<![CDATA[Vancouver Peak - All Forums]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/ Fri, 24 May 2013 15:37:48 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[интернет магазин антиквариат]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82 Fri, 24 May 2013 01:11:23 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82

мебель антиквариат]]>

мебель антиквариат]]> <![CDATA[The RE Listing 'Stupid' Pic Award]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-The-RE-Listing-Stupid-Pic-Award Thu, 23 May 2013 11:50:05 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-The-RE-Listing-Stupid-Pic-Award
I think the really outstanding ones should be shared with one and all maybe we could also vote at the end of the year for the one that truly deserves recognition with the listing agency earning The RE Listing 'Stupid' Pic Award. (Any other name suggestions for the Award are welcomed).

I have two submissions from the Sunshine Coast.


.jpg  V983803.jpg (Size: 9.85 KB / Downloads: 51)

V983803. Townhouse at #16 6233 Tyler Rd, Sechelt. Listing agency: ReMax Oceanview Realty. I cannot fathom what the agent wanted to convey with this picture which is as it appears on the listing (fire escape point?, B & E area of concern?). I think it is the dumbest picture I have come across so far.


.jpg  V940099.jpg (Size: 23.21 KB / Downloads: 2)

I call this the '$59,000 Cedar' and is the only image offered for V940099 - the cheapest lot found on the SC located up in Pender Harbour at 5380 Cedarridge Rd. The lot has been listed for 421 days and counting which makes me think that maybe this is all this lot has to offer: one cedar tree. Listing agency: Sutton Group West Coast Realty.]]>
I think the really outstanding ones should be shared with one and all maybe we could also vote at the end of the year for the one that truly deserves recognition with the listing agency earning The RE Listing 'Stupid' Pic Award. (Any other name suggestions for the Award are welcomed).

I have two submissions from the Sunshine Coast.


.jpg  V983803.jpg (Size: 9.85 KB / Downloads: 51)

V983803. Townhouse at #16 6233 Tyler Rd, Sechelt. Listing agency: ReMax Oceanview Realty. I cannot fathom what the agent wanted to convey with this picture which is as it appears on the listing (fire escape point?, B & E area of concern?). I think it is the dumbest picture I have come across so far.


.jpg  V940099.jpg (Size: 23.21 KB / Downloads: 2)

I call this the '$59,000 Cedar' and is the only image offered for V940099 - the cheapest lot found on the SC located up in Pender Harbour at 5380 Cedarridge Rd. The lot has been listed for 421 days and counting which makes me think that maybe this is all this lot has to offer: one cedar tree. Listing agency: Sutton Group West Coast Realty.]]> <![CDATA[The RE Listing 'Souse' Award]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-The-RE-Listing-Souse-Award Thu, 23 May 2013 10:24:25 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-The-RE-Listing-Souse-Award Jason Soprovich. In my opinion there isn't any other agent in the lower mainland who has mastered the art of displaying 'conspicuous consumption' as well as he has. I think one day in the future his listing pictures will be displayed in art galleries perhaps in showings titled 'The Excesses of the 21st Century' or 'The Rise before the Fall' or, no doubt, something more profound.

So, every now and then I pop into his website to see if he continues to raise the bar and he hasn't disappointed me so far. Now, I have really come to appreciate his photos of the wine cellars in some of these west coast chateaux for some are truly worthy of praise; so much so, in fact, that I think VanPeak members might consider voting a special award at the end of the year to one deserving of recognition. I was thinking of calling this award - The RE Listing 'Souse' Award. However, any other suggestions would be welcomed.

There are two simple rules:
  1. VanPeak members can upload listing pics of wine cellars to this thread with one caveat - the cellars cannot be empty. We need to know that in addition to beauty and symmetry, the cellars have to be functional.
  2. At the end of the year, we can vote and send notice to the listing agent that his client has won this prestigious award and he can pass on the welcome news - maybe a creative VanPeak member could draw up a certificate that we could send along, too.

Okay, I will kick things off with these entries:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=170]

On the left, Rosebery Ave, Listing: $21,800,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)
On the right, 4367 Erwin Ave, Listing: $9,875,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

[Image: attachment.php?aid=171]

On the left, 5310 Seaside Place, Listing: $10,998,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)
On the right, 3771 Dollarton Hwy, Listing: $4,450,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

(Dollarton shows that you needn't go to Donald Trump excess to be entered. Here, I admire the display of objects other than those alcoholic in nature; however, bottle and glass placement is noteworthy, too).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=172]

5335 Partheon Place, Listing: $8,998,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

(Personally, I am not a big fan of contemporary architectural design that celebrates glass. Just too reflective in the physical sense for my taste and knowing me I wouldn't be able to determine where the doors and entrances are and would end up hurting myself. However, this wine cellar did catch my eye because of its placement next to those three lounging beds (a nice Roman touch to the media room). You can just grab your bottle and kick back without the worry of having too far to fall. This is really an excellent idea - kudos to the one who thought this!)

.jpg  Combo1.jpg (Size: 87.12 KB / Downloads: 64)

.jpg  Combo2.jpg (Size: 61.75 KB / Downloads: 67)

.jpg  5535ParthenonPl2.jpg (Size: 20.57 KB / Downloads: 65) ]]> Jason Soprovich. In my opinion there isn't any other agent in the lower mainland who has mastered the art of displaying 'conspicuous consumption' as well as he has. I think one day in the future his listing pictures will be displayed in art galleries perhaps in showings titled 'The Excesses of the 21st Century' or 'The Rise before the Fall' or, no doubt, something more profound.

So, every now and then I pop into his website to see if he continues to raise the bar and he hasn't disappointed me so far. Now, I have really come to appreciate his photos of the wine cellars in some of these west coast chateaux for some are truly worthy of praise; so much so, in fact, that I think VanPeak members might consider voting a special award at the end of the year to one deserving of recognition. I was thinking of calling this award - The RE Listing 'Souse' Award. However, any other suggestions would be welcomed.

There are two simple rules:
  1. VanPeak members can upload listing pics of wine cellars to this thread with one caveat - the cellars cannot be empty. We need to know that in addition to beauty and symmetry, the cellars have to be functional.
  2. At the end of the year, we can vote and send notice to the listing agent that his client has won this prestigious award and he can pass on the welcome news - maybe a creative VanPeak member could draw up a certificate that we could send along, too.

Okay, I will kick things off with these entries:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=170]

On the left, Rosebery Ave, Listing: $21,800,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)
On the right, 4367 Erwin Ave, Listing: $9,875,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

[Image: attachment.php?aid=171]

On the left, 5310 Seaside Place, Listing: $10,998,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)
On the right, 3771 Dollarton Hwy, Listing: $4,450,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

(Dollarton shows that you needn't go to Donald Trump excess to be entered. Here, I admire the display of objects other than those alcoholic in nature; however, bottle and glass placement is noteworthy, too).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=172]

5335 Partheon Place, Listing: $8,998,000 (Agent: Jason Soprovitch)

(Personally, I am not a big fan of contemporary architectural design that celebrates glass. Just too reflective in the physical sense for my taste and knowing me I wouldn't be able to determine where the doors and entrances are and would end up hurting myself. However, this wine cellar did catch my eye because of its placement next to those three lounging beds (a nice Roman touch to the media room). You can just grab your bottle and kick back without the worry of having too far to fall. This is really an excellent idea - kudos to the one who thought this!)

