t of the p r o p e r t y and not i t s f a i r market value a t the date of c o n v e r s i o n . To the e x t e n t t h a t the g a i n or l o s s as c a l c u l a t e d under s u b s e c t i o n 40(1) has been i n c l u d e d i n computing the b u s i n e s s income of the taxpayer, the amount so i n c l u d e d reduces the c a p i t a l g a i n or on the d i s p o s i t i o n pursuant t o s u b s e c t i o n 39(1) ( d e f i n i t i o n of the meaning of c a p i t a l g a i n ) . " 4  211. The  second problem t h a t f a c e s the developer i s whether the  income r e c e i v e d from the r e n t a l s i s c l a s s i f i e d income, and hence e l i g i b l e whether i t i s merely  as a c t i v e  business  f o r the s m a l l b u s i n e s s d e d u c t i o n , o r  b u s i n e s s income.  Normally  d e r i v e income from d e v e l o p i n g and s e l l i n g  c o r p o r a t i o n s which  r e a l e s t a t e are c a r r y i n g  on an a c t i v e b u s i n e s s and have a c t i v e b u s i n e s s income; r e n t a l income i s not a c t i v e b u s i n e s s income however..  A c c o r d i n g t o the  r u l i n g handed down i n the G r a n i t e Apartment L t d . v MNR,  75 DTC 14 0,  " . . . r e n t a l income earned on p r o p e r t y h e l d f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f time ( i s ) a c t i v e income because the p a t t e r n of the taxpayer's a c t i v i t i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i s business c o n s i s t e d o f d e v e l o p i n g and s e l l i n g r e a l e s t a t e . Furthermore,  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n IT-72R2 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a  developer need not be p a r t i c u l a r l y a c t i v e i n each t a x a t i o n year i n o r d e r t o be regarded as having earned The  a c t i v e income.  end r e s u l t i s t h a t t h e r e n t a l income w i l l  classified  l i k e l y be  as a c t i v e b u s i n e s s income so long as i t does not  p e r s i s t f o r g r e a t e r than a " s h o r t p e r i o d , " p r o b a b l y one t a x a t i o n year.  I f the r e n t i n g c o n t i n u e s the income may l o s e i t s " a c t i v e "  d e s i g n a t i o n and the taxpayer w i l l face a reassessment previous year. d)  0  Income Tax - Developers The  for  f o r the  t a x a t i o n of condominium developments i s the same as t h a t  any other p r o p e r t y type.  I t can be c o m p l i c a t e d however, i n  cases of phased developments where e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o s t s a r e i n c u r r e d i n one phase but w i l l b e n e f i t a l l phases.  I f the c o s t s are a l l o -  cated o n l y t o the one stage i t w i l l r e s u l t i n a lower  income i n  those years and higher incomes i n the years o f the other phases.  212. The  high  i n c o m e s may e x c e e d t h e $100,000 l i m i t  small business  deduction  which would  result  applicable tothe  i n a greater tax being  paid. The  federal  deals with  this  Income T a x A c t o r any I n t e r p r e t a t i o n B u l l e t i n situation  b u t a study  suggested:  "That a p o r t i o n o f the c o s t which b e n e f i t s the l a t e r p h a s e s o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d be a l l o c a t e d t o t h o s e . . phases t h a t w i l l e v e n t u a l l y r e c e i v e the b e n e f i t s therefrom" If  t h i s were done a n d t h e l a t e r  p h a s e s were n o t c o n s t r u c t e d o r  t h e r e were c o s t o v e r r u n s  a r e - a s s e s s m e n t w o u l d h a v e t o be made.  Similarly,  facilities  i f t h e common  p h a s e s an a l l o c a t i o n ations  adjusted  were c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e l a t e r  w o u l d be made t o t h e i n i t i a l  p h a s e s any d e v i -  f o r by t h e r e - a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e p r e v i o u s  year(s)  taxes.  6'. 2  Conversion During  o f R e n t a l Apartments  197 3 a s i g n i f i c a n t  a p a r t m e n t s were c o n v e r t e d of  a severe  couver,  shortage  lems f o r t h o s e vincial  r  controversy  arose  t o condominiums.  of rental  0.3% i n V i c t o r i a )  t o Condominiums'  apartments  T h i s was a t a (0.4% v a c a n c y  and t h e r e f o r e c a u s e d  d i s p l a c e d by s u c h  action.  of the municipal  council  before  such  time  i n Van-  significant  In response,  g o v e r n m e n t ammended t h e S t r a t a T i t l e s  approval  as some r e n t a l  prob-  the pro-  A c t to require the a conversion  could  7  take  place.  require of  The L a n d l o r d  f o u r months n o t i c e t o t h e e x i s t i n g  relocation  The  only  tenant  e x p e n s e s t o a maximum o f $ 3 0 0 .  c h a n g e s made s u b s e q u e n t  tained  and T e n a n t A c t was a l s o c h a n g e d t o  conversions  These  significantly  r e c o r d o f t h e number o f c o n v e r s i o n s  by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  involved.  Table  and t h e payment legislative  more  difficult.  a r e those  main-  73 r e p r e s e n t s t h e  number of p l a n s and u n i t s a u t h o r i z e d by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s " i n each year.  Those m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t h a t are not r e p r e s e n t e d have  not approved any able.  The  impact  c o n v e r s i o n s or d i d not have the r e c o r d s of the requirement  of m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l  been a major o b s t a c l e to c o n v e r s i o n s . (Burnaby and New  availhas  Several municipalities  Westminster) r e p o r t e d to have e s t a b l i s h e d a  moretorium on c o n v e r s i o n s while V i c t o r i a w i l l not a l l o w  any  c o n v e r s i o n s so long as the apartment vacancy r a t e remains below 3%.  O v e r a l l o n l y 10 p r o j e c t s (225 u n i t s ) have been converted  a f t e r the requirement (1974-76) versus The  38  f o r m u n i c i p a l a p p r o v a l was  instigated  (963 u n i t s ) from 1971-73.  number of c o n v e r s i o n s of r e n t a l apartments t o condomin-  iums s h o u l d remain very l i m i t e d i n the f u t u r e .  This i s a result  of c o n t i n u e d government r e s t r i c t i o n s , the c u r r e n t oversupply new  condominiums, and the proposed removal of r e n t a l i n c r e a s e  r e s t r i c t i o n s under the L a n d l o r d and Tenant Act The  of  l a t t e r two  (Bill  87,  1977).  c o n d i t i o n s w i l l b r i n g the r e l a t i v e economic values  of r e n t a l apartments and condominiums c l o s e r t o g e t h e r and hence remove much of the s t i m u l u s f o r c o n v e r s i o n .  Where the economic  r a t i o n a l f o r c o n v e r s i o n has not been e l i m i n a t e d , the governmental restrictions will 6.3  l i k e l y thwart  any  conversion  attempt.  Support  Structures  Support  s t r u c t u r e s are condominium p r o j e c t s where the u n i t s  c o n s i s t of an area of l a n d r a t h e r than a p a r t of b u i l d i n g . v i r t u e of s u b s e c t i o n 3(4)(6)  By  of the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t the boun-  d a r i e s as l a i d out on the h o r i z o n t a l p l a n are deemed to v e r t i c a l l y upward and downward without  limit.  extend  The most common  TABLE 73 . CONVERSIONS TO CONDOMINIUMS:  BRITISH COLUMBIA  .1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total ProProProPro~• nUnit -i.P r o " Unit r, -4.P r c ~ r, Unit Unit Unit Unit ... Unit ject ject ject ject Unit ject ject ject ject 7 119 14 305 6 114 3 51 4 2 63 109 1 2 37 763P r o  Land Registry Areas 1. Metropolitan Vancouver LRO 2. Balance Vancouver LRO 3. T o t a l Vancouver LRO 4. Metropolitan New Westminster LRO 5. Balance New Westminster LRO 6. T o t a l New Westminster LRO 7. T o t a l Metropolitan Vancouver Area (1+4) 8. Metropolitan V i c t o r i a LRO 9. Balance V i c t o r i a LRO 10. T o t a l V i c t o r i a LRO 11. A l l Metropolitan Areas (1+4+8) 12. Kamloops C i t y 13. Kelowna 14. Vernon 15. Penticton 16. Balance Kamloops LRO 17. T o t a l Kamloops LRO 18. Nelson LRO 19. Prince George LRO 20. Prince Rupert LRO 21. Grand T o t a l :  B.C.  0 7 0  0 119 0  0 14  0 0 7  0 3  0 51  0 4  2  0 114 49  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  19  2  49  0  0  0  0  15  324  8  163  3  51  3  136  5  221  8  357  0 221 384  0 .8  0 357  0 6  1  0 305 19  0  0  0 119  . 7 119  0 3 18  0 136 460  0 5 13  .3  51  0 63  0 2  2  . 4  63  2  0 109  109  109  0 1  1  . 1  0  0 2  2  2  Xti—  0 Pxi  3  68  0  0  3  68  40  48  831  1.188  •  7  119  18  460  13  384  3  51  4  63  2  109  1  2  48  . 1188  215.  usage of t h i s type of development i s i n mobile home parks where the t r a i l e r pads are s o l d as separate u n i t s and the roadways o t h e r common f a c i l i t i e s estimated  are owned i n common.  and  In t o t a l i t i s  t h e r e are 52 b a r e - l a n d s t r a t a p l a n s i n the p r o v i n c e  comprising  1509  units.  P r i o r to B i l l  70  ( S t r a t a T i t l e s Amendment A c t , 1977) which  w i l l be r e t r o a c t i v e t o June 24, 1977, a s t r a t a p l a n s u p p l y i n g o n l y support designated  s t r u c t u r e s d i d not r e q u i r e the a p p r o v a l of the  approving o f f i c e r i n the area b e f o r e  registration.  T h i s r e s u l t e d because the s e c t i o n of the Act t h a t r e q u i r e d the approvals be r e c e i v e d ( s e c t i o n s 4 and 5) r e f e r r e d o n l y t o new b u i l d i n g s , phased s t r a t a p l a n s , or the c o n v e r s i o n of the e x i s t ing  buildings.  The l o o p h o l e allowed some d e v e l o p e r s  t o "circum-  g  vent m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g departments"  and r e g i o n a l b u i l d i n g  r e s t r i c t i o n s by c r e a t i n g s u b d i v i s i o n s under the S t r a t a T i t l e s Act.  Bill  70 e l i m i n a t e s t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y by  specifically  r e q u i r i n g a p p r o v a l o f the support s t r u c t u r e p l a n p r i o r t o r e g i s t ration. T a b l e 74 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of support a r e a and year.  Only 13.4% of the p r o j e c t s and 3.2% o f the u n i t s  are l o c a t e d i n the major m e t r o p o l i t a n areas. s m a l l developments averaging for  the p r o v i n c e .  more support  s t r u c t u r e s by  These are a l s o  6.8 u n i t s per p r o j e c t versus  The Kamloops  Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e  s t r u c t u r e condominiums  29.0  contained  than any o t h e r a r e a , rep-  r e s e n t i n g 42% of the p l a n s and 3 6 % of the u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e . In order to p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t i n t o the use of the condominium  concept  i n support  s t r u c t u r e p r o j e c t s the documents  TABLE 74 SUPPORT STRUCTURE CXMX3MINIUMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  Land Registry Areas  1975 Project Units  3  1. Metropolitan Vancouver LRO 2. Balance Vancouver LRO 3.  Total Vancouver LRO  31  1977 Project Units 2  9  Total Project Units 5  40  2  112  7  200  9  312  5  143  9  209  14  352  4. Metropolitan New Westminster LRO  0  0  0  0  0  0  5.  Balance New Westminster LRO  1  157  0  0  1  157  6.  Total New Westminster LRO  1  157  0  0  1  157  7. Total Metropolitan Vancouver Area (1+4)  3  31  2  9  5  40  8. Metropolitan V i c t o r i a LRO  0  2  8  2  8 271  o •-  Balance Victoria LRO  4  195  7  760  11  10.  Total Victoria LRO  4  195  9  840  13  279  11.  A l l Metropolitan Areas (1+4+8)  3  31  4  17  7  48  12.  Kamloops City  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  13.  Kelowna  0  0  2  6  0  0  2  6  15  1  15  9.  '  1976 Project Units  14.  Vernon  0  15.  Penticton  1  0 4  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  4  177  9  320  18  517  183  10  335  22  542  0  0  0  0  1  79  1  79  1  100  0  16.  Balance Kamloops LRO  1  20  8  17.  Total Kamloops LRO  2  24  10  18. Nelson LRO 19. 20. 21.  Prince George LRO Prince Rupert LRO Grand Total B.C.  2  24  20  678  1  100  30  807  52 1509  %  Project Units  of a l a r g e s t r a t a mobile home park were examined.  The o n l y  unusual a s p e c t s of the by-laws were amendments which  restricted  the s i z e o f mobile homes (450 square f e e t ) , the minimum l e n g t h of mobile homes (11 f e e t ) , a minimum c o n s t r u c t i o n standard l e n t t o the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code or standard and  6  •  (equiva-  prefabrication)  a setback requirement.  