BUSI 400 – Assignment 10
Course Tutor: Chuck Dunn
Student Name: Paolo Jalandoni
Student Number: 3201296
Submission Date: March 27, 2014
i
LETTER OF TRANSMITAL
This report has been prepared by Paolo Jalandoni – Diploma In Urban Land Economics (DULE)
candidate - for the use of The Sauder School of Business of the University of British Columbia. It is the
final Assignment for the course: BUSI 400 Residential Property Analysis.
The report will consider aspects of the property including: a summary of salient facts, regional and area
analysis, neighbourhood analysis and trends, land description and analysis, description of improvements,
assessment and taxes, and zoning or land use classification. It is worth noting that certain forms included
in the report were not completed in their entirety due to their incompatibility to the property, time
constraints, and lack of necessary documents and information.
The property to be considered for this report is a 72 unit apartment building completed in 1965, whose
civic address is: 8675 French St., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6P 4W5, and whose legal
address is: LOT 1 BLOCK 13 PLAN VAP1749 DIST RICT LOT 318 NEW WESTMINSTER LOT 2 ,
BLOCK 13, PLAN VAP1749, DISTRICT LOT 318, NEW WESTMINSTER LAND DISTRICT, LOT
3, BLOCK 13, PLAN VAP1749.
The surrounding uses and existing stock of housing – largely comprised of low-rise residential apartment
buildings – is similar to the subject property which conforms to the nieghbourhood to a considerable
degree.
Future development in the Marpole area will include the improvement of commercial zones as well as the
development of higher density residential apartment buildings. Evidence of this is the recent renovation of
the Safeway on Granville St. and West 71st Avenue and the adjacent high rise apartment building – MC2
– which is currently under construction.
Despite the advent of new developments in the area and the the chronological age of the property, it was
concluded that it was still financially viable and would continue to be financially viable for the
foreseeable future due to significant renovation of both the structural and mechanical systems of the
building.
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS
ii
Type of single-family dwelling:
3 storey, 72 units apartment building completed in 1965.
Address of property:
Civic Address: 8675 French St., Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, V6P 4W5.
Legal Address: LOT 1 BLOCK 13 PLAN VAP1749 DIST RICT LOT 318 NEW WESTMINSTER LOT
2 , BLOCK 13, PLAN VAP1749, DISTRICT LOT 318, NEW WESTMINSTER LAND
DISTRICT, LOT 3, BLOCK 13, PLAN VAP1749,
Effective date of the appraisal:
March 25, 2014.
Dimensions and area of site:
Length: 92.63 m (estimated/est.)
Width: 35.46 m (est.)
Area: 3,284.66 m (est.)

Note: Estimated measurements derived from, “Vanmap”.
Dimensions and area of building(s):
N/A; No access to building and site plan.
Assessment:
Land: $ 9,067,000
Building: $ 2,754,000
Total: $ 11,821,000
iii
Taxes:
N/A; No access to taxation information.
Zoning/Land use classification:
RM-3A
Highest and best use:
N/A; Not within the scope of this report.
Estimate of land value (as if vacant):
N/A; Not within the scope of this report.
Estimate of value by Cost Approach:
N/A; Not within the scope of this report.
Estimate of value by Direct Comparison Approach:
N/A; Not within the scope of this report.
Final estimate of value:
N/A; Not within the scope of this report.
iv
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT
Front View
Side View (Showing Depth)
v
Rear View
Street Scene (With Other Dwellings)
vi
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
REGIONAL AND AREA ANALYSIS
General Locale:
The subject property is located in the Marpole neighbourhood of Vancouver. The riverfront community has
a total area of, “1,386 acres (561 hectares) and makes up about 5% of Vancouver’s total land area.”1 It is
located in, “the south of Granville’s west side, bounded to the west by Angus Drive, to the north by West
57th Avenue, to the east by Ontario Street and to the south by the Fraser River.”2 Marpole is primarily a
residential neighbourhood comprised of single family and duplex homes to the north of West 70th Avenue
and low-rise apartments to the south of West 70th Avenue.