.jpg  Combo1.jpg (Size: 87.12 KB / Downloads: 64)

.jpg  Combo2.jpg (Size: 61.75 KB / Downloads: 67)

.jpg  5535ParthenonPl2.jpg (Size: 20.57 KB / Downloads: 65) ]]> <![CDATA[Sechelt Development - The Wharf Place]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-The-Wharf-Place Sun, 12 May 2013 16:51:38 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-The-Wharf-Place [Image: attachment.php?aid=149]
The Wharf Place, a new 24-unit condo development offering 6 street level commercial units, completed construction and opened for business in April. The developer is not ‘laughing to the bank’ nor ‘laughing to Lund’; in fact, the developer would be lucky to make it as far as Pender Harbour crying all the way. If sales in this unit indicate the state of the condo/townhouse market on the Sunshine Coast, then it is toast.

This development is located on the south side of Wharf Ave at the corner of Wharf and East Porpoise Bay Road. Wharf is a main east-west junction point in Sechelt where it meets with Hwy 101. Turning left onto Wharf enables those heading north up the coast to bypass the downtown area. Heading west on Wharf takes you towards Porpoise Bay. Anyone wanting to head to East Porpoise Bay (Sandy Hook, Tuwanek) must take Wharf and turn right onto E. Porpoise Bay Road. Continuing on Wharf will take you into the developments lining the west side of Porpoise Bay such as The Shores and Seawatch on the Shores.

I always thought of Wharf Ave from its junction with Hwy 101 east to E. Porpoise Bay Road as the industrial area of Sechelt Village. Here you will find building supply centres (Gibsons Building Supplies, Home Building Centre), a Ford car dealership, an auto body shop, gardening centre, the Malaspina Coach Lines bus depot, and so on. As the pictures below show, it is not the most attractive stretch of road in Sechelt.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=150]

These images above are Google streetviews taken in August, 2011. The left image is looking east from the junction with Hwy 101. In the far distance is the Home Hardware Building Centre and at that point Wharf begins to curve to the left as the map below illustrates. The image above on the right shows the future site of The Wharf Place just before Wharf Ave meets with E. Porpoise Bay Road. So, we know that construction did not start until sometime after August, 2011.

The images below show you the exact location of the development and how it is orientated in relation to Wharf Ave, as well as its three floorplans. The ground floor shows the location of the commercial units and illustrates that this area forms a pedestal for the building. Parking for resident and commercial tenants offers both covered (surrounding the pedestal and under the condo floors above) and open air parking (behind the building).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=151]

The second and third floorplans show the condos come in various configurations offering 1bed/1bath at 691sf up to 3bed/2bath at 1467sf. Are there any windowless bedrooms? Nope, they all have either windows or sliding doors onto a balcony. In my humble opinion, I think that overall the layouts of these condos are far more attractive and practical then what you would find at the far more expensive Watermark development down at the pebble beach off Toredo St.

Now, according to the floorplans five commercial units have been sold which I cannot verify and four condo units have sold which I can verify and according to the ‘MLS Sold’ information only two condo units have actually sold - Units 207 and 311. All the other 22 condo units remain unsold despite having been listed since September 14, 2011 - over 600 days ago and counting! You will find this information in the spreadsheet below. I have highlighted the sold information provided by the development website in gold in a separate column and the MLS information is on the right.

Note: in the spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold
[Image: attachment.php?aid=152]

Back at the end of March, Realtor Gary Little’s interactive map showed that prices had been reduced from $20,000 to as much $30,000 on the condo units. That reduction information disappeared sometime in April or at the beginning of May. I regret not writing down those reduced prices so I don’t know if the pricing on the spreadsheet now reflects that lower pricing or if the developer returned to the original pricing for the spring/summer selling period. I have a strong feeling it is the latter. Also, I wonder when you look at this listing info why the developer hasn’t allowed the listings to expire and then re-list to make it appear more up-to-date. All those units are carrying an MLS# beginning with V91. Maybe the developer is too depressed to care anymore.

Really, I can’t begin to imagine what the developer is thinking and feeling right now as this development languishes. If you click on the developer’s name on The Wharf Place website you are taken to his/her website and despite what that website states this appears to be the first and only project undertaken so far. What are the financial implications of this?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=153]

I haven’t checked to see if any of these units are being placed on the rental market - if they have, would they remove them from the MLS listing? You would think so. Maybe it will be an option taken after the summer, but I doubt there are enough renters on the coast to fill even half of this building. As well, I notice on the development website home page it says, “Own from $699/mo*” with the following in the fine print,“*Conditions apply. 25% down payment required. Subject to OAC. Prices subject to change.” Does this mean the developer is willing to carry the mortgage?

There is another significant issue here, too, I think. If you click on 'Partners' on the development website, the financing for this project came via the local Sunshine Coast Credit Union. I wonder how many other development projects it has financed on the SC and how many are in the same dire straits as this one.

Yes, for 'The Wharf Place' and SC RE, it's hurting real bad.

Note: I have discovered some info on the commercial units since this post and it is below in a new post along with an updated spreadsheet.

.jpg  WharfPlace1.jpg (Size: 75.17 KB / Downloads: 278)

.jpg  WharfStCombo.jpg (Size: 70.71 KB / Downloads: 284)

.jpg  MapSiteMapCombo.jpg (Size: 95.27 KB / Downloads: 284)

.gif  SSCombo.gif (Size: 24.06 KB / Downloads: 277)

.gif  DvlprWebsite.gif (Size: 41.57 KB / Downloads: 281) ]]> [Image: attachment.php?aid=149]
The Wharf Place, a new 24-unit condo development offering 6 street level commercial units, completed construction and opened for business in April. The developer is not ‘laughing to the bank’ nor ‘laughing to Lund’; in fact, the developer would be lucky to make it as far as Pender Harbour crying all the way. If sales in this unit indicate the state of the condo/townhouse market on the Sunshine Coast, then it is toast.

This development is located on the south side of Wharf Ave at the corner of Wharf and East Porpoise Bay Road. Wharf is a main east-west junction point in Sechelt where it meets with Hwy 101. Turning left onto Wharf enables those heading north up the coast to bypass the downtown area. Heading west on Wharf takes you towards Porpoise Bay. Anyone wanting to head to East Porpoise Bay (Sandy Hook, Tuwanek) must take Wharf and turn right onto E. Porpoise Bay Road. Continuing on Wharf will take you into the developments lining the west side of Porpoise Bay such as The Shores and Seawatch on the Shores.

I always thought of Wharf Ave from its junction with Hwy 101 east to E. Porpoise Bay Road as the industrial area of Sechelt Village. Here you will find building supply centres (Gibsons Building Supplies, Home Building Centre), a Ford car dealership, an auto body shop, gardening centre, the Malaspina Coach Lines bus depot, and so on. As the pictures below show, it is not the most attractive stretch of road in Sechelt.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=150]

These images above are Google streetviews taken in August, 2011. The left image is looking east from the junction with Hwy 101. In the far distance is the Home Hardware Building Centre and at that point Wharf begins to curve to the left as the map below illustrates. The image above on the right shows the future site of The Wharf Place just before Wharf Ave meets with E. Porpoise Bay Road. So, we know that construction did not start until sometime after August, 2011.

The images below show you the exact location of the development and how it is orientated in relation to Wharf Ave, as well as its three floorplans. The ground floor shows the location of the commercial units and illustrates that this area forms a pedestal for the building. Parking for resident and commercial tenants offers both covered (surrounding the pedestal and under the condo floors above) and open air parking (behind the building).

[Image: attachment.php?aid=151]

The second and third floorplans show the condos come in various configurations offering 1bed/1bath at 691sf up to 3bed/2bath at 1467sf. Are there any windowless bedrooms? Nope, they all have either windows or sliding doors onto a balcony. In my humble opinion, I think that overall the layouts of these condos are far more attractive and practical then what you would find at the far more expensive Watermark development down at the pebble beach off Toredo St.