4  Non-Residential  Condominiums  Non-residential  condominiums a r e r e g i s t e r e d and operated i n  the same manner as r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s - only the use of the property  i sdifferent.  The Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e s do n o t separate  n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l s t r a t a plans them i n t h e i r c a t a l o g u e s .  from the others  nor do they index  The only means o f i d e n t i f y i n g the use  i s the examination of each s e t o f s t r a t a p l a n s . not  Since  i t is  j^otr^  always p o s s i b l e t o determine t h e use from the p l a n s , the  number of n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d must be taken as a minimum r a t h e r than a p r e c i s e count, the margin o f e r r o r however, would appear t o be very low. The 75.  completely n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s a r e shown i n Table  There were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d  5 p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g 49 u n i t s  which were p a r t i a l l y n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l , a l l of which were l o c a t e d i n the C i t y of Vancouver.  Of those p r o j e c t s which were  strictly  n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l , 31 were warehouses and 11 were commercial. first  The  s t r i c t l y n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p l a n r e g i s t e r e d i n the p r o v i n c e 3  was  i n May, 1971 i n Kelowns  c o n s i s t i n g of 3 u n i t s .  (Kamloops Land R e g i s t r y  Office),  The f i r s t one r e g i s t e r e d i n V i c t o r i a was  i n December 1972 and i t was not u n t i l February 1975 t h a t one was  TABLE  75  COMPLETELY NON-RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  1972  1971  Project Units  jar.d R e g i s t r y Areas 1. Metropolitan Vancouver LRO 2. Balance Vancouver LRO 3 . T o t a l Vancouver LRO 1  Project Units  9.  Dalancn  Victoria  Victoria  LRO  1974  1975  1976  1977  Project Units  Project Units  Project Units  Project Units  Project Units  2 0  i  2  11 0 11  2  11  1  4  2  11  J  0  0  LO.  T o t a l V i c t o r i a LRO  |  0 1  4  2  0 11  LI.  A l l Metropolitan Areas'  1  4  4  22  Kamloops C i t y Kclov/na Vernon Penticton Balance Kamloops LRO T o t a l Kamloops LRO  0  0 3  -.2. L3. .4. L5. Jj. L7.  (1+ 4-t-8)  15. Molson LRO 1 9 . Prince George J O . Prince Rupert  LRO LRO  JI.  B..C.  Grand T o t a l :  4  0 1  0  2  , !  1  4  Total . Project Units  35  8 1 9  49 1 50  116  23  204  1  22  1  22  14  138  24  226  18  150  31  253  5 1 6  34  13  1  i  4. Metropolitan New Westminster LRO 5. Balance New Westmins t e r LRO | 6 . T o t a l New Westminsterl LRO 1 7. T o t a l Metropolitan Van- i couver Area (1+4) 8. Metropolitan LRO  1973  1  5  8  63  3  17  ;j  0  0  0  0  2  8  5  63  3 : 17  3  12  5  63  3 i 7  4  3  12  5  63  0  0 I  1 ' :.  2;  3  19  7  36  0 1  0:  0  2  0 3  0  .  19  7  0 36  .'  19,  169  38  289  0 7 0  0  0  2  10 0 0 0  4  : ;  21  0 1 0 0  0 1  1  3  0  0 7  0  0 0 2  10  I•  2  7  0  0  4  22  3  12  5  63  4  19  24  199  42  322  219.  r e g i s t e r e d i n the Lower Mainland.  The m a j o r i t y  (90%)  of the  s t r i c t l y n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s are l o c a t e d i n the major metropolitan The  areas.  development of condominium warehouses i n any major  way 9  has been r e s t r i c t e d by f i n a n c i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s u n t i l r e c e n t l y . Initially,  i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e n d e r s would grant a maximum loan  of 75% of the u n i t s r e n t a l value which was the condominium v a l u e .  value  o n l y equal to 50-60% o  Consequently the purchaser  required a  s u b s t a n t i a l downpayment or secondary f i n a n c i n g to purchase the u n i t , n e i t h e r of which was Mortgage Insurance  completely  Company of Canada  i n s u r e the loans to 75%  E v e n t u a l l y the  (M.I.C.C.) was  convinced  of the condominium s a l e value which  abled adequate f i n a n c i n g to be The  acceptable.  economic v i a b i l i t y  en-  arranged.  f o r i n d u s t r i a l or commercial condo-  minium w i l l n a t u r a l l y depend on the p a r t i c u l a r market being sidered.  There are however s e v e r a l g e n e r a l advantages and  advantages to the purchaser  to  t h a t are o f t e n c i t e d .  The  condis-  positive  aspects a r e : (1) f o r users of s m a l l spaces t h e r e are c o n s i d e r a b l e economies of s c a l e by being i n a l a r g e development than i n having a s i n g l e s m a l l b u i l d i n g , (2)  the d e d u c t i o n of c a p i t a l c o s t allowance and mortgage i n t e r e s t payments from t a x a b l e income can p r o v i d e g r e a t e r tax b e n e f i t than the d e d u c t i o n of the l e a s e payment alone would p r o v i d e ,  (3)  ownership e l i m i n a t e s the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e n t i n c r e a s e s ,  (4)  the r e q u i r e d r e t u r n on the investment f o r the s e l f owner may be l e s s than t h a t r e q u i r e d by an i n v e s t o r ,  (5)  there i s p o t e n t i a l a p p r e c i a t i o n i n c a p i t a l  (6)  there i s a g r e a t e r s e c u r i t y of tenure  value,  i n ownership,  220.  The  (7)  the accumulation of e q u i t y  (8)  f o r i n d u s t r i a l users t h e r e i s o f t e n a shortage of s m a l l but f u n c t i o n a l l y e f f i c i e n t space which the new u n i t s can provide.10  major disadvantages  are:  (1)  the need f o r a 10-20% downpayment,  (2)  to date there has been a need f o r the same or even g r e a t e r c a s h - f l o w t o s e r v i c e the mortgage as the l e a s e payments,  (3)  there  i s y e t an unknown r e s a l e market which may  (i) (ii) (4)  the g e n e r a l l y h i g h loan to value r a t i o w i l l be i n c l u d e d on the balance sheet of the f i r m which may a f f e c t the borrowing c a p a c i t y of the company.  able  a higher  cause:  capital depreciation, l e s s f l e x i b i l i t y f o r expansion or c o n t r a c t i o n than under l e a s i n g ,  From the d e v e l o p e r s ' being  as the mortgage i s r e p a i d ,  p o i n t of view he has  the advantages of  to recoup h i s investment more q u i c k l y and  obtaining  ( u s u a l l y ) s e l l i n g p r i c e i n a condominium development  than under a r e n t a l arrangement. l o s s of any  The  disadvantages are  p o t e n t i a l c a p i t a l a p p r e c i a t i o n and  the  increased  rental  revenue over the h o l d i n g p e r i o d i f the p r o j e c t i s r e t a i n e d . Through the d e v e l o p e r s '  survey a f i r m t h a t had  s e v e r a l condominium warehouse p r o j e c t s was interview  they r e v e a l e d  the m a j o r i t y  constructed  contacted."'"'*'  In  of t h e i r p r o j e c t s and  an others  s i m i l a r to them, were l o c a t e d i n the suburban areas of Vancouver. The  units contained  f o r small  from 1800  to 2400 square f e e t and  s u p p l i e r s or c o n t r a c t o r s  of space f o r s t o r a g e ,  workshop, and  needing o n l y an  office.  are  designed  a l i m i t e d amount  One  of the p r o j e c t s was  s e l e c t e d f o r an a n a l y s i s of the  of ownership r e l a t i v e to l e a s i n g . by  the development f i r m and  The  f i g u r e s used were  r e f l e c t the  the a n a l y s i s i s p r e s e n t e d i n E x h i b i t 2. 1800  square f e e t and was  The  sample u n i t c o n t a i n e d  E i g h t y - f i v e p e r c e n t mortgage  purchasing rather  appear to be  than r e n t i n g a u n i t .  any  There i s only  square f o o t advantage t o p u r c h a s i n g i n the  46%  taxation  ( f u l l corporate taxation  t i o n ) , the s i t u a t i o n i s r e v e r s e d square f o o t advantage.  It  s m a l l b u s i n e s s deduc-  tax b e n e f i t  option  i s reduced due  c a p i t a l cost  initial  to  allowance.  there i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r increasing  the e x p i r a t i o n of the  tax  w i t h l e a s i n g , showing a $0.32 per  the d e c l i n i n g mortgage i n t e r e s t expense and  on  the  A t ^ t h e 25%  In subsequent years the purchase  w i l l become more expensive as the  lease option  an $0.08  f i r s t year a t  rate).  ( a p p l i c a b l e to those q u a l i f y i n g f o r the  Under the  (11%,  economic advantages to  per  rate  terms  period).  O v e r a l l t h e r e d i d not  costs  conditions,  i s p r o v i d e d at the e x i s t i n g market r a t e s and  25 year a m o r t i z a t i o n  rate  market  supplied  o f f e r e d f o r l e a s e a t $495 per month o r  c o u l d be purchased f o r $69,900. financing  current  cost  rental  term.  appears those t h a t have purchased a u n i t have p l a c e d  p o s i t i v e v a l u e on the previously,  i n t a n g i b l e a s p e c t s of p u r c h a s i n g ,  as there i s not  an economic advantage  interviewed  discussed  initially.  A r e a l t y f i r m which d e a l s e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h the s e l l i n g of warehouses was  a  i n conjunction  leasing  and  with  the  the o v e r a l l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n r a t e  for  12 developer.  They s t a t e d  an owner-occupier was u n i t would r e q u i r e  about 9% w h i l e an  11-12%.  investor  In r e l a t i o n to the  in a similar  sample u n i t t h i s  222.  EXHIBIT 2 Comparison o f the L e a s i n g and P u r c h a s i n g Cost o f a Warehouse Condominium LEASE 46% Tax B r a c k e t $495 p e r month x 12 months = 46% Tax Bracket  $5940  (.46 x 5940)  2732.4  Net A f t e r Tax Cost•  $3207.6  C o s t p e r Square Foot  $1,782  25% Tax B r a c k e t ( A p p l i c a b l e t o those q u a l i f y i n g f o r the Small B u s i n e s s Deduction under the F e d e r a l Income Tax A c t ) $495 p e r month x 12 months 25% Tax Bracket  '  (.25 x 5940)  $5940 1485  Net A f t e r Tax Cost  4455  C o s t p e r Square Foot  $2,475  PURCHASE Price  $69,900  15% Downpayment  10;, 485 say $10,500  85% F i n a n c e d a t 1 1 % , 25 year a m o r t i z a t i o n (59,400) Monthly Payment Y e a r l y Payment  9.6253 / month / 10,000 572 x 12  =  =  $6864  Y e a r l y Mortgage Payment Tax B e n e f i t CCA.  $6864  (Year 1)  I n t e r e s t Expense  (.11 x 59,400)  ( 5 % on 45,000)  T o t a l Deducation  571.74 say $572 / month  =  6534  =  2250  8784  46% Tax B r a c k e t Tax B e n e f i t  (.46 x 8652)  (3980)  O p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f Downpayment Net c o s t b e f o r e P r i n c i p l e Less P r i n c i p l e  Reduction  Net Cost a f t e r  Principle  (.09 x 10,500) (1-.46)  Reduction  510 3394  '  330  Reducation  3064  Cost per Square Foot  $1,702  Cost per Square Foot E x c l u d i n g Principle  Reduction  $1,886  25% Tax B r a c k e t Y e a r l y Mortgage Payment  $6864  Tax B e n e f i t  (2196)  .25 x 8784  O p p o r t u n i t y c o s t o f Downpayment Net Cost b e f o r e P r i n c i p l e Less P r i n c i p l e  Reduction  Net Cost a f t e r  Principle  (.09 x 10,500)  (1-.75)  5377  Reduction  330 5047  Reduction  $2,804  C o s t p e r Square Foot Cost per Square Foot E x c l u d i n g Principle  Reduction  Summary - C o s t per Square Foot  Lease  709  Purchase*  Difference  46% Tax B r a c k e t  $1.78  $1.70  $0.08  25% Tax B r a c k e t  $2.48  $2.80  -$0.32  *Cost p e r Square Foot a f t e r P r i n c i p l e  Reduction  224. means the v a l u e as a condominium i s about $70,000 and the v a l u e 13 as an investment i s from $52,500 t o $57,300. an advantage  There i s t h e r e f o r e  o f 18-25% i n the v a l u e of a condominium warehouse  over the more t r a d i t i o n a l Three hundred  forms.  thousand  square f e e t of condominium warehouse  space had been s o l d by the r e a l t y f i r m s i n c e February, 1975. Another  500,000 square f e e t i s r e p o r t e d t o be i n the p l a n n i n g  stages and i s expected t o come on the market i n the next 12 t o 18 months.  The r a t e o f a b s o r p t i o n of new u n i t s has been d e c l i n i n g  r e c e n t l y however, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l oversupply may r e s u l t i f the planned p r o j e c t s a r e developed as expected. 6.5  Common Area  Charges  Common area charges a r e l e v i e s by the s t r a t a c o r p o r a t i o n on each u n i t i n o r d e r t o pay t h e maintenance and upkeep expenses o f the common areas.  The amount of the charges per u n i t i s based on  p r o p o r t i o n a t e share, as d e f i n e d by the u n i t e n t i t l e m e n t , o f t h e t o t a l expenses. were examined.  