Population Total: 23,832 (2011)
Population Trend:
[ √ ] Increasing
[ ] Stable
[ ] Decreasing
Major Employers and Employment Trends:
As quoted in the City of Vancouver’s Marpole community profile, “residents living in the Marpole area
are mostly employed in the sales and service sector.”3 As well, “The community has a total of 11,800 jobs
within the area with the South Vancouver Industrial are being one of the major employers in Marpole
with over 10,000 jobs represented. The Airport Square office building is also a major employer in
Marpole and provides over 700 jobs.”4 That being said, “over one third of residents in Marpole work in
the central area of Vancouver and over 40% work outside of Vancouver with 20% working in
Richmond.”5 As per the Marpole Commnity Plan, employment is expected to increase in the near to
distant future due to zoning changes geared at facilitating the growth of industrial uses bordering the
Fraser River. The plan also states that by 2041, “population is also slated to increase by 52% from about
24,000 to 36,500 while the total number of jobs is slated to increase by 81% from 11,800 to 21,300.”6
1
City of Vancouver Planning Department, Marpole Community Profile 2013, Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver,
2011, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpole-community-profile-2013.pdf , accessed March 30, 2013, p. 2.
2
Ibid., p. 2.
Ibid., p. 18.
4
Ibid., p. 18.
5
Ibid., p. 18.
6
City of Vancouver Planning Department, Marpole Community Plan Draft, Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver,
2013, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpole-community-profile-2013.pdf , accessed March 29, 2013, p. 22.
3
2
Real Estate Summary (applicable to Municipal/City area):
2012
2013
2014
$19,027
$18,200
$18,400 (expected)
Average Monthly Rent (One Bedroom)
$982
$1,015
$1,055
Average Monthly Rent (Two Bedroom)
$1,261
$1,300
$1,330
Vacancy Rate (October 2013)
1.8%
1.5%
1.2%
Average marketing period (S.F. only)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Building Starts (All housing)

Note: Categories altered from Single Family based to rental unit based due to classification of
subject property.

Note: Average marketing period inconclusive due to variability.
Availability of Land:
Although the majority of the Marpole area situated north of Southwest Marine Drive is developed to a
considerable extent - consisting of a mix of single family dwellings, duplexes and low-rise apartment
dwellings – land zoned for industrial uses south of Southwest Marine Drive exists in moderation. The
potential for increased industrial development as well as residential development of increased density (i.e.
high rise condominiums) is a definite possibility in the near to distant future. Examples of these higher
density developments are the Marine Gateway condominium development located adjacent to the Marine
Drive Canada Line Station and the MC2 condominium development adjacent to the newly renovated
Safeway branch at the intersection of Granville St. and West 70th Avenue.
Financing and Interest Rate Trends:

Typical 1 year fixed rate closed mortgage rates, 3.09% to 3.10%

Note: Although financing is not relevant to the subject property as it is a rental property, current
mortgage rates were included as a means to meet project requirements.
3
Finance for homebuyers can be acquired from major banks and credit units as well as through the
scenario of a vendor take back mortgage. That being said, lending practices and regulations have
tightened since the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2009. The current market rate on a one year fixed rate
closed mortgage is, “3.09% whilst the current market rate on a five year fixed rate close mortgage is
4.99%.”7 The current rates are far lower than those forecasted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC) for 2014 – between 3.25%-3.75% for a one year fixed rate closed mortgage and
between 5.25%-6% for a five year fixed rate closed mortgage. This discrepancy between forecasted and
actual rates is largely due to, “lower inflation, slower economic growth, and market turbulence due to the
Ukraine crisis.”8 Future rates are highly variable and will be largely determined by the economic and
political climate going forward.