Now, according to the floorplans five commercial units have been sold which I cannot verify and four condo units have sold which I can verify and according to the ‘MLS Sold’ information only two condo units have actually sold - Units 207 and 311. All the other 22 condo units remain unsold despite having been listed since September 14, 2011 - over 600 days ago and counting! You will find this information in the spreadsheet below. I have highlighted the sold information provided by the development website in gold in a separate column and the MLS information is on the right.

Note: in the spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold
[Image: attachment.php?aid=152]

Back at the end of March, Realtor Gary Little’s interactive map showed that prices had been reduced from $20,000 to as much $30,000 on the condo units. That reduction information disappeared sometime in April or at the beginning of May. I regret not writing down those reduced prices so I don’t know if the pricing on the spreadsheet now reflects that lower pricing or if the developer returned to the original pricing for the spring/summer selling period. I have a strong feeling it is the latter. Also, I wonder when you look at this listing info why the developer hasn’t allowed the listings to expire and then re-list to make it appear more up-to-date. All those units are carrying an MLS# beginning with V91. Maybe the developer is too depressed to care anymore.

Really, I can’t begin to imagine what the developer is thinking and feeling right now as this development languishes. If you click on the developer’s name on The Wharf Place website you are taken to his/her website and despite what that website states this appears to be the first and only project undertaken so far. What are the financial implications of this?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=153]

I haven’t checked to see if any of these units are being placed on the rental market - if they have, would they remove them from the MLS listing? You would think so. Maybe it will be an option taken after the summer, but I doubt there are enough renters on the coast to fill even half of this building. As well, I notice on the development website home page it says, “Own from $699/mo*” with the following in the fine print,“*Conditions apply. 25% down payment required. Subject to OAC. Prices subject to change.” Does this mean the developer is willing to carry the mortgage?

There is another significant issue here, too, I think. If you click on 'Partners' on the development website, the financing for this project came via the local Sunshine Coast Credit Union. I wonder how many other development projects it has financed on the SC and how many are in the same dire straits as this one.

Yes, for 'The Wharf Place' and SC RE, it's hurting real bad.

Note: I have discovered some info on the commercial units since this post and it is below in a new post along with an updated spreadsheet.

.jpg  WharfPlace1.jpg (Size: 75.17 KB / Downloads: 278)

.jpg  WharfStCombo.jpg (Size: 70.71 KB / Downloads: 284)

.jpg  MapSiteMapCombo.jpg (Size: 95.27 KB / Downloads: 284)

.gif  SSCombo.gif (Size: 24.06 KB / Downloads: 277)

.gif  DvlprWebsite.gif (Size: 41.57 KB / Downloads: 281) ]]> <![CDATA[Gibsons Development - Island Vista]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Gibsons-Development-Island-Vista Sun, 12 May 2013 14:44:15 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Gibsons-Development-Island-Vista [Image: attachment.php?aid=146]
I've been keeping my eye on Island Vista, a small 8-unit townhouse development in Gibsons, for some time now wondering when the developer was going to face reality and drop the prices. Well, it finally happened last week. It wasn’t a big drop but given it took so long it must have been very painful.

I noticed the ground work getting underway back in 2009 and when I realized it was shaping up to be a townhouse development I remember thinking it was in a great location and would likely move fast. Nope. There it sits like a couple of beached whales with only two end units sold and that happened back in 2011.

I don’t know who the developer is behind this small project but given his prominence on the development’s website I can’t help but think it might be SC Realtor John McKenzie who is one of the top agents for Royal Lepage. He is handling the Watermark in Sechelt condo sales.

As I said, I think it is in a great location especially if you were a commuter heading into Vancouver. There are two ways you can head to the ferry terminal from Crucil Rd - the quick route via North Road or the scenic route down into Lower Gibsons and then Marine Drive. If you don’t want to drive, you can hop on the coast transit bus and be dropped off at the ferry, too. It is also walking distance to all the shops and restaurants in Lower Gibsons as well as Gibson’s Landing in the bay. So what is the problem here?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=147]

The image above shows the project elevation and as you can see the development is comprised of two blocks each with 4 units and it looks to be well made judging from the pictures both outside and inside. It is described as “New York Brownstone Inspired”; so, maybe it is too New Yorky or not Brownstone enough since it is actually constructed of good ‘ol BC cedar or maybe it is just too brown. Or, maybe it is just too expensive.

The units were all listed back in 2010 and then the unsold units were re-listed in 2012. I am not sure why the purchaser of Unit 5 paid so much more than asking unless there were some serious upgrades done. Maybe there was a small bidding war at the time for the end units and if that is the case he/she must regret that moment of insanity.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=148]

There were only 11 RE sales in Gibsons in April (5 detached, 3 attached, 1 mobile trailer, and 2 vacant lots). So, it might take more than that price drop to float these babies.

.jpg  IslandVist-Map.jpg (Size: 100.66 KB / Downloads: 187)

.jpg  ElevationCombo.jpg (Size: 84.78 KB / Downloads: 186)

.gif  SSIslandVista.gif (Size: 32.9 KB / Downloads: 184) ]]> [Image: attachment.php?aid=146]
I've been keeping my eye on Island Vista, a small 8-unit townhouse development in Gibsons, for some time now wondering when the developer was going to face reality and drop the prices. Well, it finally happened last week. It wasn’t a big drop but given it took so long it must have been very painful.

I noticed the ground work getting underway back in 2009 and when I realized it was shaping up to be a townhouse development I remember thinking it was in a great location and would likely move fast. Nope. There it sits like a couple of beached whales with only two end units sold and that happened back in 2011.

I don’t know who the developer is behind this small project but given his prominence on the development’s website I can’t help but think it might be SC Realtor John McKenzie who is one of the top agents for Royal Lepage. He is handling the Watermark in Sechelt condo sales.

As I said, I think it is in a great location especially if you were a commuter heading into Vancouver. There are two ways you can head to the ferry terminal from Crucil Rd - the quick route via North Road or the scenic route down into Lower Gibsons and then Marine Drive. If you don’t want to drive, you can hop on the coast transit bus and be dropped off at the ferry, too. It is also walking distance to all the shops and restaurants in Lower Gibsons as well as Gibson’s Landing in the bay. So what is the problem here?

[Image: attachment.php?aid=147]

The image above shows the project elevation and as you can see the development is comprised of two blocks each with 4 units and it looks to be well made judging from the pictures both outside and inside. It is described as “New York Brownstone Inspired”; so, maybe it is too New Yorky or not Brownstone enough since it is actually constructed of good ‘ol BC cedar or maybe it is just too brown. Or, maybe it is just too expensive.

The units were all listed back in 2010 and then the unsold units were re-listed in 2012. I am not sure why the purchaser of Unit 5 paid so much more than asking unless there were some serious upgrades done. Maybe there was a small bidding war at the time for the end units and if that is the case he/she must regret that moment of insanity.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=148]

There were only 11 RE sales in Gibsons in April (5 detached, 3 attached, 1 mobile trailer, and 2 vacant lots). So, it might take more than that price drop to float these babies.