Two areas concerning the common area charges F i r s t l y , the average u n i t charges and t h e i r  rate  of i n c r e a s e were t a b u l a t e d and s e c o n d l y , the r e p o r t e d underestimat i n g of charges by the d e v e l o p e r s . I t should be noted t h a t the cornmon area changes can vary significantly  from one p r o j e c t t o another depending  upon the  amount and type of a m e n i t i e s and upon the p h y s i c a l arrangements of the b u i l d i n g .  F o r example, one would expect the common areas  to be h i g h e r f o r p r o j e c t s with numerous a m e n i t i e s and e x t e n s i v e common areas such as swimming p o o l s , h e a l t h spa's, and covered  225. parking.  What i s l e s s obvious i s t h a t common area changes may  a l s o v a r y , f o r two otherwise i d e n t i c a l p r o j e c t s , because  o f the  p h y s i c a l arrangements f o r s e r v i c e s such as h e a t i n g and a i r conditioning.  In one case the h e a t i n g and a i r - c o n d i t i o n i n g may  be a c e n t r a l s e r v i c e  (common area charge) w h i l e i n another i t  may form p a r t o f the d i r e c t charges Due  ( e l e c t r i c a l ) t o t h e owners.  t o the p o t e n t i a l v a r i a t i o n s i n amenities and arrangements  f o r s e r v i c e s , i t becomes extremely d i f f i c u l t t o g e n e r a l i z e w i t h r e s p e c t t o common area charges.  T h e r e f o r e the d a t a p r o v i d e d i n  the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s should be used w i t h extreme c a u t i o n . During the Owners' Survey  (Chapter Four) t h e respondents  were asked t o s t a t e t h e i r c u r r e n t monthly common a r e a charges, these are p r e s e n t e d i n Table 76.  Approximately  one h a l f  (51.5%)  of the charges a r e l e s s than $51 p e r month, o n l y 6.7% a r e over $80 per month.  The h i g h e s t average charge i s found i n the h i g h -  r i s e u n i t s f o l l o w e d by l o w - r i s e , townhouse, and f i n a l l y p r o j e c t s c o n t a i n i n g a mix of s t r u c t u r e t y p e s .  i n those  In 81.2% of t h e  u n i t s , t h e common area charges p e r month exceeded  the monthly  e q u i v a l e n t o f the r e a l p r o p e r t y tax, thereby r e p r e s e n t i n g the second l a r g e s t c o s t p e r month a f t e r mortgage payments.  In order  t o e s t i m a t e the r a t e o f i n c r e a s e o f common a r e a charges the r e s pondents t o the owners' survey were asked the l e v e l o f common area charges when they f i r s t purchased  the u n i t .  T h i s combined  w i t h the c u r r e n t l e v e l and the date o f purchase a l l o w e d the r a t e of i n c r e a s e t o be c a l c u l a t e d .  The average annual compound r a t e  of i n c r e a s e was found t o be 12.7% from 1972 t o 1977.  By comparison,  TABLE  76  Percentage Distribution of 1977 Common Area Charges by Structure Type (Metropolitan Vancouver and Victoria)  STRUCTURE CHARGES PER MONTH  TOWNHOUSE  $ 0 - 30  2.0%  1.0%  3.6%  31-40  6.8  1.0  2.6  *  10.9  LOW RISE  HIGH RISE  MIXED  TOTAL 8.3%  1.6%  41 - 50  15.1  8.2  5.7  3.1  32.3  51 - 60  4.7  9.4  3.1  2.0  19.3  61-80  2.6  12.5 *  7.3  0  22.4  4.1  0  4.7  •• 1.0  &  0  81 -100  0  100 o r more %Total  Sample  Average %  :  33%  • • 1.0 "3. 3 5-  $58  $50  27% $67  -  7% $45  *Less than one p e r c e n t . Source:  Survey o f 20 2 condominium owners randomly s e l e c t e d i n the M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and Victoria  areas.  2.0 100% $57  the average weekly e a r n i n g s as measured by the i n d u s t r i a l compos i t e index i n c r e a s e d by approximately 12 p e r c e n t p e r annum duri n g the same f i v e y e a r s . In t h e p a s t a c c u s a t i o n s have been l e v e l e d a g a i n s t d e v e l o p e r s t h a t had a l l e g e d l y underestimated the common area expenses i n 14 order t o a t t r a c t people i n t o p u r c h a s i n g .  The 1974 amendments  to the S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t i n c l u d e d changes t o c o r r e c t t h i s  practice.  The d e v e l o p e r s were r e q u i r e d t o prepare an i n t e r i m budget f o r the o p e r a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t and were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l the excess of the a c t u a l c o s t over the e s t i m a t e d .  To i n v e s t i g a t e the e x t e n t  of t h i s problem the respondents t o the owners' q u e s t i o n n a i r e were requested t o s t a t e the e s t i m a t e d charges p r i o r t o o c c u p a t i o n and the a c t u a l l e v i e s a f t e r having moved i n . S i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f the responses noted no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a c t u a l and e s t i m a t e d charges. underestimated  Of those t h a t were  ( a c t u a l charges exceeding e s t i m a t e d ) , 12% were  done so by $1 t o $5 and 18.3% by over $5, o n l y t h r e e responses i n d i c a t e d the charges were o v e r e s t i m a t e d .  A n a l y z i n g those t h a t  were underestimated by more than $5 r e v e a l s t h a t they r e p r e s e n t e x a c t l y the same p r o p o r t i o n of t h e s a l e s a f t e r the l e g i s l a t i v e amendments  (1975-1977) as they d i d over the t h r e e y e a r s p r i o r  to the amendments  (1972-1974) , 18.2%.  I t can t h e r e f o r e be con-  cluded the l e g a l requirements a r e i n e f f e c t i v e i n r e d u c i n g the u n d e r e s t i m a t i o n o f common area charges.  However, g i v e n t h a t  t h i s o c c u r s i n l e s s than 20% o f the u n i t s , i t does n o t appear to be a s e r i o u s problem.  228.  6.6 a)  Government Federal  Involvement i n Condominium  Financing  Government  During the i n t r o d u c t o r y stages o f the condominium concept the e x t e n t o f government involvement was s u b s t a n t i a l .  From 1967  t o 1970 approximately 50% o f the t o t a l d o l l a r amount o f condomin ium f i r s t mortgages i n Canada were s u p p l i e d d i r e c t l y by a 15 government agency.  F u r t h e r , v i r t u a l l y a l l the loans made by  c o n v e n t i o n a l l e n d e r s were i n s u r e d under the N a t i o n a l Housing Act  (N.H.A.). "The m a j o r i t y o f the l e n d i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s s t a t e d t h a t they would n o t p r o v i d e any f i n a n c i n g f o r condominiums u n l e s s the loans were i n s u r e d under the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t . " I 6  As the condominium market matured and l e n d e r s became more f a m i l i a r w i t h the concept the heavy r e l i a n c e on the government was reduced.  In t h e 1971 study, 85% o f the condominium u n i t s  i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver were i n s u r e d under N.H.A. o r f i n a n c e d 17 directly  from C M . H . C ,  t h i s f i g u r e was reduced t o 60% i n 1973  O v e r a l l , from 196 7 t o 1976, 36.2% o f the condominiums i n Metrop o l i t a n Vancouver and 29.4% o f those i n M e t r o p o l i t a n  Victoria  were f i n a n c e d d i r e c t l y by CM.H.C. o r the loans i n s u r e d under N.H.A.  The breakdown i s shown i n Table 77. C l e a r l y the l e v e l  of government involvement has been reduced s u b s t a n c i a l l y through time. In B r i t i s h Columbia from 1967-1976,  11,230 N.H.A. mortgage 19  loans were approved on new condominium u n i t s . 30.5% o f a l l newly c r e a t e d u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  This  represents  One would  TABLE  77  N.H.A. and CM.H.C. INVOLVEMENT IN CONDOMINIUM FINANCING (1967 TO 1976)  N.H .A. INSURED  1  Q.  C.M.H.C^" DIRECT  2 TOTAL CONDOMINIUM REGISTRATIONS  ~o  NO.  %  NO.  VANCOUVER 6141  32.1  1003  5.3  19104  100  552  15.9  147  4.2  3470  100  VANCOUVER 2232  32. 8  -  0.0  6812  100  VICTORIA 1967-1976 TOTAL  640  59.6  —  0.0  1073  100  VANCOUVER , 3373  32.3  3.9  25916  ,100  VICTORIA  1192  26.2  147  • 3.2  4543  100  TOTAL  9563  31.4  1150  3.8  30459  1967-1975  NO.  VICTORIA 1976  SOURCE:  ... 10,0 3 .  %  100.0  1.  CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, CANADIAN HOUSING STATISTICS, OTTAWA, 1976, P. 65.  2.  TABLE 1.  230. expect  t h e involvement  o f the government t o be g r e a t e r i n t h e  the o u t l y i n g areas and l e s s i n the major m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n s due  t o the d i f f i c u l t y  i n a t t r a c t i n g p r i v a t e funds.  the f i g u r e s p r e s e n t e d here t h i s h y p o t h e s i s  In comparing  i s not substanciated.  C o n s i d e r i n g o n l y 1976 there were 3553 N.H.A. loans approved on new condominium u n i t s .  Ninety-one o f these were d i r e c t  from C.M.H.C. and t h e balance were from approved l e n d e r s .  loans This  r e p r e s e n t e d an i n c r e a s e over t h e p r e v i o u s years as these u n i t s represented  36.0% o f a l l u n i t s r e g i s t e r e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia i n  t h a t year.  The g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e involvement  o f C.M.H.C.  i n condominium f i n a n c i n g i n 1976 i s l i k e l y due t o t h e s o f t market c o n d i t i o n s t h a t were being e x p e r i e n c e d  and t h e r e f o r e l e n d e r s  r e q u i r i n g the e x t r a s e c u r i t y o f f e r e d through gramme.  Furthermore, t h e r e was a s h i f t  the i n s u r a n c e  i n the composition  f i n a n c i n g w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n the d i r e c t C.M.H.C.  proo f the  lending of  From 1967-1975, 3144 d i r e c t lajons o r 29% were made by  C.M.H.C. w h i l e the 91 d i r e c t loans i n 1976 r e p r e s e n t l e s s  than  3% o f the loans made under the N.H.A. The A s s i s t e d Home Ownership Program an important  f a c t o r i n the condominium market o f l a t e .  gram i s designed housing  (A.H.O.P.) has become The p r o -  t o encourage the p r o d u c t i o n o f moderate c o s t  by p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e purchaser.  Loans o f up  to 95% o f value a t low i n t e r e s t r a t e s a r e a v a i l a b l e p l u s a subs i d y o f $750 per year from the f e d e r a l governemnt, and a f u r t h e r $750 from the p r o v i n c i a l government i f the debt g r e a t e r than  25%.  service ratio i s  The maximum s a l e p r i c e f o r the u n i t t o q u a l i f y  under the program i s $47,000 i n Vancouver and $45,000 i n V i c t o r i a  231. which i s w i t h the e c o n o m i c a l l y p r o f i t a b l e range f o r the p r o d u c t i o n of most condominiums.  In 1976,  2418 u n i t s were approved under  A. H.O.P. i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, one thousand, one hundred and f i f t e e n were s i n g l e f a m i l y detached or apartment condominiums. ~* approximately b)  d w e l l i n g s and 1186 were row  These condominiums r e p r e s e n t e d  o n e - s i x t h o f the u n i t s r e g i s t e r e d i n t h a t year.  B.C. Government Second Mortgages The  B.C. government p r o v i d e s g r a n t s o f $1,000 o r a second  mortgage o f $5,000 on new u n i t s o r a $500 g r a n t o r $2,500 second mortgage on e x i s t i n g u n i t s t o purchasers who have n o t p r e v i o u s l y owned a home. of p u r c h a s e r s  The e a r l i e r s t u d i e s both r e p o r t e d h i g h u s i n g the second mortgages  percentages  (60.9% i n 1971 and 61.5%  i n 1973), however these r e p r e s e n t o n l y the N.H.A. i n s u r e d  purchases.  I n c l u d i n g t h e low-cost u n i t s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l l y f i n a n c e d u n i t s t h i s percentage  i s reduced  t o 47.6% i n the 197 3 study.^  The  s t a t i s t i c s r e c o r d e d i n t h i s study show a r e d u c t i o n i n the use o f the second mortgages from those p r e v i o u s l y r e c o r d e d . C o n s i d e r i n g o n l y the N.H.A. i n s u r e d purchases,  46% used a  B. C. government second mortgage, a d e c l i n e of 15% from the 197 3 study.  T h i r t y p e r c e n t o f a l l purchasers  used a B.C. government  second mortgage w h i l e 3% used a second mortgage from an a l t e r n a t e source, a g a i n a d e c l i n e o f 15%. Removing the purchases all  made f o r  cash the p r o p o r t i o n s i n c r e a s e t o 37% and 4% r e s p e c t i v e l y . It i sd i f f i c u l t  t o e x p l a i n why t h e r e was a r e d u c t i o n i n the  use o f the second mortgages. attributed  Only a s m a l l p a r t o f i t can be  t o an i n c r e a s e i n the number of p r i o r owners which are  232. i n e l i g i b l e f o r the a s s i s t a n c e tunately which may  information  was  (32%  i n 1973,  36.5%  not c o l l e c t e d on the use  have accounted f o r the d i f f e r e n c e .  