External Obsolescence:
The subject property is still in an economically viable state. Many of the surrounding dwellings – as can
be seen in the, “street scene” photo earlier in the report are of a similar nature. Despite being constructed
in the early to mid 1960’s, many of these low rise apartment complexes have undergone significant
interior and exterior renovation so as to cater to current market demands. The only threat to their external
obsolescence would be in the very distant future when zoning and land use changes in the Marpole area
allow for even higher density development. At present day however, this is not a major cause of concern
to economic viability.
Summary:
Property value trends in the Greater Vancouver Area and the neighbourhood of Marpole are increasing
and should continue to do so in the coming years. This increase in value is also applicable to the rental
market. Although the supply of rental housing is largely relegated to older low rise apartment dwellings
built in the early to mid 1960’s, this could very well change in the future due to the approval of higher
density condominium buildings in the area. Marpole’s population is forecasted to increase at a steady for
7
CIBC, “Mortgage Rates,” https://www.cibc.com/ca/rates/index.html, accessed March 2014.
Michael Babad, “Why Cut-rate Mortgages Won’t Be Here For Long,” The Globe and Mail, March 28, 2014,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/why-cut-rate-mortgages-may-not-be-herefor-long/article17715886/, accessed March 2014.
8
4
the foreseeable future and the overall desirability of the area is slated to improve due to the advent of new
development in the area. Marpole’s inherent locational desirability and accessibility to both Richmond
and Vancouver make it an ideal are for new development. As well, the southernmost pockets of Marpole
– located adjacent to the Fraser River – present the opportunity for further industrial development or
expansive residential development that makes use of the natural scenic endowment of the Fraser River.
NEIGHBOURHOOD ANALYSIS AND TRENDS
Convenience to
Excellent
Good
√
Neighbourhood shopping
√
√
Secondary schools
Churches
√
Employment
√
Police and fire protection
√
√
Transportation
Recreational facilities
√
Business district
√
Present land use
Change in present land use
Poor
√
Regional shopping
Elementary schools
Fair
23% 1 family
14% 2-4 family
46% Apts/Condo
5% Commercial
6% Industrial
3% Vacant
[ ] Not likely
[ ] Likely*
[ √ ] Taking place*
3% Other
5
* From Lower
To Higher
Density
Density
Residential
Residential
Predominant occupancy
[ ] Owner
[ √ ] Tenant
Age of neighbourhood
Developed
88%
Age of typical home
From 1945
Type of development
[ √ ] Custom
[ ] Vacant
57%
To 1980
[ ] Developer
[ ] Subsidized
[ ]
built
Type of homes
Single Detached, Duplex, Rowhouse & Semi-Detached, Low Rise Apartment, High Rise Apartment
Value range of homes
From
$

To
-
$
-
Note: Answers to various categories such as, “Present Land Use Breakdown” were estimated using
data from sources such as The 2013 Marpole Community Profile. As well, the, “Value Range of
Homes,” category was left unanswered due to the rental nature of the subject property. Average
rental value will be discussed in the summary below.
Summary:
Average monthly market rents in Marpole for all housing types is $846 compared to $1,112 in the rest of
Vancouver. That being said, property and rental values in Marpole should see an increase in the future
primarily due to Marpole’s ideal location – situated between Richmond and adjacent neighbourhoods in
Vancouver. As well, the neighbourhood has numerous public parks, elementary schools and churches
among other amentities, within its boundaries. Despite the majority of homes being built between 1945 to
1980 - as seen in Figure 1 below - the neighbourhood should continue to see newer developments that
capitalize on Marpole’s favourable location.
6
Figure 1: Age of Housing In The Marpole Area
Source: City of Vancouver Planning Department, Marpole Community Profile 2013, Vancouver, BC: City of
Vancouver, 2011, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpole-community-profile-2013.pdf , accessed March 30, 2013, p.
24.
LAND DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
External nuisance(s)
[
] None
[√ ] Describe
Proximity to arterial road of Granville Street is a slight concern, however noise is trifling and not an
impediment to the enjoyment of property.
Location:
8675 French Street, Vancouver, BC (one block from main arterial road of Granville Street. Approximate
intersection: 71st and Granville.