.jpg  IslandVist-Map.jpg (Size: 100.66 KB / Downloads: 187)

.jpg  ElevationCombo.jpg (Size: 84.78 KB / Downloads: 186)

.gif  SSIslandVista.gif (Size: 32.9 KB / Downloads: 184) ]]> <![CDATA[Sechelt Development - The Watermark at Sechelt]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-The-Watermark-at-Sechelt Fri, 10 May 2013 14:14:19 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-The-Watermark-at-Sechelt Watermark at Sechelt is the new condo development that grabbed the last remaining waterfront land in the core of Sechelt and is now laughing all the way to…Lund!! Yep, ‘laughing to Lund’ but not to the bank based on unit sales so far.

I first introduced this development in a March post and after a recent discovery I thought it deserved the ‘Skook Treatment’. I am not impressed with this project. I think this will be Sechelt’s mini-Coal Harbour if and when they manage to sell all the units which I don’t think will happen anytime soon. I bet any of those who buy in will visit maybe three months of the year tops and the rest of the year vacant units will be enjoying that waterfront view.

The development of this land was contentious with the townsfolk because of the waterfront and it languished for years. I believe the property has traded hands at least once and the current developer is Seacliff Properties Ltd, a subsidiary of Seacliff Holdings Ltd - a private company owned by the Gordon family of Vancouver. This present project was contentious, too, because of its height - 6 stories. However, the development of the land and the project eventually passed Sechelt Council and as one local, Kenneth McMillan, wrote, “the town…turned its back on the ocean, one of its finest assets.”

This ‘turning its back on the ocean’ is compounded by a design element of this project that absolutely appalls me and why Sechelt Council passed this boggles my mind. This development comprises two six stories buildings (5665 & 5725 Toredo St) that are mirror images of each other. I have indicated on the map below their locations with an ‘X’ - 5665 is closest to Inlet Ave. The first level of each building will be commercial space and good luck to any business locating here because except for those willing to pay premium prices for the few spaces facing the ocean and a couple facing Toredo most of the commercial space will be closed off from the outdoors as the design encases that level one space between the two buildings completely in concrete. The resulting Toredo streetscape can be seen in the two pictures below in the last row - brilliant, absolutely, fabs-ulously brilliant.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=144]

I can only think of one reason for this design - to maximize the commercial space and, personally, I think this proffering of a concrete ass-end towards the town and those who live there adds insult to injury. By the way, most of Sechelt’s current ‘downtown’ businesses are found within that blue outlined area and, personally, I would rather walk down a street than visit shops housed in a concrete bunker. The nearby Trail Bay Centre shopping mall has attempted to compensate its lack of streetscape with huge skylights letting in daylight, but I see nothing similar on Watermark’s plans.

In my opinion, had the developer shown any vision, he would have kept the space open at sea-level and turned it into a European-style plaza available to one and all. Shops, restaurants or cafés could have lined the plaza on both sides and those tables with umbrellas pictured above would have faced the ocean and not a concrete wall and highway traffic on Toredo (seriously?!)

I would love to know how many commercial spaces there are and how many have been leased to date. If the units sold give any indication, then not many. As I mentioned in another post, demographics are wrecking havoc on SC businesses. Aging boomers watching their pennies haven’t many needs and part-time residents don’t buy when they aren’t around 9 months of the year. This should be interesting.

Now, about those unit sales. When I first mentioned this project back in March I said the Watermark website indicated that Phase 1 (5665) was 50% sold and Phase 2 (5725) was 31% sold. However, last week I decided to see how the project was doing and when I looked at the MLS information the 'sold' figures didn’t jive. This discrepancy made me think of a post by Whispers, ‘What does “Sold Out” mean? Watermark wasn’t indicating it was “Sold Out”, but it was showing more units sold than what MLS was indicating and so I decided to take a closer look at the project. By the way, the marketing firm mentioned in Whispers’ post responded and said, “Sold” means a firm and binding contract with received deposit.” If this were so in Watermark’s case, why wasn’t it a closed deal and the info passed onto MLS? Sold is sold, right?

So, I have created s spreadsheet and on the left side is the info for Phase 1 and on the right for Phase 2. Each has a column showing the units Watermark indicates as sold on its website floorplans (*Wmk 'Sales' via FlrPlns (May 10/13)) and I’ve highlighted these in gold. The other columns show MLS sales and listing info. The spreadsheet indicates that prices for the units have increased for Phase 2. Now, when comparing unit prices you need to note there are some odd shaped units on floors 2, 3 and 4 and also that the buildings are ‘mirror-images’ of each other. The small table above the spreadsheet shows how those particular units relate to each other between buildings; the remaining units can be thought of as identical between Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Note: In spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=145]

It will be interesting to follow this development and see if any of those units indicated as “Sold” but have no corresponding “MLS Sold” information end up being listed in the future. So, bearing in mind that there are 52 units in each building, the MLS information indicates that 35% of Phase 1 has sold and not 50%; and, 29% of Phase 2 has sold and not 31%. As Watermark's website shows, the buildings are still under construction, so I am sure the developer is hoping and praying that sells pick up when Phase 1 is complete - because they sure stink now.

Those sales have languished despite some serious money poured into marketing. The developer hired North Vancouver based Pacesetter Sales & Marketing Strategies and the company has produced two marketing “magazines” for Watermark with one released for Spring/Summer 2012 and the other for Spring/Summer 2013. They’re interesting to look at because they blur that line between what is ‘news’ and what is ‘advertising/marketing’ - another issue raised by the Whispers blog. I laughed out loud when I looked at those ‘mags’ because both make a point of stressing how close St. Mary’s hospital is to Watermark. In fact, in the 2013 edition, the ‘article’ was moved right to the front - flip the cover and there it is. Well, we can guess who their primary target market is, can’t we. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Finally, there is a picture related to this development on Duane Burnett’s blog - he has been the ‘go-to’ photographer for the Coast Reporter newspaper for a number of years. I pulled that McMillan quote from the Comments section in that post. Scroll down for a funny pic following the story and keep scrolling for those interesting local comments.

May 11, 2013 Update:

There is something that has caught my eye which prompts me to add to this post.

When you start getting creative with your building design such as this one which is trying to give as many units as possible an oceanview if only via balconies you have to twist the units around a central axis. As a result, something has to give and in this design it is windows. Now, most of us would accept windowless bathrooms, but would you accept windowless bedrooms - especially at these prices? Now, with some of these units not only do they have a second bedroom with no windows but also an office or den. Therefore, when you add in all the windowless bathrooms, buyers are being asked to pay big bucks for up to 3 or 4 rooms with no windows.

For example:

Type B floorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 210, 211, 310, 311, 408, 409): windowless bathrooms (2). bedroom (1).

Type D floorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 206,207,306, 307, 404, 405): windowless bathrooms (2), bedroom (1), Den (1)

Type E foorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 204, 205, 207, 305, 402, 403): windowless bathrooms (2). bedroom (1), Den (1)

Other units with windowless 2nd bedrooms: 502, 503, 506, 507, 602, 603.

Now, this is what has caught my eye - if you look at the spreadsheet how many of these units listed here have sold? I think I have just doubled the interest factor on this development. I can hardly wait for the months to unfold on this one.

One more thing; yep, there is always one more thing. I visited the architectural firm's website last night (http://www.trbarchitecture.ca/) and here is what they have to say about their Watermark design:

Quote:This luxury mixed-use, multi-family residential project is built on the last remaining waterfront property in Sechelt. The project is comprised of 104 residential units in two, five-storey towers set on a ground floor retail/parkade podium with a landscaped plaza and waterfront bistro. The overall form gives a subtle nod to ubiquitous west coast, post and beam construction and the material palette is inspired by the beaches of Sechelt. The north elevation creates a dynamic urban street edge, invigorating the downtown area.