now).  Unfor-  of the  grant  Footnotes 1.  B r i e f t o the Commission o f I n q u i r y On P r o p e r t y and T a x a t i o n , C o u n c i l o f S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n VR Arbutus V i l l a g e , December, 1975.  Assessment 120,  2.  T r u s t e r , P e r r y , and Rosewig, M i c h a e l , Income T a x a t i o n i n the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y , Canadian I n s t i t u t e o f C h a r t e r e d Accountants, 1975, pp. 4-01.  3.  Beach, Donald J . , Tax Guide f o r the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y , A Handbook f o r the Canadian Real E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n , Methuen, Toronto, 1975, p. 65.  4.  Interpretation Bulletin,  5.  T r u s t e r and Rosewig, op. c i t . , p. 40-6,.  6.  I b i d . , pp.  7.  S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966, C. 46, Now c. 89, S e c t i o n  8.  " S t r a t a T i t l e Rules t o be T i g h t e n e d " , Westminster, J u l y 29, 1977.  9.  Based on an i n t e r v i e w with P. Day, P r e s i d e n t o f Coranodo Mortgage C o r p o r a t i o n .  10.  Melaniphy, John C. J r . , Commercial and I n d u s t r i a l Condominiums , The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1976, p. 8.  11.  T e c h n i c s Development  12.  Town Group R e a l t y , John M c l n t y r e .  13.  Market r e n t a l of $3.50 per square f o o t = $6300 per year  IT-102.  6^05. S.B.C., 1974  The Columbian,  New  Corporation.  $6300 ^ .09 = $70,000 $6300 T .11 = $57,300 $6300 4 .12 = $52,300 14.  S a g i , Douglas, "Mondo Condo (A Man's Home May be His H a s s l e ) " , Vancouver Magazine, V o l . 10, No. 3, March 1977, p. 37.  234. 15.  F o r t y p e r c e n t was s u p p l i e d by the O n t a r i o Housing C o r p o r a t i o n and 12% by the C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a tion. Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , N a t i o n a l Survey of Condominium Lenders, Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s Toronto, 1970, T a b l e IV.  16.  I b i d , p.  17.  Hamilton, S.W., D a v i s , I . , and Lowden, J . , Condominium Development i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, The Real E s t a t e C o u n c i l of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1971, pp. 14-15.  18.  Hamilton, S.W. and Roberts, R.S., Condominium Development and Ownership, Real E s t a t e Board of G r e a t e r Vancouver, Vancouver, 1973, p. 19.  19.  S t a t i s t i c s quoted i n t h i s s e c t i o n from: Canadian Housing S t a t i s t i c s , 1976, C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , Ottawa, 1976, p. 64.  46.  235. Chapter Seven  Summary and  Conclusions  T h i s study comprises an e x t e n s i v e  amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n  the condominium market and i t s p a r t i c i p a n t s .  on  I t would be impos-  s i b l e to condense a l l the f i n d i n g s i n t o a few pages but a summary of major p o i n t s i s p r o v i d e d .  A l s o , i t i s noted t h a t the v a s t  q u a n t i t y o f primary data has not been analysed  to i t s f u l l e s t  o  and t h e r e f o r e some suggestions  f o r future research  are i n c l u d e d .  The condominium market has grown s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i n c e i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n 196 8.  In t h a t year o n l y 7 plans  u n i t s were developed w h i l e u n i t s were r e g i s t e r e d .  i n 1976, 667 plans  i n v o l v i n g 11,052  As of November 30, 1977, 46,411 u n i t s  i n 2 340 p l a n s existed" i n B r i t i s h Columbia. number of condominiums  i n v o l v i n g 312  was  The growth i n the  accompanied by an i n c r e a s i n g impor-  tance i n terms o f t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  i n the housing market.  By 1976, condominium developments accounted f o r 26 p e r c e n t all unit  housing s t a r t s i n the p r o v i n c e  and 58 p e r c e n t  of  of a l l m u l t i p l e  starts. As the condominium  developers  experience  i n c r e a s e d and mortgage  lenders,  and the p u b l i c i n g e n e r a l became more accustomed t o  the concept, a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of p r o j e c t s was developed.  This  was p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e a f t e r 197 3 as commercial, i n d u s t r i a l , mixed commercial and r e s i d e n t i a l , bareland, s t r a t a p r o j e c t s became more common. concept w i l l  and support  structure  Other i n n o v a t i v e uses o f the  l i k e l y appear i n the f u t u r e .  236. The occupants' a wider  range,  bilities, was  o f the market as  i n terms of the purchaser's age,  financial  capa-  stage i n the l i f e - c y c l e , and the u n i t ' s purchase  observed  reasons  survey showed a broadening  r e l a t i v e to t h a t d i s p l a y e d i n 1973.  price  The major  f o r p u r c h a s i n g a condominium r a t h e r than a s i n g l e  de-  tached house remained t h e i r economic advantage and the freedom from e x t e r i o r upkeep. t h a t was  observed  S i m i l a r l y , the h i g h l e v e l of  i n 1973  was  o f the p u r c h a s e r s expressed The  a g a i n repeated here as almost  s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r  90%  unit.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the d e v e l o p e r s r e v e a l e d a dichotomy i n  the l e v e l of involvement developers  of the e n t r e p r e n e u r s .  (89%) had produced  two  The m a j o r i t y of  or fewer p r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g  46 p e r c e n t of the u n i t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  C o n v e r s e l y , the top  twenty f i r m s i n terms of u n i t s , r e p r e s e n t i n g 1.6% accounted  satisfaction  f o r 11.7%  of p r o j e c t s and 34.1%  of a l l f i r m s  of u n i t s .  These f i r m s  were h e a v i l y c o n c e n t r a t e d i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver w i t h 91% t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n i n terms of u n i t s l o c a t e d i n t h i s a r e a . top f i v e f i r m s i n terms of u n i t s alone produced p r o j e c t s and  28.2%  12.8%  of  The  of the  of the u n i t s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver.  The management of condominiums, i n v o l v i n g s t r a t a c o u n c i l s and management f i r m s has improved s i n c e 197 3.  Only 9 p e r c e n t  of the r e p o r t e d s t r a t a p r o j e c t s were e x p e r i e n c i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s of o p e r a t i n g budgets or i n the l e v e l of t h e i r c o n t i n g e n c y r e serve i n comparison to approximately major problems encountered density l i v i n g  o n e - h a l f i n 197 3.  The  by the management stem from the h i g h e r  s t y l e t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s most condominiums.  The  237. condominium concept or i t s o p e r a t i o n i s not a source of major complaint. The  s h o r t - r u n o u t l o o k f o r the condominium market i s poor.  There now  e x i s t s a l a r g e i n v e n t o r y of unsold and/or  rented units  and the r a t e of i n c r e a s e i n s e l l i n g p r i c e s has moderated to where little  or no g a i n has been e x p e r i e n c e d i n the l a s t y e a r .  These  f a c t o r s are compounded by the r e d u c t i o n i n the r a t e of p o p u l a t i o n growth and i n c r e a s e of r e a l incomes i n the p r o v i n c e which  reduces  the l e v e l of o v e r a l l demand f o r housing. In the long-run t h e r e are some p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s which w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the f u t u r e development of condominiums. the r a p i d l y r i s i n g energy c o s t s w i l l l i k e l y t i o n of housing i n the urban a r e a s .  First,  lead to a concentra-  T h i s w i l l mean h i g h e r d e n s i -  t i e s to which condominiums are w e l l suited...  Secondly,, the propor-  t i o n of o l d e r people i n the p o p u l a t i o n i s i n c r e a s i n g and i t has been shown these make up a s i g n i f i c a n t share of the condominium market.  Finally,  the slowing of growth i n r e a l incomes,  lowering o v e r a l l housing demand, may  although  s h i f t some of the demand i n t o  the l e s s expensive condominium s e c t o r away from the s i n g l e house market.  The  detached  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t i s reached from a s s e s s i n g these  f a c t o r s i s t h a t condominiums w i l l remain v i a b l e i n the long-run. Due  to the broad nature of t h i s study, d e t a i l e d  examinations  of a l l areas w i t h i n the condominium market were not p o s s i b l e . Having  e s t a b l i s h e d a base from which to work from s e v e r a l areas  f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are i n d i c a t e d .  238. The  occupants' survey  (Chapter  Four) i n v e s t i g a t e d the  condominium market i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver and V i c t o r i a .  It  i s suggested t h a t i n c r e a s i n g the sample s i z e to a l l o w f o r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n geographically p o l i t a n V i c t o r i a and  ( M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, Metro-  the Rest of the Province)  and by s t r u c t u r e  type would p r o v i d e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n as to the composition the s u b s e c t o r s w i t h i n the market. may  F u r t h e r , an expanded sample  p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t number of r e n t e r s to s t r a t i f y on  same b a s i s and c o u l d be  of  the  the type of l a n d l o r d ( i n v e s t o r or developer)  ascertained.  S e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of developers noted p r e v i o u s l y i n Chapter F i v e :  completing  the l i s t of  develop-  e r s ' names from the Land R e g i s t r y O f f i c e s i n Kamloops and l i n k i n g of company's names are obvious areas g r e a t e r emphasis c o u l d be p l a c e d on s u r v e y i n g developers  and  the  to be pursued.  Also,  the numerous s m a l l  to d e f i n i n g the types of l e n d e r s p r o v i d i n g  development funds to the  were  the  entrepreneurs.  An e s s e n t i a l p i e c e of i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t has been m i s s i n g  to  date i s a comprehensive p r i c e index p r o v i d i n g r e l i a b l e p r i c e trends by  l o c a t i o n , s t r u c t u r e type, and by the  vided.  pro-  In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s an i n d i c a t i o n of the r a t e of  a b s o r p t i o n of new The  l e v e l of amenities  p r i c e index  p r o j e c t s through time c o u l d be  and  absorption  r a t e s would be  constructed.  invaluable i n  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the trends of the development of condominiums and  consumer  preferences.  F i n a l l y , Chapter Two  provided  a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of  f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the development of condominiums and  the their  239. r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the o v e r a l l housing market.  Having now  estab-  l i s h e d a data base i t would be p o s s i b l e t o attempt t o q u a n t i f y the e f f e c t s of these f a c t o r s .  T h i s would not o n l y p r o v i d e a  g r e a t e r understanding o f the condominium market but a l s o o f all  s e c t o r s of the housing market.  240.  Bibliography Baxter, David,"The B r i t i s h Columbia and Vancouver Housing Markets: Short Run R e a l i t i e s and Long Run Trends", a paper presented at The Economic Outlook f o r the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia forum, presented by E x e c u t i v e Programmes, F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, December 14, 1977. Beach, Donald J . , Tax Guide f o r the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y , A Handbook f o r the Canadian Real E s t a t e A s s o c i a t i o n , Methuen, Toronto, 1975. B r i e f to the Commission of I n q u i r y On Property Assessment and T a x a t i o n , C o u n c i l o f ^ S t r a t a C o r p o r a t i o n VR 120, Arbutus V i l l a g e , December, 1975. Brown, Ian, That C l a s s y Touch - Condominiums Promice a Way of L i f e , F i n a n c i a l Post, Maclean-Hunter, Toronto, O n t a r i o , J u l y 2, 1977. S t r a t a T i t l e Rules to the Tightened, J u l y 29, 1977.  