7
Distance of subject from
Centre of City: 9.1km (approx..) Public Transportation 30m (approx.)
Topography
[
] Level
[ √ ] Sloped (subject property is situated on land that is sloped from north to south due to
natural topographical features of land)
Site
[
] Regular
[
] Irregular
[ √ ] Corner lot
[
] Waterfront
[
] View lot
[
] Standard lot
Area: 3,284.66 m (est.)
Frontage: Depth: -
Utilities
[√ ] Telephone
[√ ] Cable
[√ ] Electricity
television
[
] Well
water
[√ ] Sanitary sewer
[
] Septic tank
[√] Storm sewer
[ √ ] Garbage
[
] Underground
[√ ] Ground Level
collection
[√ ] Municipal
[√ ] Gas
elec./tel.
elec./tel.
] Private
[√ ] Paved
[
[√ ] Hydrants
[√ ] Storm sewer
Street
[ √ ] Public
[
[√ ] sidewalks
[√ ] Lighted
] Gravel
[ √ ] Curb
8
[ √ ] On-street
parking
Lane/Alley access
[ √ ] Paved
[√ ] Lighted
[
[ √ ] Yes
Evidence of settling:
] Gravel
[
[
] Side
[√ ] Rear
] No
If yes, explain: Slight settlement evident from slightly creaking floorboards and slightly cracked
walls in parking lot entrance. Not an extreme cause for concern however as structural integrity of building
is up to par.
Surface drainage problem:
[
] Yes
[ √ ] No
If yes, explain:
Subject property is comprised of 6 separate lots and is thus one of the larger low rise apartment
development in the surrounding area. Still compatible however to surrounding uses in the neighbourhood
which consists of numerous low-rise apartment buildings of a similar nature. Favourable features include
underground parking and gated rear yard consisting of swimming pool – an anomaly in the area.
Degree of comparability with neighbouring lots (size), traffic levels, other features,
favourable/unfavourable features:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIPTION OF BUILDING
Dimensions
N/A
Area
N/A
Type/style
Low-rise
apartment
Year
1965
Built
9
√ ] Poured concrete
[ ] Concrete blocks
[ ] Concrete posts
[ ] Wood posts
[√ ] Wood
[ ] Concrete
[ ] Steel
[ ]
[√ ] Full
[ ] Partial
[ ] None
[ ] Slab
Brick veneer 40
Clapboard
Stucco
Siding:
Stone veneer
Aluminum
Solid masonry 30
Foundation
[
Framing
Basement
[ ] Crawl space
Basement Finish
Exterior Walls
Roof
30
Aluminum
[ ] Asphalt shingles
[ ] Wood shingles or shake
[ ] Slate
[√ ] Built-up tar & gravel
[ ] Gutters & down spouts
[ ]
[ ] Clay/tile
Interior Walls
[√ ] Dry wall
Floor Coverings
Above ground
Carpet 40
Tile 10
Ceramic
Hardwood 50
(percentage)
Basement
Carpet
Tile
Linoleum
Other
Fireplaces
Number:
Kitchen
[√
[ ] Plaster
[ ] Paneling:
type
Location:
] Built-in dishwasher (1/2 of
[ ] Garburator
[√ ] Built-in range
√
[√ ] Exhaust fan
[√ ] Vent hood
and oven
Cabinets - type and material: Wood
Quality Fair
Counter
material:
Laminated Countertop
Other features
Granite
Fixtures: -
-
Quality [√ ] Circuit breakers
Electricity
No. of amps:
Plumbing
Pipes
[ ] Copper
[ ] Galvanized
[√ ] Mixed
Hot water tank
[ ] Electricity
[√ ] Gas
[ ] Oil
Connections
[√ ] Washer
[
Drainage
[ ] Plastic
[ ] Galvanized
[√ ] Mixed
[ ] Forced air
[√ ] Hot Water
[ ] Steam
[ ]
[ ] Oil fired
[ ] Gas fired
[ ] Electric
[ ] Humidifier
Air Conditioning
[ ] Yes
[√ ] No
[ ] Central
Swimming pool
Garage
[ ] Single
[ ] Double
[ ] Attached
[ ] Detached
[ ] Carport
[ ] Electricity
[ ] Heated
[ ] Interior finish
-
√ ] Dishwasher
[
Dimensions:
-
√ ] Fuses
Capacity:
[ ]
[√ Yes
Type:
Outdoor
[√ ] Multiple Units
Type of construction:
Flooring:
Concrete
Linoleum
Type:
units)
Heating
Vinyl
Wood √
(percentage)
Area: -
10
√ ] None
Porch
[ ] Open
[ ] Screened
[ ] Enclosed
Size:
[
Patio/Deck
[ ] Concrete
[√ ] Wood
[ ]
Size: - Multiple
Units
[ ] None
Rental Equip.