So, now I understand why in the Realtor listings they say there is just under 7,000 s.f. of commercial space which didn't make sense to me; so, most of the concrete bunker (sorry, podium) will be a tenant parkade and the need for that didn't cross my mind. Of course, being that close to the shore they couldn't sink a parkade below sea level unless the developer was willing to accept a substantial engineering bill. So, Toredo St. gets its concrete wall though the designer tries to pretty it up by saying it "creates a dynamic urban street edge, invigorating the downtown area." Nice try, but you are full of it.

.jpg  MapViewCombo.jpg (Size: 207.38 KB / Downloads: 998)

.gif  Spreadsheetcombo.gif (Size: 61.51 KB / Downloads: 1005) ]]> Watermark at Sechelt is the new condo development that grabbed the last remaining waterfront land in the core of Sechelt and is now laughing all the way to…Lund!! Yep, ‘laughing to Lund’ but not to the bank based on unit sales so far.

I first introduced this development in a March post and after a recent discovery I thought it deserved the ‘Skook Treatment’. I am not impressed with this project. I think this will be Sechelt’s mini-Coal Harbour if and when they manage to sell all the units which I don’t think will happen anytime soon. I bet any of those who buy in will visit maybe three months of the year tops and the rest of the year vacant units will be enjoying that waterfront view.

The development of this land was contentious with the townsfolk because of the waterfront and it languished for years. I believe the property has traded hands at least once and the current developer is Seacliff Properties Ltd, a subsidiary of Seacliff Holdings Ltd - a private company owned by the Gordon family of Vancouver. This present project was contentious, too, because of its height - 6 stories. However, the development of the land and the project eventually passed Sechelt Council and as one local, Kenneth McMillan, wrote, “the town…turned its back on the ocean, one of its finest assets.”

This ‘turning its back on the ocean’ is compounded by a design element of this project that absolutely appalls me and why Sechelt Council passed this boggles my mind. This development comprises two six stories buildings (5665 & 5725 Toredo St) that are mirror images of each other. I have indicated on the map below their locations with an ‘X’ - 5665 is closest to Inlet Ave. The first level of each building will be commercial space and good luck to any business locating here because except for those willing to pay premium prices for the few spaces facing the ocean and a couple facing Toredo most of the commercial space will be closed off from the outdoors as the design encases that level one space between the two buildings completely in concrete. The resulting Toredo streetscape can be seen in the two pictures below in the last row - brilliant, absolutely, fabs-ulously brilliant.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=144]

I can only think of one reason for this design - to maximize the commercial space and, personally, I think this proffering of a concrete ass-end towards the town and those who live there adds insult to injury. By the way, most of Sechelt’s current ‘downtown’ businesses are found within that blue outlined area and, personally, I would rather walk down a street than visit shops housed in a concrete bunker. The nearby Trail Bay Centre shopping mall has attempted to compensate its lack of streetscape with huge skylights letting in daylight, but I see nothing similar on Watermark’s plans.

In my opinion, had the developer shown any vision, he would have kept the space open at sea-level and turned it into a European-style plaza available to one and all. Shops, restaurants or cafés could have lined the plaza on both sides and those tables with umbrellas pictured above would have faced the ocean and not a concrete wall and highway traffic on Toredo (seriously?!)

I would love to know how many commercial spaces there are and how many have been leased to date. If the units sold give any indication, then not many. As I mentioned in another post, demographics are wrecking havoc on SC businesses. Aging boomers watching their pennies haven’t many needs and part-time residents don’t buy when they aren’t around 9 months of the year. This should be interesting.

Now, about those unit sales. When I first mentioned this project back in March I said the Watermark website indicated that Phase 1 (5665) was 50% sold and Phase 2 (5725) was 31% sold. However, last week I decided to see how the project was doing and when I looked at the MLS information the 'sold' figures didn’t jive. This discrepancy made me think of a post by Whispers, ‘What does “Sold Out” mean? Watermark wasn’t indicating it was “Sold Out”, but it was showing more units sold than what MLS was indicating and so I decided to take a closer look at the project. By the way, the marketing firm mentioned in Whispers’ post responded and said, “Sold” means a firm and binding contract with received deposit.” If this were so in Watermark’s case, why wasn’t it a closed deal and the info passed onto MLS? Sold is sold, right?

So, I have created s spreadsheet and on the left side is the info for Phase 1 and on the right for Phase 2. Each has a column showing the units Watermark indicates as sold on its website floorplans (*Wmk 'Sales' via FlrPlns (May 10/13)) and I’ve highlighted these in gold. The other columns show MLS sales and listing info. The spreadsheet indicates that prices for the units have increased for Phase 2. Now, when comparing unit prices you need to note there are some odd shaped units on floors 2, 3 and 4 and also that the buildings are ‘mirror-images’ of each other. The small table above the spreadsheet shows how those particular units relate to each other between buildings; the remaining units can be thought of as identical between Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Note: In spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=145]

It will be interesting to follow this development and see if any of those units indicated as “Sold” but have no corresponding “MLS Sold” information end up being listed in the future. So, bearing in mind that there are 52 units in each building, the MLS information indicates that 35% of Phase 1 has sold and not 50%; and, 29% of Phase 2 has sold and not 31%. As Watermark's website shows, the buildings are still under construction, so I am sure the developer is hoping and praying that sells pick up when Phase 1 is complete - because they sure stink now.

Those sales have languished despite some serious money poured into marketing. The developer hired North Vancouver based Pacesetter Sales & Marketing Strategies and the company has produced two marketing “magazines” for Watermark with one released for Spring/Summer 2012 and the other for Spring/Summer 2013. They’re interesting to look at because they blur that line between what is ‘news’ and what is ‘advertising/marketing’ - another issue raised by the Whispers blog. I laughed out loud when I looked at those ‘mags’ because both make a point of stressing how close St. Mary’s hospital is to Watermark. In fact, in the 2013 edition, the ‘article’ was moved right to the front - flip the cover and there it is. Well, we can guess who their primary target market is, can’t we. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Finally, there is a picture related to this development on Duane Burnett’s blog - he has been the ‘go-to’ photographer for the Coast Reporter newspaper for a number of years. I pulled that McMillan quote from the Comments section in that post. Scroll down for a funny pic following the story and keep scrolling for those interesting local comments.

May 11, 2013 Update:

There is something that has caught my eye which prompts me to add to this post.

When you start getting creative with your building design such as this one which is trying to give as many units as possible an oceanview if only via balconies you have to twist the units around a central axis. As a result, something has to give and in this design it is windows. Now, most of us would accept windowless bathrooms, but would you accept windowless bedrooms - especially at these prices? Now, with some of these units not only do they have a second bedroom with no windows but also an office or den. Therefore, when you add in all the windowless bathrooms, buyers are being asked to pay big bucks for up to 3 or 4 rooms with no windows.

For example:

Type B floorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 210, 211, 310, 311, 408, 409): windowless bathrooms (2). bedroom (1).

Type D floorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 206,207,306, 307, 404, 405): windowless bathrooms (2), bedroom (1), Den (1)

Type E foorplan (Ph 1 & 2 units 204, 205, 207, 305, 402, 403): windowless bathrooms (2). bedroom (1), Den (1)

Other units with windowless 2nd bedrooms: 502, 503, 506, 507, 602, 603.

Now, this is what has caught my eye - if you look at the spreadsheet how many of these units listed here have sold? I think I have just doubled the interest factor on this development. I can hardly wait for the months to unfold on this one.