The  Columbian, New  Westminster,  Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , N a t i o n a l Survey of Condominium Lenders, C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n , t o r o n t o , 1970. Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , N a t i o n a l Survey of Condominium Owners, Condominium Research A s s o c i a t e s , Toronto, 1970. Eger, A.F., "Choice i n Housing", Housing: I t ' s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1976. Goldberg, M.A., R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behaviour: Some E m p i r i c a l F i n d i n g s , F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975. Goldberg, M. A., and U l i n d e r , D.D., " R e s i d e n t i a l Developer Behaviour: 1975", Housing" I t ' s Your Move, Volume I I , T e c h n i c a l Reports, The Urban Land Economics D i v i s i o n , F a c u l t y of Commerce and B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976. Hamilton, S.W., Davis, I . , and i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver, The Columbia, Vancouver, 1971.  Lowden, J . , Condominium Development Real E s t a t e C o u n c i l of B r i t i s h  Hamilton, S.W. and Roberts, R.S., Condominium Development and Ownership, Real E s t a t e Board of Greater Vancouver, Vancouver,  1973.  241. J4elaniphy, John C. J r . , Commercial and I n d u s t r i a l Condominiums, The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D . C , 1976. N o r c r o s s , C , Townhouses and Condominiums: R e s i d e n t s ' L i k e s and D i s l i k e s , The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D . C , 1973. P a v l i c h , D.J., "The S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t " , u n p u b l i s h e d , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. R i c k e t t s , Mark, No Down Payment Lures the Renters, F i n a n c i a l P o s t , Maclean-Hunter, Toronto, O n t a r i o , June 4, 1977. Roberts, R.A., "Condominium Housing i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Vancouver", M.SC T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973. Rosenberg, A l v i n B., Condominiums i n Canada, Toronto, 1969.  Canada Law Book L t d . ,  S a g i , Douglas, "Mondo Condo (A Man's Home May Be H i s H a s s l e ) " , Vancouver, Magazine, V o l . 10, No. 3, March 1977. S t a t u t e s of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966, Chapter 46, Now S.B.C 1974, C 89, S t r a t a T i t l e s A c t . S t a t u t e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974, Chapter 77, Real E s t a t e Amendment A c t . Subo.czIrene,, "House P r i c e I n d i c i e s " , M. Ser. T h e s i s , of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976.  University  T r u s t e r , P e r r y , and Rosewig, M i c h a e l , Income T a x a t i o n i n the Real E s t a t e I n d u s t r y , Canadian I n s t i t u t e o f C h a r t e r e d Accountants, 1975.  242.  APPENDIX  I  Appendix 1 Synopsis of Previous Studies . Category  Condominium Research Associates  Year  1970  Methodology  Age  Survey of Owners a c r o s s Canada  Most  Married  Number o f Children  Young  Average  Norcross  Hamilton and Roberts  Eger  1971  1973  1973  1976  Use o f NHA Loan Application Files for Metropolitan Vancouver  Most Young b u t a Small Older Group  N.A.*  \  Hamilton, D a v i s , and Lowden  N.A.  1.20  52% w i t h Children  Survey o f Townhouse Owners i n Washington D.C. and California Wide S p r e a d o f Ages, L a r g e s t Group 30 - 39 Years Old  09% E a s t 73% West no  Occupation  45% M a n a g e r i a l , 41% P r o f e s s i o n a l P r o f e s s i o n a l o r and M a n a g e r i a l Technical  Incomes  Average $11,009  68% G r e a t e r t h a n $10,000  Average  25%  Previous Tenancy  85%  Rented  8 6%  Rented  66%  1.04  15,00020,000 10,00015,000 . Rented  Apartment Purchasers Considerably Older than Townhouse 83.1%  82% White Collar  26%  Survey o f Owners i n Metropolitan Vancouver  1.05 0.31  Mortgage A p p l i c a t i o n forms o f Institutional Lenders f o r Loans in Metropolitan Vancouver Young Group, A v e r a g e 34, Empty N e s t , Average 4 0 Years  61% Young Group 57% O l d Group  Townhouse Apartment N.A.  0.67 0.52  Young Group O l d Group  Young Group - 21% P r o f e s s i o n a l O l d Group - 47% P r o f e s s i o n a l  M o d e r a t e incomes 65% l e s s t h a n $12,000  Young A v e r a g e $19,760 O l d Average. $24,900  67% o f Townhouse R e n t e d 57.8% o f  Young - 4 6% R e n t e d ' O l d - 25% R e n t e d  Apartments  rented  Appendix  1  Synopsis of Previous Studies  (contd.)  Category  Condominium Research Associates  Hamilton, D a v i s , and Lowden  Norcross  Hamilton and Roberts  Eger  Year  1970  1971  1973  1973  1976  50%  48%  41%  40%  N.A.  Working  Wives  Reason f o r Move  Reason f o r Condominium Purchase  Desire to Own More Space  M.A.  Economic, Maintenance Free  N.A.  Build  Equity  N.A.  N.A.  Better Environment Economic, Maintenance Free, Recreational Facilities  Economic, Maintenance Free  N.A.  245.  APPENDIX  2  247.  OWNERS' QUESTIONNAIRE  T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h o u l d be completed o n l y by those OWNING and OCCUPYING t h e condominium u n i t . I f you r e n t t h e u n i t , p l e a s e complete t h e e n c l o s e d "TENANTS* QUESTIONNAIRE". B e f o r e y o u b e g i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , we would l i k e t o emphasize t h a t a l l respondents w i l l remain anonymous, and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d w i l l be aggregated i n t h e f i n a l r e p o r t .  INSTRUCTIONS: Where a l i s t o f p o s s i b l e responses t o t h e q u e s t i o n i s p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n s e r t t h e NUMBER o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e response i n t h e space p r o v i d e d i n t h e r i g h t - h a n d column. ( I f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e answer's number i n c l u d e s a z e r o such as 01, p l e a s e i n s e r t t h e 0 and the 1 i n t h e spaces p r o vided). I f a l i s t o f responses i s n o t p r o v i d e d b u t t h e answer c a n be expressed n u m e r i c a l l y , p l e a s e complete t h e spaces w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number. I f the answer cannot be expressed n u m e r i c a l l y , p l e a s e complete t h e b l a n k s p r o v i d e d b u t do n o t use t h e spaces i n t h e r i g h t - h a n d margin. I f you do n o t know t h e answer o r i f t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o y o u , p l e a s e l e a v e the space b l a n k .  EXAMPLES: 1.  QUESTION - What i s your m a r i t a l s t a t u s ? 01. 02. 03. 04.  0 1  single married separated o r divorced widow o r widower  ANSWER - I f s i n g l e , e n t e r 01 i n the r i g h t - h a n d column as i n d i c a t e d .  2.  QUESTION - How o l d a r e you?  3 4  ANSWER - I f 34, e n t e r "34" i n the r i g h t - h a n d column as i n d i c a t e d .  3.  QUESTION - What i s your  occupation?  ANSWER - ENTER OCCUPATION IN SPACE e.g.  DO NOT USE TEACHER  OFFICIAL Ubfc, U^LX  T~  248. 2  ~T~ ~T~ ~T~  ~5  When did you purchase this condominium unit? (Please give the month and year). Please indicate the month with the corresponding numbers as follows: January February March April  2.  01 02 03 04  May June July August  September October November December  05 06 07 08  6 Year  7  19 8  9  What type of development i s this unit contained in? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)  townhouse or rowhouse only low-rise apartment only (3 s t o r i e s or l e s s ) h i g h - r i s e apartment only (4 s t o r i e s or more) mixed apartment and townhouse single family detached mobile home park mixed r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial non-residential semi-detached (duplex)  3.  How many bedrooms does this unit contain? one bedroom,; i f applicable),.  4.  How  many people occupy this unit?  a) b)  number of adults number of dependant children  5.  Month  09 10 11 12  10  (Include the den as  11  12  13  The following question applies to those adults r e s i d i n g i n the unit. Space has been provided for responses from up to four (4) adults but please use only as many columns as required. That i s , i f only two (2) adults l i v e i n the unit use only the columns for "Adult 1" and "Adult 2" leaving the rest blank. Please answer a l l the questions for each adult l i v i n g i n the unit. Adult 1 a)  Sex (select the appropriate category for each adult and enter the corresponding number i n the appropriate column). 1 2  male female  14  Adult 2  15  Adult 3  16  Adult 4 17  249.  - 2-  b) Age (enter the age of each adult in the appropriate spaces). c)  Marital status (select the appropriate category for each adult and enter the corresponding number in the appropriate column).  Adult 1  Adult 2  Adult 3  Adult 4  18 19  20 21  22 23  24 25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  1 single 2 married or equivalent 3 separated or divorced 4 widow or widower d) Education (select the appropriate category for each adult and enter the corresponding number in the appropriate column). 1 highschool or less 2 1 - 2 years post-secondary 3 2 - 4 years post-secondary 4 postgraduate 5 vocational training 6 technical training e)  Occupation (select the appropriate: category for each adult and enter the corresponding number i n the appropriate column). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  professional managerial service sales tradesman labourer clerical retired homemaker student 11 other, please specify  f)  Did you work full-time, part-time or did not work at the time of purchase of this unit? (select the appropriate category for each adult and enter the corresponding number i n the appropriate column. Please include homemaker and student as "did not work".)  34 35  36 37  38 39  40 41  250. - 3-  1 full-time 2 part-time 3 did not work g) Do you work full-time, part-time, or do not work now? Select the appropriate category for each adult and enter the corresponding number in the appropriate column. Please include homemaker and student as "do not work".  Adult 1  "Adult 2  Adult 3  Adult 4  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  1 full-time 2 part-time 3 do not work a)  Into which of the following ranges did your total family income f a l l when you f i r s t occupied this unit? 1 2 3 4  b)  50  less than $8,000 $8,001 to $16,000 $16,001 to $24,000 over $24,000  Into which of the following ranges does your total family income f a l l now? 1 2 3 4  51  less than $8,000 $8,001 to $16,000 $16,001 to $24,000 over $24,00  Please indicate the terms of your purchase of the unit, a)  f u l l purchase price  $  ,  52 53 54 55 56 57  $  b)  f i r s t mortgage amount  c)  interest rate on f i r s t mortgage  d) second mortgage amount  ;  58 59 60 61 62 63  .  64 65 66 67  $  ,  %  68 69 70 71 72  251.  - 4e)  f)  was this a B. C. government second mortgage? Yes 1 No 2 cash downpayment  73  1$  .C  74 75 76 77 78 79 g)  8.  i s the f i r s t mortgage NHA insured? Yes 1 No 2  h)  i s this unit financed under the Assisted Home Ownership Plan (AHOP)? Yes 1 No 2  i)  i s t h i s unit financed under an agreement f o r sale instead of a mortgage? Yes 1 No 2  80  What are your present monthly payments for the following items? a)  mortgage payment ( p r i n c i p a l and interest)  $  .0 8  b)  9 10 11  taxes 12 13 14  c)  .0  common area charges 15 16 17  d)  TOTAL  $  ,  .Oi  18 19 20 21 9.  10.  a) What were the estimated common area charges for your unit before you moved in?  $  b)  $ _.0l 25 26 27  What were the actual common area charges a f t e r you moved in?  Which of the following were the two (2) most important reasons for moving from your previous dwilling? (Please rank in order of importance). 01. 02. 03. 04.  change i n household membership desired less space desired less upkeep desired more l i v i n g space  .01  22 23 24  252. - 5 -  05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10.  11.  a)  d e s i r e d b e t t e r neighbourhood c o n d i t i o n s d e s i r e d a l e s s expensive u n i t t o e s t a b l i s h an e q u i t y t o be c l o s e r t o t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , work, s e r v i c e s , e t c . j o b t r a n s f e r o r change other(s) (please s p e c i f y )  1st 28 29 2nd 30 31  D i d you own a home immediately b e f o r e b u y i n g your condominium o r were y o u r e n t i n g accommodation? 32 1 2 3  b)  owned rented l i v e d a t home o r w i t h f r i e n d s b u t d i d n o t pay r e n t  I f y o u owned a home immediately b e f o r e b u y i n g t h i s condominium u n i t , which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g types was i t ? 