[ ] Water softener
[ ] Hot water tank
[ ] Furnace
[ ]
[√ ] None
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS (continued)
Please identify each room with an “X”, or more than one, indicate with a number
Room List
Foyer
Living
Dining
Kitchen
Den
Family
Room
Bedroo
ms
Basement
1st Level
24
24
35
2nd Level
24
24
35
Finished area above ground contains
For a total area of
bedrooms
baths
sq. ft.
Finished basement area contains
For a total area of
rooms
rooms
bedrooms
sq. ft.
Bathroom locations and fixtures:
1.
Floor location:
Description:
2.
Floor location:
Description:
baths
No.
Baths
Laundry
Other
1
8
11
3.
Floor location:
Description:
Good
Average
Energy efficiency and insulation level
√
Quality of construction (materials and finish)
√
Condition of improvements
√
Rooms Size and layout
√
Plumbing - adequacy and condition
√
Electrical - adequacy and condition
√
Kitchen cabinets - adequacy and condition
√
Compatibility to neighbourhood
√
Overall liveability
√
Appeal and marketability
√
Additional features
√
Fair
* requires comments
Additional features:
-
Shared outdoor swimming pool
-
Patios for selected units
Recent modernization, renovation, and major repairs:
-
Main Lobby Area
-
Modernization of individual suites including flooring, bathroom and kitchen
Poor*
12
Site improvements
[ ] Detached
Dimensions:
Area:
[ ] Driveway
[ ] Paved
[ ] Gravel
[ ] Concrete
Area:
[ √ ] Fence
[ ] Wood
[ ] Chain link
[ ] Length:
Height: 6.5 ft.
garage
(approx.)
[ √ ] Landscaping
Description: Building Frontage includes flora and plants. Grass is well marinated
throughout property.
[ ] Other

Describe:
Note: Photographs of relevant characteristics of improvements such as the standard room layout,
bathroom, kitchen and unusual features such as the outdoor swimming pool will be included in
the Appendix to this report.
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS: OBSERVED DEPRECIATION
Condition of Building
Physical Depreciation
Signs of physical depreciation in the building include creaking hallway floorboards which may be
evidence settlement. That being said, structural integrity is still up to par and only minor repairs may be
warranted in the near future. Structural foundation in parking lot shows signs of slight cracking, but pose
no major cause for concern. Access to roof requires a ladder whereas the majority of newer buildings
enable access to roof by stairwell.
13
Age concept
No. of years
Chronological age
49
yrs.
Effective age
25
yrs.
Economic life
-
yrs.
Remaining economic life
20
yrs.
Justification of Effective Age and Economic Life:
The effective economic age of the building – 25 years – is justified by the major repairs and renovation of
the buildings mechanical systems. It is up to par, if not better than other buildings in the Marpole area
which were constructed at a similar date and have undergone similar renovation. The remaining economic
life of the building – 20 years – can be justified for the same reasons.