One more thing; yep, there is always one more thing. I visited the architectural firm's website last night (http://www.trbarchitecture.ca/) and here is what they have to say about their Watermark design:

Quote:This luxury mixed-use, multi-family residential project is built on the last remaining waterfront property in Sechelt. The project is comprised of 104 residential units in two, five-storey towers set on a ground floor retail/parkade podium with a landscaped plaza and waterfront bistro. The overall form gives a subtle nod to ubiquitous west coast, post and beam construction and the material palette is inspired by the beaches of Sechelt. The north elevation creates a dynamic urban street edge, invigorating the downtown area.

So, now I understand why in the Realtor listings they say there is just under 7,000 s.f. of commercial space which didn't make sense to me; so, most of the concrete bunker (sorry, podium) will be a tenant parkade and the need for that didn't cross my mind. Of course, being that close to the shore they couldn't sink a parkade below sea level unless the developer was willing to accept a substantial engineering bill. So, Toredo St. gets its concrete wall though the designer tries to pretty it up by saying it "creates a dynamic urban street edge, invigorating the downtown area." Nice try, but you are full of it.

.jpg  MapViewCombo.jpg (Size: 207.38 KB / Downloads: 998)

.gif  Spreadsheetcombo.gif (Size: 61.51 KB / Downloads: 1005) ]]> <![CDATA[Need help with math...duh!]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Need-help-with-math-duh Tue, 07 May 2013 12:05:55 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Need-help-with-math-duh http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html

For example:

To go from 70 to 137 - the percentage change is 95.7% ...okay, that makes sense.

But to go from 365 to 183 - the calculator is giving me 49.86% and this doesn't make sense. Huh

Is the issue here because the calculator is assuming I want that percentage as a positive figure? My way of thinking is that I should be getting a value almost the same as the first example only it should be negative. Am I thinking logically here?

Based on all the great graphs here, y'all seem to have a handle on this; so, if anyone will show me how to calculate that second example so that I have an accurate negative percentage change, I would be forever indebted...okay, maybe not forever or indebted but sure grateful.

Yep, maths is fun Tongue
Skook]]> http://www.mathsisfun.com/percentage-calculator.html

For example:

To go from 70 to 137 - the percentage change is 95.7% ...okay, that makes sense.

But to go from 365 to 183 - the calculator is giving me 49.86% and this doesn't make sense. Huh

Is the issue here because the calculator is assuming I want that percentage as a positive figure? My way of thinking is that I should be getting a value almost the same as the first example only it should be negative. Am I thinking logically here?

Based on all the great graphs here, y'all seem to have a handle on this; so, if anyone will show me how to calculate that second example so that I have an accurate negative percentage change, I would be forever indebted...okay, maybe not forever or indebted but sure grateful.

Yep, maths is fun Tongue
Skook]]> <![CDATA[Sechelt Development - Trail Bay Estates]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-Trail-Bay-Estates Wed, 01 May 2013 11:24:23 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-Trail-Bay-Estates [Image: attachment.php?aid=128]
I have struggled a bit with this development. As I continued to research it, the question ‘What makes a development such as this a success?’ lodged in the back of my mind. It is the mere selling of lots or is it the building of homes on those lots and establishing a thriving community? Perhaps, you will come to your own conclusions by the end of this post and share your thoughts.

Trail Bay Estates is a Clayton family development taking place on Clayton owned land. The Claytons arrived in Sechelt over 90 years ago eventually establishing the first grocery store after the Union Steamship Company stopped servicing the coast in 1959. That first venture evolved into the present day Clayton Heritage Market, an independent grocery store that anchors the Trail Bay Centre - the shopping mall owned by the Claytons. Over time, success was parlayed into land purchase most notably in West Sechelt with Trail Bay Estates occupying a lower portion bordering Hwy 101 of a long 33 hectare parcel (3,300 acres).

The public got its first look at this proposed development at the end of May, 2006. According to the Coast Reporter, 60 showed up for the unveiling - a good turnout with some, no doubt, wanting to see what the Claytons were up to. The news report goes on to say there was not one voice spoken in support of the project. A number of issues were raised including:
  • road access (it would be via Sechelt Village and not Hwy 101)
  • lack of a comprehensive development plan
  • fear Sechelt’s infrastructure would not be able to support this portion of a much larger proposed project
  • concern that the project was tied to a land donation to the local college
Issues raised by Sechelt planning staff in an earlier report included the fact that the developer had cleared the land in August, 2005 without undertaking an environmental assessment. I lay the blame for this fact squarely at the feet of the Gordon Campbell government who made sweeping changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve Act basically allowing those with private managed forest lands to do with it what they will. This would have a huge impact on Vancouver Island and is fodder for its own post in the future.

The project eventually received Council approval and with the initial land clearing long out of the way the developer needed to do some reshaping. Blasting away the rock facing the highway began in the early spring, 2007, and within days homeowners on the other side of the highway raised their voices in anger and concern as rocks rained down on their properties with one even going through a roof. Blasting issues were raised on and off for almost two years (1,100 blasts in total) eventually culminating in the blasting contractor, Rock Construction and Mining Inc. (RCMI) receiving a court imposed $5,025 fine for less than professional work and the District of Sechelt amending its ticketing bylaw enabling bylaw officers to issue tickets on the spot over blasting infractions. (Search ‘Trail Bay Estates’ at http://www.coastreporter.net for news stories)

Well, this project certainly started with a bang. The Google Earth shots below show how the development took shape over the years 2004 to 2010.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=129]

The Trail Bay Estates website (I have just discovered it is unavailable - my antivirus wasn't allowing me there a few days ago giving a Trojan virus warning - so they may be trying to correct this) made its appearance on the net in early 2008 with pictures of the first show home (Lot 44) under construction. The website also offered a site map .pdf and a list of the lots available for purchase. This site map and that lot list are shown in the image below.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=130]

The site map indicates pre-sold lots and immediate home construction (small house icon) and you can see the placement of those houses on the Sept, 2009 GE image above. The ‘gold’ on the spreadsheet indicates these pre-sold lots and an asterisk indicates where the homes would be built. As of the end of April, 2013, twelve lots have never sold: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 37, 59, 64, and 65.

What we don’t know from the site map above is who bought the lots (family, friends, developers, speculators, etc.?) and what they paid at the time. However, the spread sheet might give some idea to the initial lot pricing because there are currently three re-sale listings: lots 30, 55, 57. If they paid close to those listing prices, then they are likely facing a substantial loss if desperate to sale given the current developer pricing for unsold lots which is at least $100,000 less and the 2013 assessment values for the lots. Only the lots on Clayton Ave would be cheaper than the other 55 lots because they lack a direct ocean view.

Now you see why that question as to whether or not this development has been a success entered my mind. Out of 60 initial lots only 13 remain unsold. However, when I drove through this development back in early 2010, there were very few homes built. I am not on the coast now so how could I discover how many homes have actually been built to date? Well, I have used four methods:
  1. SCRD address map (Map 7: Sechelt - Davis Bay)
  2. Google Street views (August, 2011)
  3. ‘Sold’ and ‘For Sale’ listings
  4. Realtor Listings pictures
The SCRD address map dated 2012 offers, in my opinion, the most accurate picture because homes under construction and built are given addresses for firefighting and policing purposes and the SCRD map which is included with the spreadsheet below indicates 21 homes built by the end of 2012 (lots 31 & 33 have two address which I assume indicates a possible planned duplex, and lot 55 is for resale and the price indicates no home built). Even if ten homes were to have been built since the making of this map, it would still roughly indicate only a third of the lots have been built on.