33 1 2 3 4 5 6  c)  s i n g l e family residence semi-detached r e s i d e n c e townhouse condominium l o w - r i s e apartment condominium h i g h - r i s e apartment condominium m o b i l e home  I f you r e n t e d accommodation immediately b e f o r e b u y i n g t h i s .condominium u n i t , which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g types was it? 34 1 2 3 4 5 6  12.  s i n g l e family residence semi-detached r e s i d e n c e townhouse l o w - r i s e apartment h i g h - r i s e apartment m o b i l e home  D i d you l o o k f o r a s i n g l e f a m i l y house b e f o r e d e c i d i n g your condominium ( w i t h i n 6 months)?  t o buy 35  1 2  13.  a)  Yes No  D i d you buy your u n i t d i r e c t l y from the d e v e l o p e r , o r from an i n d i v i d u a l who owned i t p r e v i o u s l y ? 36 1 2  from d e v e l o p e r from p r e v i o u s owner  - 6 -  b)  If you bought i t from the developer, did you buy i t through one of h i s sales people, or through an independent agent? 1 2  c)  I f you bought i t from a previous owner, d i d you deal d i r e c t l y with the owner, or through an independent agent?  To what extent were you informed of your rights and obligations as a condominium owner before you purchased the unit?  15.  better location lower f u l l p r i c e f o r equal or better u n i t lower downpayment lower monthly payments freedom from exterior upkeep recreational f a c i l i t i e s included with the condominium other(s) (please specify and rank)  Which of the following l o c a t i o n a l features did you consider to be the most important i n selecting this condominium project? (Please rank only the three (3) most important reasons i n order of importance). 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09.  39  very w e l l informed moderately w e l l informed poorly informed  Why did you decide to buy a condominium rather than a single family house? (Please rank only the three (3) most important reasons i n order of importance.) 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07.  38  d i r e c t l y with owner independent agent  1 2 3 14.  37  developer's salesman independent agent  1 2 d)  253.  closeness to schools closeness to work closeness to shopping closeness to bus routes closeness to downtown Vancouver near parkland, other wooded areas or recreational facilities quiet neighbourhood w e l l maintained neighbourhood dwellings surrounding residents of s i m i l a r education  lst 40 41 2nd 42 43 3rd  44 45  254  16.  10. 11. 12.  s u r r o u n d i n g r e s i d e n t s of s i m i l a r income b r a c k e t c l o s e to f r i e n d s o t h e r ( s ) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y and rank)  13.  l o c a t i o n was  a)  2nd  a factor in selecting this project  3rd  46 47 48 49 50 51  What f e a t u r e s of your u n i t were most important t o you i n the s e l e c t i o n o f your u n i t ? ( P l e a s e rank o n l y t h r e e (3) most important i n o r d e r of i m p o r t a n c e ) . l a r g e r than average s i z e d rooms e x i s t e n c e of a f i r e p l a c e unique d e s i g n f e a t u r e s such as s k y l i g h t s , l o f t s , e t c . (please s p e c i f y ) .  1st  04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09.  superior appliances (stove, r e f r i g e r a t o r s , apparent good q u a l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n g r e a t e r than average s t o r a g e space l a r g e p a t i o or b a l c o n y s c e n i c view o t h e r (s) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y and rank)  3rd  10.  f e a t u r e s of the u n i t were not selection  01. 02. 03.  b)  not  1st  important  etc.)  2nd  52 53 54 55 56 57  in i t s  What changes i n the d e s i g n of your u n i t would have improved i t s s u i t a b i l i t y to you such t h a t you would be p r e p a r e d to pay more f o r i t ? ( P l e a s e l i m i t your c h o i c e to 2 or l e s s ) . You may s e l e c t from the l i s t above o r answer below.  58 59  60 61  17.  a)  What f e a t u r e s o f the p r o j e c t as a whole were the most important i n the s e l e c t i o n of your u n i t ? ( P l e a s e rank the t h r e e (3) most important i n order of importance.) 01.  w e l l landscaped  02.  l a r g e open garden or wooded areas w i t h i n the development adequate p l a y g r o u n d f a c i l i t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n e x i s t e n c e of a swimming p o o l e x i s t e n c e of a t e n n i s c o u r t e x i s t e n c e of a workshop  03. 04. 05. 06.  common  areas  - 8 -  07. 08. 09. 10.  255.  well maintained common areas adequate covered parking adequate v i s i t o r parking other(s) (please specify and rank)  lst 62  63  2nd 64 65  11.  b)  18.  What changes i n the design of the project would have imporved i t s s u i t a b i l i t y to you such that you would be prepared to pay more for them? (Please l i m i t your choice to 2 or less.) You may select from the l i s t above or answer i n the space below.  Of the following l i s t , generally which was reason i n the s e l e c t i o n of this unit? 1 2 3 4 5  19.  features of the project were not important i n the s e l e c t i o n of t h i s unit  3rd 66  67  68 69  70 71  the most important  location features of the unit features of the project as a whole price other (please specify)  72  Which features of the project were sales a t t r a c t i o n s when you bought, but which you don't use now? (Limit your s e l e c t i o n to 3 or less.) 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08.  swimming pool tennis court games room sauna, steam bath, whirlpool playgrounds garden areas workshop other (please specify)  09. 10.  project does not have any s p e c i a l common features a l l the features are used regularly  73  74  75 76 77  78  - 9 -  20.  a)  Do you plan to l i v e i n your present condominium f o r the foreseeable future? 1 2  b)  Yes No  I f not, when do you expect to move? 1 2 3  c)  I f you intend to move, into which of the following w i l l be your most l i k e l y choice? 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11.  21.  s i n g l e family detached - r e n t a l single family detached - self-owned townhouse - r e n t a l townhouse - self-owned apartment - r e n t a l apartment - self-owned duplex - r e n t a l duplex - self-owned mobile home - r e n t a l mobile home - self-owned other (please specify)  Is the management* of t h i s condominium project performed by the condominium association or by a professional management company? (* "management" refers to the administration of the by-laws, maintenance fund, etc.; not to the caretaking or maintenance function i t s e l f . ) 1 2 3  22.  within one year 1 to 2 years 2 t o 5 years  a)  condominium association professional management don't know Are you generally s a t i s f i e d with the management of t h i s condominium? 1 2  b)  Yes No  I f no, can you suggest any changes which you think would improve i t s management?  257.  - 10 23.  a)  Are there.any renters occupying units i n t h i s project that you know of?  11  1 Yes 2 No b)  I f yes, do you know how many renters there are i n t h i s project (leave blank i f you do not know)?  c)  Is there a noticeable difference i n the behavior renters r e l a t i v e to other owners generally?  12 13  of the  14  1 Yes 2 No d)  I f yes, i s the behavior better or worse than that of the other owners? 1 2  24.  15  better worse  Are you a member of the Strata Council?  16  1 Yes 2 No 25.  a)  In general, to what extent have your o r i g i n a l expectations regarding condominium l i v i n g been s a t i s f i e d ? 1 2 3 4  b)  17  very w e l l s a t i s f i e d moderately s a t i s f i e d moderately d i s s a t i s f i e d very d i s s a t i s f i e d  I f you have not been e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d , what are your most important c r i t i c i s m s ? (Please rank only the three (3) most important c r i t i c i s m s . )  lst 18 19  01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09.  poor soundproofing poor construction lack of privacy poor attitude of other owners uncontrolled children uncontrolled pets poor management poor upkeep other(s) (please specify and rank)  2nd 20 21 3rd 22 23  258. - 11  26.  I f you had known as much about condominium l i v i n g when you bought your u n i t as you do now, would you s t i l l have purchased i t ? • 1 Yes 2 No  27.  Do you f o r e s e e any major problems ahead f o r your condominium? they? ' ;  I f s o , how would you t r y t o p r e v e n t  Are  28.  What a r e  them?  your e f f o r t s i n d e a l i n g w i t h p r e s e n t problems s u c c e s s f u l ?  Would you l i k e any h e l p i n the r u n n i n g o f y o u r condominium courses, advice, etc.)?  (such as  v  29.  Are t h e r e any changes you would l i k e t o see w i t h r e s p e c t t o , s a y , t h e mortgage f i n a n c i n g , t h e arrangements made by t h e d e v e l o p e r r e g a r d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , s a l e s , s e t t i n g up the condominium c o r p o r a t i o n , e t c . Any changes you would l i k e t o see i n the condominium l e g i s l a t i o n ?  30.  I f you have any o t h e r comments c o n c e r n i n g condominium l i v i n g i n g e n e r a l , p l e a s e use the space below (or the back o f the p a g e ) .  P l e a s e i n s e r t t h e completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e (along w i t h the unused one) i n t o the envelope p r o v i d e d and r e t u r n as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your cooperation. END  259.  APPENDIX 3  \  260. TENANTS' QUESTIONNAIRE  T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h o u l d be coir.pleted o n l y by those RENTING and OCCUPYING t h e condominium u n i t . I f you own and occupy t h e u n i t , p l e a s e complete t h e e n c l o s e d "Owners' Q u e s t i o n n a i r e " . B e f o r e you b e g i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , we would l i k e to emphasize t h a t a l l r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l remain anonymous, and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d w i l l be a g g r e g a t e d i n t h e f i n a l r e p o r t . INSTRUCTIONS: Where a l i s t o f p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n i s p r o v i d e d , i n s e r t t h e NUMBER o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e i n t h e space p r o v i d e d i n the r i g h t - h a n d column. ( I f the a p p r o p r i a t e answer's number i n c l u d e s a z e r o such as 01, p l e a s e i n s e r t b o t h the 0 and t h e 1 i n t h e s p a c e s p r o v i d e d ) I f a l i s t o f r e s p o n s e s i s n o t p r o v i d e d b u t t h e answer c a n be e x p r e s s e d n u m e r i c a l l y , p l e a s e complete t h e spaces w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e numbers. EXAMPLES: 1.  2.  QUESTION - What i s y o u r m a r i t a l s t a t u s ? 01. married 02. single 03. s e p a r a t e d o r d i v o r c e d 04. widow o r widower ANSWER I f m a r r i e d , e n t e r 01 i n t h e r i g h t - h a n d column: as i n d i c a t e d . QUESTION ANSWER -  How o l d a r e you? I f 34 y e a r s o l d , e n t e r 34 i n t h e r i g h t - h a n d as i n d i c a t e d .  column  01  34  OFFICIAL USE ONLY g i 2  1  1.  When d i d you s t a r t renting t h i s unit? (Please give the month and year). Please indicate the month with the corresponding number as follows: January February March April  2.  01 02 03 04  May June July August  05 06 07 08  September October November December  09 10 11 12  Month 6  7  8  9  Year  How many people occupy t h i s unit? a)  number of adults?  (enter number)  b)  number of dependent children?  (enter number)  What are the ages of the adults occupying this unit? complete the answers f o r a l l adult residents.  12 13  Please  enter age  Adult 1  10 11  14 15  Adult 2  16 17  Adult 3  18 19  Adult 4  20 21  a)  Into which of the following ranges d i d your t o t a l family income f a l l when you f i r s t occupied this unit? 1. 2. 3. 4.  b)  less than $8,000 $8,001 to $16,000 $16,001 to $24,000 over $24,000  22  Into which of the following ranges does your t o t a l family income f a l l now? 1. 2. 3. 4.  less than $8,000 $8,001 to $16,000 $16,001 to $24,000 over $24,000  23  LEAF 262 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING.  262 a - 2 5.  What type of development i s this unit contained in? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.  6.  7.  townhouse or rowhouse only low-rise apartment only (3 stories or less) high-rise apartment only (4 stories or more) mixed apartment and townhouse single family detached mobile home park mixed residential and commercial non-residential semi-detached (duplex)  How many bedrooms does this unit have? one bedroom i f applicable). a)  2. 