Land: $ 9,067,000
Building: $ 2,754,000
Total: $ 11,821,000
ASSESSMENT AND TAXES
Assessment and tax data
Year
Assessed value (total)
Land
Buildings
2014
$ 11,821,000
Total Taxes
Year of appraisal
20__
20__
20__
$
$
$
$
$ 9,067,000
Special assessment or Local improvement charges:
$ 2,754,000
Tax rate
14
Reasons:
Annual amount:
Prepayment option:
[ ] Yes
Date of expiry:
[ ] No If Yes, Cost:
Basis of Assessment
Assessment Range of Improved Sales in the Direct Comparison Approach and Degree of Comparability
Tax Trends (current & future), Analysis and Conclusions
-
Note: Assessment values were taken from Vanmap. The majority of fields in this section were left
unanswered due to lack of access and confidentiality of tax information on the property. The
property is operated by Hollyburn Properties.
ZONING OR LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
Designation
RM-3A
Bylaw number
3575
Date of passing
April 2013
15
Permitted uses
“2.2 Uses
provided that:
(a) no accessory building exceeds 3.7 m in height measured to the highest point of the
roof if a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level
between the eaves and the ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, provided that no
portion of an accessory building may exceed 4.6 m in height;
(b) all accessory buildings are located in the rear yard and in no case are less than
3.1 m from the ultimate centre line of any rear or flanking lane and less than the
width of the required side yard from a flanking street;
(c) the total floor area, measured to the extreme outer limits of the building, of all
accessory buildings is not greater than 35 percent of the minimum rear yard
prescribed in this Schedule, or 48 m², whichever is the greater;
(d) not more than 66⅔ percent of the width of the rear yard of any lot is occupied by
accessory buildings;
(e) no accessory building is closer than 3.7 m to any residential dwelling;
(f) no accessory building obstructs the daylight access prescribed in this Schedule.
16
2.2.DW [Dwelling]
(a) no additions shall be permitted;
(b) no housekeeping or sleeping units shall be created;
(c) the number of dwelling units is limited to two; and
(d) no development permit shall be issued until the requisite permits required by other
by-laws that relate to design, construction and safety of buildings are issuable.
-Family Dwelling.
-Family Dwelling. “9
9
City of Vancouver Planning Department. RM-3A District Schedule. Vancouver, BC: April, 2013.
17
Bylaw Requirements/Conformity Analysis Chart
Requirement
Bylaw
Minimum
Subject
Measurements
Maximum
Frontage
Front setback
Side yard
Rear yard
Conclusion
Subject is
[ ] in full conformity
[ ] a legal, non-conforming use
[ ] a non-conforming use
Summary
Zoning by-laws strictly enforced
Comments:
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Conforms
Yes
No
18
-
Due to the unavailability of a site plan for the subject property, no conclusions regarding the
degree to which the subject conforms to the zoning requirements was established.
CONCLUSIONS
The subject property conforms to the neighbourhood wherein it is located. Despite being constructed in
1965, it has undergone extensive renovation which has added significantly to its remaining economic life.
As well, it is located in a neighbourhood – Marpole – wherein the majority of existing housing was
constructed between 1940 to 1980. It is a residential complex managed by Hollyburn Properties which
has taken the utmost care in maintaining the premises and catering to tenant needs.
Future trends in the Marpole neighbourhood indicate a steadily growing population and level of
development to match. The 2014 Marpole Community Draft Plan highlights the pursuing of objectives
such as increased commercial development along Granville Street as well as higher density residential
developments in the near future.
The accessibility that Marpole affords to the city of Richmond and other areas of Vancouver makes it an
ideal location for developments of a higher density. Coupled with the natural endowment of the Fraser
River, housing prices in the neighbourhood could see a considerable rise. While this posses a threat to the
longevity of the subject property, it is likely that it will remain viable for the foreseeable future.
19
PART TWO
1) The face plate on the gas powered hot water system – Article 9 in the Appendix – has safety
directions pertaining to the operation of the unit. It cautions the user that, “the appliance is
equipped with an ignition device which automatically light the pilot,” and urges the user, “not to
light the pilot by hand.”