(Note: on spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold, LT=Lot, H=House, UH=Unfinished House, OR=Owner Resale, APP=Asking Price Premium)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=131]

So, can you say that Trail Bay Estates has been a successful development? I know if I had bought into and built in this project I would be very upset to look out my windows day after day and see all those vacant lots now over grown with weeds. And as more and more developments come on stream and the real estate market worsens how does that affect the value of your home should you be so unhappy you wanted to sell or had to sell for any other reason. Or, what if you bought a lot hoping to flip it rather than build, what do you do now? These are all very interesting questions.

Perhaps taking a drive through the development via Google Streetview may help answer the big question. The images below start out on Hwy 101 (truly impressive introduction to the development and the weeds give it that ‘je ne sais quoi’). We’ll then move up through the development beginning on Barnacle St, to Cowrie St, to Compass Lane and finally to Clayton Ave.

To show that I have not been overly biased in my choice of screenshots, I recommend visiting Realtor Gord Clayton’s website and taking a look at his lot listing pictures. He is a third generation Sunshine Coast Clayton and has been listing these lots since the 'big bang' and if anyone would want to put this project in a positive light it would be him.

Another Realtor, Bry Nelson, is listing two of those expensive lot resales: Lot 30 and Lot 55. You can view her listing pictures, too.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=132]


.jpg  TBEHomepg.jpg (Size: 83.02 KB / Downloads: 257)

.jpg  TBEgecombo.jpg (Size: 153.68 KB / Downloads: 259)

.jpg  TBEMapSHCombo.jpg (Size: 122.94 KB / Downloads: 262)

.gif  SScombo.gif (Size: 130 KB / Downloads: 260)

.jpg  TBEPicCombo.jpg (Size: 252.6 KB / Downloads: 259) ]]> [Image: attachment.php?aid=128]
I have struggled a bit with this development. As I continued to research it, the question ‘What makes a development such as this a success?’ lodged in the back of my mind. It is the mere selling of lots or is it the building of homes on those lots and establishing a thriving community? Perhaps, you will come to your own conclusions by the end of this post and share your thoughts.

Trail Bay Estates is a Clayton family development taking place on Clayton owned land. The Claytons arrived in Sechelt over 90 years ago eventually establishing the first grocery store after the Union Steamship Company stopped servicing the coast in 1959. That first venture evolved into the present day Clayton Heritage Market, an independent grocery store that anchors the Trail Bay Centre - the shopping mall owned by the Claytons. Over time, success was parlayed into land purchase most notably in West Sechelt with Trail Bay Estates occupying a lower portion bordering Hwy 101 of a long 33 hectare parcel (3,300 acres).

The public got its first look at this proposed development at the end of May, 2006. According to the Coast Reporter, 60 showed up for the unveiling - a good turnout with some, no doubt, wanting to see what the Claytons were up to. The news report goes on to say there was not one voice spoken in support of the project. A number of issues were raised including:
  • road access (it would be via Sechelt Village and not Hwy 101)
  • lack of a comprehensive development plan
  • fear Sechelt’s infrastructure would not be able to support this portion of a much larger proposed project
  • concern that the project was tied to a land donation to the local college
Issues raised by Sechelt planning staff in an earlier report included the fact that the developer had cleared the land in August, 2005 without undertaking an environmental assessment. I lay the blame for this fact squarely at the feet of the Gordon Campbell government who made sweeping changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve Act basically allowing those with private managed forest lands to do with it what they will. This would have a huge impact on Vancouver Island and is fodder for its own post in the future.

The project eventually received Council approval and with the initial land clearing long out of the way the developer needed to do some reshaping. Blasting away the rock facing the highway began in the early spring, 2007, and within days homeowners on the other side of the highway raised their voices in anger and concern as rocks rained down on their properties with one even going through a roof. Blasting issues were raised on and off for almost two years (1,100 blasts in total) eventually culminating in the blasting contractor, Rock Construction and Mining Inc. (RCMI) receiving a court imposed $5,025 fine for less than professional work and the District of Sechelt amending its ticketing bylaw enabling bylaw officers to issue tickets on the spot over blasting infractions. (Search ‘Trail Bay Estates’ at http://www.coastreporter.net for news stories)

Well, this project certainly started with a bang. The Google Earth shots below show how the development took shape over the years 2004 to 2010.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=129]

The Trail Bay Estates website (I have just discovered it is unavailable - my antivirus wasn't allowing me there a few days ago giving a Trojan virus warning - so they may be trying to correct this) made its appearance on the net in early 2008 with pictures of the first show home (Lot 44) under construction. The website also offered a site map .pdf and a list of the lots available for purchase. This site map and that lot list are shown in the image below.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=130]

The site map indicates pre-sold lots and immediate home construction (small house icon) and you can see the placement of those houses on the Sept, 2009 GE image above. The ‘gold’ on the spreadsheet indicates these pre-sold lots and an asterisk indicates where the homes would be built. As of the end of April, 2013, twelve lots have never sold: 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 37, 59, 64, and 65.

What we don’t know from the site map above is who bought the lots (family, friends, developers, speculators, etc.?) and what they paid at the time. However, the spread sheet might give some idea to the initial lot pricing because there are currently three re-sale listings: lots 30, 55, 57. If they paid close to those listing prices, then they are likely facing a substantial loss if desperate to sale given the current developer pricing for unsold lots which is at least $100,000 less and the 2013 assessment values for the lots. Only the lots on Clayton Ave would be cheaper than the other 55 lots because they lack a direct ocean view.

Now you see why that question as to whether or not this development has been a success entered my mind. Out of 60 initial lots only 13 remain unsold. However, when I drove through this development back in early 2010, there were very few homes built. I am not on the coast now so how could I discover how many homes have actually been built to date? Well, I have used four methods:
  1. SCRD address map (Map 7: Sechelt - Davis Bay)
  2. Google Street views (August, 2011)
  3. ‘Sold’ and ‘For Sale’ listings
  4. Realtor Listings pictures
The SCRD address map dated 2012 offers, in my opinion, the most accurate picture because homes under construction and built are given addresses for firefighting and policing purposes and the SCRD map which is included with the spreadsheet below indicates 21 homes built by the end of 2012 (lots 31 & 33 have two address which I assume indicates a possible planned duplex, and lot 55 is for resale and the price indicates no home built). Even if ten homes were to have been built since the making of this map, it would still roughly indicate only a third of the lots have been built on.

(Note: on spreadsheet, L=Listed, S=Sold, LT=Lot, H=House, UH=Unfinished House, OR=Owner Resale, APP=Asking Price Premium)
[Image: attachment.php?aid=131]

So, can you say that Trail Bay Estates has been a successful development? I know if I had bought into and built in this project I would be very upset to look out my windows day after day and see all those vacant lots now over grown with weeds. And as more and more developments come on stream and the real estate market worsens how does that affect the value of your home should you be so unhappy you wanted to sell or had to sell for any other reason. Or, what if you bought a lot hoping to flip it rather than build, what do you do now? These are all very interesting questions.

Perhaps taking a drive through the development via Google Streetview may help answer the big question. The images below start out on Hwy 101 (truly impressive introduction to the development and the weeds give it that ‘je ne sais quoi’). We’ll then move up through the development beginning on Barnacle St, to Cowrie St, to Compass Lane and finally to Clayton Ave.

To show that I have not been overly biased in my choice of screenshots, I recommend visiting Realtor Gord Clayton’s website and taking a look at his lot listing pictures. He is a third generation Sunshine Coast Clayton and has been listing these lots since the 'big bang' and if anyone would want to put this project in a positive light it would be him.