3.  4.  5.  25  0 $101 $201 $251 $301  -$100 - 200 - 250 - 300 - 350  6. 7. 8. 9.  $351 $401 $501 more  - 400 - 500 - 700 than $700  26  Does this include the property taxes and' common area charges on the unit? Yes No  c)  (Include a den as  Into which of the following ranges does your monthly rental fall? 1.  b)  24  1 2  27  If no, how much extra are these charges per month to the closest dollar? a.  taxes  b.  common area charges  ,00 28 29 30 31 32 33  d)  .00  If yes, but you know how much these charges are, please indicate. a.  taxes  b.  common area charges  34 35 36  .00 .00  37 38 39  P r i o r t o r e n t i n g t h i s u n i t ( w i t h i n s i x months) d i d you c o n s i d e r p u r c h a s i n g a s i n g l e f a m i l y home o r a condominium unit? a)  i . single  ii.  4.  5. 6. 7.  i .  i x .  home  Yes  1  No  2  I f y e s , why d i d y o u n o t do so? 1. 2. 3.  b)  family  i n s u f f i c i e n t downpayment monthly payments were t o o h i g h r e n t a l payments were s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s than payments on a s i m i l a r s i n g l e f a m i l y house a s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e t t e r u n i t c o u l d be o b t a i n e d r e n t i n g f o r t h e same payment as on a s i n g l e f a m i l y house preferred the f l e x i b i l i t y of renting d i d not f e e l i t would a good investment other (please specify)  condominium u n i t  Yes No  1  2  I f y e s , why d i d y o u n o t do so? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  i n s u f f i c i e n t downpayment monthly payments were t o o h i g h r e n t a l payments were s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s than payments on a s i m i l a r condominium a s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e t t e r u n i t c o u l d be o b t a i n e d r e n t i n g f o r the same payment as on a condominium p r e f e r r e d the f l e x i b i l i t y o f r e n t i n g d i d n o t f e e l i t would be a good i n v e s t m e n t other (please s p e c i f y )  Immediately p r i o r t o o c c u p y i n g t h i s u n i t , i n which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e s o f accommodation d i d you l i v e ? 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12.  s i n g l e f a m i l y detached - r e n t e d s i n g l e f a m i l y detached - oimed s e m i - d e t a c h e d (duplex) - r e n t e d s e m i - d e t a c h e d ( d u p l e x ) - owned townhouse - r e n t e d townhouse - owned l o w - r i s e apartment - r e n t e d l o w - r i s e apartment - owned h i g h - r i s e apartment - r e n t e d h i g h - r i s e apartment - owned m o b i l e home - r e n t e d mobile home - owned  . •  .  - 4 -  10.  a)  Do y o u d e f i n i t e l y p l a n t o purchase a home w i t h i n the n e x t f i v e (5) y e a r s ?  1.  Yes  46  2. No 3. . U n c e r t a i n b)  I f y e s , which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e types w i l l be y o u r most l i k e l y c h o i c e ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  c)  263.  s i n g l e f a m i l y detached townhouse condominium apartment condominium d u p l e x condominium m o b i l e home other (please s p e c i f y )  Of t h e above, which would  47  you most p r e f e r ?  E N D  P l e a s e i n s e r t the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t o t h e e n v e l o p e p r o v i d e d and r e t u r n as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n .  48  264.  APPENDIX 4  266. DEVELOPERS' QUESTIONNAIRE  Before you begin the questionnaire, we would l i k e to emphasize that a l l respondents w i l l remain anonymous and a l l information obtained w i l l be kept i n the s t r i c t e s t confindence. The data released i n the f i n a l report w i l l only appear i n aggregated form. INSTRUCTIONS: Where a l i s t of possible responses to the question i s provided, please insert the NUMBER of the appropriate response i n the space provided i n the right-hand margin. I f a l i s t of responses i s not provided but the number can be expressed numerically, please complete the spaces with the appropriate number(s).  EXAMPLES: 1.  QUESTION - What type of development i s this project? 01. 02. 03. 04.  h i g h - r i s e apartment low-rise apartment townhouse other (please specify)  0 1  ANSWER - I f i t i s a high-rise apartment, enter 01 i n the spaces provided as shown. 2.  QUESTION - How many units are i n t h i s project? ANSWER - I f 100 units i n the project enter 100 as shown.  10 0  UriiciAL  l ^ E ONLi  267. 1  S t r a t a Plan  2  3  4  4 5  #: Month  Date o f R e g i s t r a t i o n :  6  7  8  9  Year 19 Name o f Development: Number o f u n i t : Location:  ( e n t e r number i n margin)  10 11 12  (to be coded l a t e r ) DO NOT USE 13 14  The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s i n d i c a t e d above. 1.  specifically  What type o f development i s t h i s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  2.  apply  a)  t o t h e development  project?  townhouse o r rowhouse o n l y l o w - r i s e apartment o n l y (3 s t o r i e s o r l e s s ) h i g h - r i s e apartment o n l y (4 s t o r i e s or more) mixed apartment and townhouse s i n g l e f a m i l y detached mobile home park mixed r e s i d e n t i a l and commercial non-residential semi-detached (duplex) other (please s p e c i f y )  When was the c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e p r o j e c t s t a r t e d ? ( P l e a s e give the number o f t h e month and the y e a r i n the r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n ) .  15 16  Month  ^  b)  When was the l a s t u n i t completed? (Please g i v e the number o f the month and the y e a r i n the r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n ) .  e  a  T  Month  1  9  19 20  ^2  -  c)  Was t h i s b u i l d i n g c o n v e r t e d strata title  2 -  268.  from an a l t e r n a t e use t o  units?  25  1. Yes 2. No a)  b)  When were t h e u n i t s f i r s t o f f e r e d f o r s a l e ? ( P l e a s e g i v e t h e number o f the month and t h e year i n the r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n ) .  A r e a l l the u n i t s  Month  Year 19  sold?  26 27 28 29 30  1. Yes 2. No c)  I f a l l the u n i t s a r e s o l d p l e a s e g i v e the date when the l a s t u n i t was s o l d . (Please g i v e the number o f the month and the y e a r i n the r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n ) .  Month  31 32  Year 19  33 34 How many months d i d i t take t o o b t a i n a u t h o r i z a t i o n from the m u n i c i p a l government b e f o r e commencing c o n s t r u c t i o n ?  Which s o u r c e of funds p r o v i d e d financing f o r this project? 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12.  6.  a)  35 36  t h e f i r s t mortgage  c h a r t e r e d bank t r u s t company l i f e i n s u r a n c e company mortgage l o a n company C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (C.M.H.C.) i n s t i t u t i o n s (pension funds, e t c . ) p r i v a t e funds ( i n c l u d i n g s y n d i c a t e d i n v e s t o r s ) personal savings r e t a i n e d earnings p a r t n e r s h i p funds no f i r s t mortgage f i n a n c i n g r e q u i r e d other (please s p e c i f y )  I f you r e q u i r e d i n t e r i m f i n a n c i n g o t h e r than your normal l i n e of c r e d i t , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e which source o f  37 38  269, - 3funds was used.  b)  01. 02. 03. 04. 05.  c h a r t e r e d bank t r u s t company l i f e i n s u r a n c e company mortgage l o a n company C e n t r a l Mortgage and Housing Corporation(C.M.H.C.)  06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11.  i n s t i t u t i o n s (pension funds, e t c . ) p r i v a t e funds ( i n c l u d i n g s y n d i c a t e d personal savings r e t a i n e d earnings p a r t n e r s h i p funds other (please s p e c i f y )  39 40  investors)  Was the l e n d e r who s u p p l i e d the f i r s t mortgage funds t h e same as who s u p p l i e d the i n t e r i m funds?  41  1. Yes 2. No a)  I s your f i r m o r a s u b s i d i a r y t h e r e o f s t i l l f o r the management o f t h i s condominium?  responsible  42  1. Yes 2. No I f your f i r m i s s t i l l r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the management, do you i n t e n d t o r e l i n q u i s h t h i s s i b i l i t y w i t h i n the next t h r e e (3) y e a r s ?  b)  respon-  43  1. Yes 2. No ii.  I f you p l a n t o r e l i n q u i s h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i t h i n the next t h r e e y e a r s , p l e a s e g i v e t h e expected date of r e l i n q u i s h m e n t . ( P l e a s e g i v e the number o f t h e month and the year i n the r i g h t - h a n d m a r g i n ) .  Month  44 45 Year 19  46 47 c)  I f your f i r m i s n o t p r e s e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the management of the condominiums, when d i d you r e l i n q u i s h the management? (Please g i v e the number o f the month and the year i n the r i g h t - h a n d margin).  Month  48 49 Year 19  50 51 d)  When you r e l i n q u i s h e d the management f u n c t i o n d i d the r e s i d e n t s h i r e a p r o f e s s i o n a l manager o r d i d they attempt t o manage the condominiums themselves?  52  - 4  1. 2. 3. e)  h i r e d a professional managed themselves don't know  270.  p  Who i s managing the condominiums now? 1. 2. 3.  53  the residents professional managers don't know  The following questions are designed to provide background information on your firm. 7.  How many condominium projects has your firm developed i n the past 10 years?  8.  How many condominium projects does your firm have currently i n the planning stages?  9.  How many condominium units w i l l your company complete by the end of 1977? How -many, were completed .in 1976?:  How may i n 1975? 10.  a)  54 55 56  57 58  59 60 61 62  63 64 65 66  67 68 69 70  Does your firm develop other types of r e a l estate projects? 1. 2.  b)  I f yes, what percentage of your net income i s derived from the condominium sector?  c)  Please rank the three (3) most important areas i n terms of generating revenue from your r e a l estate business. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  71  Yes No  commercial development i n d u s t r i a l development single family r e s i d e n t i a l development condominium development land development (to the construction stage)  % 72 73  lst 74 2nd 75 3rd 76  271.  - 5 -  6. 7. 8. 9. 10.  11.  a)  b)  multiple family r e n t a l c o m m e r c i a l / i n d u s t r i a l investment commercial r e a l e s t a t e s e r v i c e s ( l e a s i n g , e t c . ) r e s i d e n t i a l r e a l estate services (sales, etc.) o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y and rank)  Do you u s u a l l y p l a n a p r o j e c t and then search f o r a s i t e w i t h the a p p r o p r i a t e q u a l i t i e s (1) or do you u s u a l l y j u s t l o o k f o r a "good buy" and p l a n a p r o j e c t s u i t a b l e f o r t h a t s i t e ? (2) (Please i n d i c a t e response as e i t h e r 1 or 2 ) . Do you u s u a l l y p l a n the developments w i t h l a r economic or s o c i a l group i n mind?  77  a particu78  1. 2.  12.  a)  In g e n e r a l , which of the f e a t u r e s l i s t e d below are the most i m p o r t a n t f o r a s u c c e s s f u l condominium p r o j e c t c a t e r i n g t o lower or m i d d l e income groups? ( P l e a s e rank o n l y the two (2) most i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s i n o r d e r of i m p o r t a n c e ) . 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09.  b)  Yes No  s i z e of the u n i t s location l a y o u t and d e s i g n of the u n i t s low downpayment low p r i c e good r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s good p l a y g r o u n d f a c i l i t i e s good a m e n i t i e s w i t h i n the u n i t (dishwasher, carpets, etc.) o t h e r ( s ) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y and rank)  lst  s i z e of the u n i t s location l a y o u t and d e s i g n of the u n i t s low downpayment low p r i c e good r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s good p l a y g r o u n d f a c i l i t i e s good a m e n i t i e s w i t h i n the u n i t carpets, etc.)  lst  2nd  (dishwasher,  80  6  7  2nd  In g e n e r a l , which of the f e a t u r e s l i s t e d below a r e the two (2) most important f o r a s u c c e s s f u l condominium development designed f o r upper income groups? 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08.  79  - 6 -  09.  