2) There is no such evidence to be found in closet ceilings. The walls adjacent to the central closet
however appear to be non-weight bearing upon inspection. This however is not a certainty.
3) Under the toilet tank lid is a notice from the tank supplier, “Craneplumbing.” It includes a list of
the different tank components such as the fill valve, flush valve and trip lever. The notice does
not give an indication of the type of pipes used however as per the building manager, the pipes
are a mix of copper and galvanized piping.
4) The electrical service throughout the building is in good working condition. Unfortunately, this
question was not considered during the inspection with the building manager and access to the
electrical room is not available at this point in time. That being said, Article 10 in the Appendix is
a picture of the breakers specific to different sections of the building.
5) The subject property does not have an attic and access to the roof was troublesome due to the
necessity of a ladder (the building has no stairwell access to the roof). That being said, no
evidence of leaks were noted during the time spent on the third floor of the building.
6) The similarities between the forms are that they both touch base on the main components of the
property. That being said, the AIC Residential Appraisal Report Form manages to be both more
comprehensive and succinct/easy to read due to its, “table style” format. The US VC and
Homebuyer Summary forms are formatted in a, “list style” and begin with long notices to the
reader which are both distracting and increase difficulty of readership. As well, they are largely
comprised of yes or no questions concerning the condition of the property rather than a varied
number of options as is the case in the AIC form.
The US forms have the advantage of separately addressing the buyer and lender respectively yet
lack in readership, detail and succinctness. The AIC forms have the advantage of readership,
detail and succinctness yet do not directly cater to either the buyer or lender separately. That
being said, the AIC forms overall are the optimum alternative.
20
The VC report is controversial in that it does not take into consideration different jurisdictions
which may have varying municipal or state laws with regard to appraisal and property
transactions. This problem is relevant to the situation in Canada for the same reasons. The AIC is
a unified body across the country, however consideration should be given to not just Federal real
estate laws but provincial and municipal laws which are specific to a given area. A possible
solution to this dilemma is the creation of a province-specific form in addition to a federal form.
21
Bibliography
Babad, Michael. “Why Cut-rate Mortgages Won’t Be Here For Long.” The Globe and Mail. March 28,
2014, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/why-cut-ratemortgages-may-not-be-here-for-long/article17715886/.
Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation. “Housing Market Outlook: Vancouver and Abbotsford
CMAs.” Fall 2013. https://www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?lang=en&cat=63&itm=53&fr=1384561400041, accessed
November 2013.
CIBC. “Mortgage Rates.” https://www.cibc.com/ca/rates/index.html, accessed March 2014.
City of Vancouver Planning Department. Marpole Community Plan Draft. Vancouver, BC: City of
Vancouver, 2013. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpole-community-profile-2013.pdf , accessed
March 29, 2013.
City of Vancouver Planning Department. Marpole Community Profile. Vancouver, BC: City of
Vancouver, 2011. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpole-community-profile-2013.pdf , accessed
March 30, 2013.
City of Vancouver Planning Department. RM-3A District Schedule. Vancouver, BC: April, 2013.
City of Vancouver. VanMap GIS System. Vancouver, BC.
http://vanmapp.vancouver.ca/pubvanmap_net/default.aspx, accessed March 29, 2013.
22
1
Appendix
Article 1 - Living Room and Bedroom (Standard 1 Bedroom Apartment)
2
Article 2 – Kitchen (Standard 1 Bedroom Apartment)
3
Article 3 – Bathroom (Standard 1 Bedroom Apartment)
4
Article 4 – Patio (Standard 1 Bedroom Apartment)
Article 5 – Shared Outdoor Swimming Pool
5
Article 6 – Underground Parking Lot
Article 7 – Gas Powered Hot Water System
6
Article 8 – Gas Powered Hot Water Heating System
7
Article 9 – Faceplate on Gas Powered Hot Water System
8
Article 10 – Central Circuit Breakers
Article 11 – Emergency Fire System in Breaker/Electronic Room
9
Article 12 – Elevator Mechanical Room