Another Realtor, Bry Nelson, is listing two of those expensive lot resales: Lot 30 and Lot 55. You can view her listing pictures, too.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=132]


.jpg  TBEHomepg.jpg (Size: 83.02 KB / Downloads: 257)

.jpg  TBEgecombo.jpg (Size: 153.68 KB / Downloads: 259)

.jpg  TBEMapSHCombo.jpg (Size: 122.94 KB / Downloads: 262)

.gif  SScombo.gif (Size: 130 KB / Downloads: 260)

.jpg  TBEPicCombo.jpg (Size: 252.6 KB / Downloads: 259) ]]> <![CDATA[Sechelt Development - SilverStone]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-SilverStone Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:13:10 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Sechelt-Development-SilverStone [Image: attachment.php?aid=117]
Poor SilverStone. It tried so hard to be taken seriously but has been such an unmitigated disaster for its developer, Greypointe Properties out of Vancouver, that I feel I should at least give it the ‘drop shadow’ treatment out of respect for its efforts.

Greypointe is in good company though. Look at that area just above and to the right of SilverStone on the GE shot; well, that is the Trail Bay Estates development and its appearance doesn’t lie because it’s another white elephant and maybe I’ll give it the ‘Skook Treatment’ next. Oh, so many, and so little time!

The red box on the map above indicates the heart of the Sechelt. Up until 2009, these four corners offered the only traffic lights north of Wilson Creek (at Field Rd) all the way up to ferry terminal at Earl’s Cove. It is here that Hwy 101 takes a zigzag if you are coming up from the south. At those lights, you turn left onto Wharf St. then follow the road as it curves right to become Toredo St. which is Hwy 101 by another name. So, as you can see SliverStone hugs the highway so it was easy to follow its progress over time.

I remember when I first noticed the trees coming down way back in 2006. My thoughts were, “Well, that is going to be one expensive house and property.” Little did I think the developer would be cramming in 30 lots! Okay, two big strikes against SilverStone already. Then the price came out for the waterfront lots - holy crap, what was it now? Ah yes, starting at $699,000. For the privilege of butting up next to the highway, start counting at $349,000.

So, what made this patch so pricey? According to the ‘SilverStone’ website in April, 2007:

Quote:Only thirty families will have the luxury of calling ‘SilverStone at Sechelt’ their home. Morning walks along the beach offer stunning ocean, island and mountain views. An adjacent park provides the perfect destination for a lunchtime picnic. Late afternoon brings a gentle breeze off the Pacific accompanied by spectacular evening sunsets as dusk settles in.

Immersed in a truly west coast landscape of trees, rocks, mountains and water, SliverStone residents will be able to enjoy an oceanfront lifestyle found few places on earth - and establish a family legacy that can be passed down for generations

God, people actually get paid for writing this garbage. So, what do we have here:
  • exclusivity
  • walks along an ankle-breaking beach
  • picnics
  • gentle breezes
  • sunsets
  • trees, rocks, mountains, water
  • and annoying relatives
Hell, you could buy a mobile trailer and park it in the bush up in Egmont and enjoy all that for about $10,000 tops. And, guess what - by the summer of 2007 those prices probably increased by $100,000 because that summer every ‘exclusive’ development upped the ante for the ‘privilege’ of buying in; only it didn’t fly. Nope, all those turkeys couldn’t lift off the ground because the really rich aren’t that stupid. Maybe a few ‘wannabes’ bought into it, but not enough for these overly planned, highly regulated strata projects to survive unscathed.

But, back to the task at hand. Here are a series of GE time lapse shots to show you from above what I was witnessing on the ground.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=118]

In the next post, I will give a few more details about the project, how it was presented in the press at the time and my spreadsheet. That spreadsheet will be interesting.

.jpg  SpecMapCombo.jpg (Size: 144.9 KB / Downloads: 790)

.jpg  SiverstoneGECombo.jpg (Size: 309.24 KB / Downloads: 787) ]]> [Image: attachment.php?aid=117]
Poor SilverStone. It tried so hard to be taken seriously but has been such an unmitigated disaster for its developer, Greypointe Properties out of Vancouver, that I feel I should at least give it the ‘drop shadow’ treatment out of respect for its efforts.

Greypointe is in good company though. Look at that area just above and to the right of SilverStone on the GE shot; well, that is the Trail Bay Estates development and its appearance doesn’t lie because it’s another white elephant and maybe I’ll give it the ‘Skook Treatment’ next. Oh, so many, and so little time!

The red box on the map above indicates the heart of the Sechelt. Up until 2009, these four corners offered the only traffic lights north of Wilson Creek (at Field Rd) all the way up to ferry terminal at Earl’s Cove. It is here that Hwy 101 takes a zigzag if you are coming up from the south. At those lights, you turn left onto Wharf St. then follow the road as it curves right to become Toredo St. which is Hwy 101 by another name. So, as you can see SliverStone hugs the highway so it was easy to follow its progress over time.

I remember when I first noticed the trees coming down way back in 2006. My thoughts were, “Well, that is going to be one expensive house and property.” Little did I think the developer would be cramming in 30 lots! Okay, two big strikes against SilverStone already. Then the price came out for the waterfront lots - holy crap, what was it now? Ah yes, starting at $699,000. For the privilege of butting up next to the highway, start counting at $349,000.

So, what made this patch so pricey? According to the ‘SilverStone’ website in April, 2007:

Quote:Only thirty families will have the luxury of calling ‘SilverStone at Sechelt’ their home. Morning walks along the beach offer stunning ocean, island and mountain views. An adjacent park provides the perfect destination for a lunchtime picnic. Late afternoon brings a gentle breeze off the Pacific accompanied by spectacular evening sunsets as dusk settles in.

Immersed in a truly west coast landscape of trees, rocks, mountains and water, SliverStone residents will be able to enjoy an oceanfront lifestyle found few places on earth - and establish a family legacy that can be passed down for generations

God, people actually get paid for writing this garbage. So, what do we have here:
  • exclusivity
  • walks along an ankle-breaking beach
  • picnics
  • gentle breezes
  • sunsets
  • trees, rocks, mountains, water
  • and annoying relatives
Hell, you could buy a mobile trailer and park it in the bush up in Egmont and enjoy all that for about $10,000 tops. And, guess what - by the summer of 2007 those prices probably increased by $100,000 because that summer every ‘exclusive’ development upped the ante for the ‘privilege’ of buying in; only it didn’t fly. Nope, all those turkeys couldn’t lift off the ground because the really rich aren’t that stupid. Maybe a few ‘wannabes’ bought into it, but not enough for these overly planned, highly regulated strata projects to survive unscathed.

But, back to the task at hand. Here are a series of GE time lapse shots to show you from above what I was witnessing on the ground.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=118]

In the next post, I will give a few more details about the project, how it was presented in the press at the time and my spreadsheet. That spreadsheet will be interesting.

.jpg  SpecMapCombo.jpg (Size: 144.9 KB / Downloads: 790)

.jpg  SiverstoneGECombo.jpg (Size: 309.24 KB / Downloads: 787) ]]> <![CDATA[Best way to post?]]> http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Best-way-to-post Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:51:47 -0700 http://vancouverpeak.com/Thread-Best-way-to-post
I think it would be great to get a discussion going as to why these projects have been such disasters - is it the pricing, location, timing, etc. As I research, I seem to be seeing a pattern but I am not sure if it is just a coincidence so getting your thoughts would be interesting. Posting the projects in individual threads would make this possible.]]>
I think it would be great to get a discussion going as to why these projects have been such disasters - is it the pricing, location, timing, etc. As I research, I seem to be seeing a pattern but I am not sure if it is just a coincidence so getting your thoughts would be interesting. Posting the projects in individual threads would make this possible.]]>