13.  14.  272.  o t h e r ( s ) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y and rank  a)  How many u n i t s does your f i r m have now t h a t are completed, u n s o l d , and vacant?  10 11 12  b)  How many u n i t s does your f i r m have now t h a t were i n t e n d e d t o be s o l d b u t a r e b e i n g r e n t e d now?  13 14 15  I f you have any o t h e r comments p e r t i n e n t t o the development o f condominiums which have n o t been d e a l t w i t h , p l e a s e use the space below t o express them.  END  P l e a s e i n s e r t the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t o the envelope p r o v i d e d and r e t u r n as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n . I f you would l i k e a copy o f the survey company name and address below. NAME OF FIRM ADDRESS  r e s u l t s , p l e a s e s t a t e your  273.  APPENDIX 5  275.  MANAGERS' QUESTIONNAIRE Before you begin the questionnaire, we would l i k e t o emphasize t h a t a l l respondents w i l l remain anonymous, and a l l information obtained w i l l be aggregated i n the f i n a l r e p o r t . INSTRUCTIONS; Where a l i s t of p o s s i b l e responses t o the question i s provided, please i n s e r t the NUMBER of the appropriate response i n the space provided i n the right-hand column. I f a l i s t of responses i s not provided but the answer can be expressed numerically, please complete the spaces w i t h the appropriate number(s). I f the answer cannot be expressed n u m e r i c a l l y , please complete the blanks provided but do not use the spaces i n the right-hand margin. I f you cannot answer the question or i t does not apply, please leave the spaces blank.  3  m tl.a)  i  l  276.  Is this firm part of or a subsidiary of a condominium development firm? 1. yes 2. no  b)  I f yes, do you manage only those projects developed by the parent firm? 1. yes 2.  "2.  no  "7  Did this firm have prior experience in the real estate industry or property management before taking.on the management function of this Strata Plan? a) real estate industry 1. yes 2.  b)  no  property management 1. yes 2.  ;3.a)  no  How many condominium projects does your firm manage?  b) What i s the total number of units managed? 4.  10 11  Tl 13 Ti TS  Is your firm bonded for i t s duties as a condominium manager? 1. yes 2. no  5.  :6.  Of a l l the strata projects.you manage, how many have their books audited professionally? Of a l l the strata projects you manage, in how many does the current total common area charges NOT equal or exceed the current actual operating coats (including a l l charges which must be covered by the maintenance fund)?  16 17 T8  1 9 "20"2T  277. "7,.  8.  Of a l l t h e s t r a t a p r o j e c t s you manage, i n how many does t h e current l e v e l of the contingency reserve fund NOT' e q u a l o r exceed the desired l e v e l of the contingency reserve fund? Of a l l the units managed by your firm, how many are: a)  owned by the o r i g i n a l developer and rented? T)—•  b)  9.  owned.by someone other than the developer but rented?  How -would you rate the number of complaints against or problems encountered with non-owner residents r e l a t i v e t o owner residents? 1. 2. 3.  more than average average l e s s than average  .10.a) What are the most s i g n i f i c a n t problems you have encountered i n managing s t r a t a projects ( i . e . the most frequent or the most contentious problems; please rank the three (3) most important i n order of importance)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  b)  uncontrolled children uncontrolled pets excessive noise from other residents breaches of the by-laws by the residents educating owners as t o t h e i r r i g h t s and duties as condominium residents c o l l e c t i o n of common expense charges complaints about the l e v e l of common expense charges other(s), please specify  Please rank the f o l l o w i n g i n order of most frequent use t o enforce the by-laws. 1. 2. 3. 4.  moral suasion enforcement under the Strata T i t l e s Act enforcement under the municipal nuisance by-laws other(s), please specify  or  nn no  29 30 31 32  - 3 _ 278. Generally, how would you rate the Strata Councils i n terms of t h e i r knowledge of and c a p a b i l i t y f o r the management functions? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 12.  How  41  often do you report to the Strata Council? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  13.  very good moderately good average moderately poor very poor  12 or more times a year 6 t o 11 times a year 4 t o 6 times a year 2 t o 3 times a year 1 or fewer times a year  42  Does a representative of your firm attend the strata corporation's general meetings? 1. 2.  yes no  43  I f you have any other comments on the management of t h i s Strata Plan or on the management of condominiums i n general, please use t h i s space t o express them.  Please i n s e r t the completed questionnaire into the envelope provided and return i t as soon as p o s s i b l e . Thank you f o r your co-operation.  END  279.  APPENDIX 6  281.  STRATA COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE Before you begin the questionnaire, we would l i k e t o emphasize that a l l respondents w i l l remain anonymous, and a l l information obtained w i l l be aggregated i n the f i n a l report. INSTRUCTIONS: Where a l i s t of possible responses t o the question i s provided, please insert the NUMBER of the appropriate response i n the space p r o v i ded i n the right-hand column. I f a l i s t of responses i s not provided but the answer can be expressed numerically, please complete the spaces with the appropriate number(s). I f the answer cannot be expressed numerically, please complete the blanks provided but do not use the spaces i n the right-hand margin. I f the answer i s unknown or the question i s not applicable, please leave the spaces blank.  i  1  2  3  4  5 5  282.  This questionnaire i s divided into two parts. The f i r s t part should be answered by a l l strata councils. Part I I i s t o be completed only by those councils that manage t h e i r own project.  PART I  l.a)  -  To be answered by a l l strata councils.  Has there been any d i f f i c u l t y i n getting people t o run f o r the Strata Council of the condominium corporations? 1. yes 2. no  b)  Are the members of the Strata Council paid? 1. yes 2. no  c)  What i s the average l e v e l of attendance by the members of the Strata Council at the Council meetings? 1. 2. 3.. 4. 5.  d)  12 or more times a year 6 t o 11 times a year 3 t o 5 times a year 2 or l e s s times a year  What i s the average l e v e l of attendance of the owners at the general meetings? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  b)  80-100% attendance 60-79% attendance 40-59% attendance 20-39% attendance 0-19% attendance  How often do you have regular general meetings of the Strata Council? 1. 2. 3. 4.  2.a)  ~1  80-100% attendance 60-79% attendance 40-59% attendance 20-39% attendance 0-19% attendance  10  How would you rate the l e v e l of involvement i n the condominium corporation a c t i v i t i e s by the owners? 1. 2. 3. 4.  very high high medium low  11  283. 3.  How often do you have regular general meetings with the owners? 1. 12 or more times a year 2. 6 to 11 times a year 3. 3 to 5 times a year 4. 2 or less times a year  T2"  4. Do you communicate regularly (other than by general meetings) with the owners? (for example, through regular news bulletins) 1. yes 2. no T 3  Do you manage this project yourself or i s i t managed by a professional management firm? 1. managed by strata council 2. managed by professional firm  14  If the project i s managed by the strata council, please complete Part I I . If the project i s managed by a professional firm, please give the name and address in the space below and return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided. Thank you for your co-operation. Management firm (PLEASE PRINT): Name Person in charge Address  END OF PART I  -  3  -  284, PART II  1.  -  This section i s to be completed only by s t r a t a councils managing t h e i r own project.  Did any member of the Strata Council have p r i o r experience i n the r e a l estate industry or property management before taking on the management function of t h i s Strata Plan? a)  r e a l estate industry 1. 2.  yes no 15  b)  property management 1. 2.  yes no  16 2.  Does t h i s Strata Council manage Strata Plans other than i t s own? 1. 2/  yes no 17  I f yes, how many other plans? 18 19 3.a)  When did you assume the management of t h i s Strata Plan? Please indicate the NUMBER of the month and year i n the right-hand margin. Month 20  IT  Year 22 "2*3 b)  Did you take over the management d i r e c t l y from: 1. 2.  the developer a professional manager 24  4.a)  What are the most s i g n i f i c a n t problems you have encountered In managing t h i s Strata Plan ( i . e . the most frequent or the most contentious problems; please rank the three(3) most important i n order of importance)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  8.  uncontrolled children uncontrolled pets excessive noise from other residents breaches of the by-laws by the residents educating owners as to t h e i r r i g h t s and duties as condominium residents c o l l e c t i o n of common expense charges complaints about the l e v e l of common expense charges other(s), p l e a s e specify and rank  1st  15"  >nd 2~6 3rd 27  - 4 -  285. b)  Please rank the following i n order of most frequent use t o enforce the by-laws. 1. 2. 3. 4.  moral suasion enforcement under the s t r a t a T i t l e s Act enforcement under the municipal nuisance by-laws other(s), please specify  lst 28 2nd 29 3rd 30 4th 31  5.a)  To the best of your knowledge, how many units are not occupied by t h e i r owners? 32 33 34  b)  How would you rate the number of complaints against or problems encountered with non-owner residents r e l a t i v e t o owner residents? 1. 2. 3.  6.a)  more than average average l e s s than average  36  Did the developer provide any warranty as to the structure of t h i s development? 1. 2.  yes no  3.  don't know  37  I f yes, please continue; otherwise,- go to number 7. b)  Have any major repairs been made under the developer's warranty? 1. 2.  yes no 37  c)  I f yes, were there any complications i n having the repairs done under warranty? 1.  yes  2.  no  3S I f yes, please explain  d)  Do you f e e l that some repairs that have been done t o t h i s project should have been done under the warranty but were not? 1.  2„  yes no  39  -  s> -  286 '7.a)  Have there been any major physical improvements or additions since the development was o r i g i n a l l y completed? 1. yes 2. no  b)  40  I f yes, what are they?  DO NOT USE  "4T c)  Have there been any major deletions from the physical property since the development was o r i g i n a l l y completed (e.g., sale of part of the lands)? 1. yes  2. no d)  8.  I f yes, what are they?  What were the monthly common area charges and date when the units were sold, and what i s the monthly levy nov.'? DATE Month  44  45  ORIGINAL LEVY  ,19  57 58  . 00 46  47  49  50  "5T 32"o*3  .  NO. OF UNITS  59 60  74  To  00  67 68 69  "64 65 66 . 00  75  00  33 35" 3o  . 00 61 62 63  , 19  To 71  CURRENT LEVY  Year  ,19  9.  DO NOT USE  77 Ts 79  .  00  6  7  72 75  What are the current actual operating costs per month of t h i s Strata Plan? Include a l l charges which must be covered by the maintenance fund. %  """9" TO" 10.a)  What i s the current l e v e l oF the contingency reserve fund?  $  ,  14 TS T?j b)  What i s the desire;! l e v e l of the contingency reserve fund?  TI Tl T  $  T7  T? T  f  "2*0  71  "25  73  ~ T;  - 6 _ 287. •I.a)  Have there been any s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n the by-laws of this Strata Plan since the Council of Owners was formed? 1. 2.  yes no  26 b)  I f yes, what are they? DO NOT T 7  12.  I f you have any other comments on the management of t h i s Strata Plan or on the management of condominiums i n general, please use t h i s space to express them.  Please insert the completed questionnaire into the envelope provided and return i t as soon as possible. Thank you f o r your co-operation.  END  USE  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 11 0
China 8 5
Canada 5 0
Japan 3 0
France 2 0
Poland 2 0
India 2 0
Germany 2 2
United Kingdom 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 12 3
Ashburn 3 0
Shanghai 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Kansas City 3 0
Vancouver 2 0
Shenzhen 2 5
Bangalore 2 0
Hangzhou 2 0
Redmond 1 0
Seattle 1 0
Beijing 1 0
Burnaby 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094232/manifest

Comment

Related Items