Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City
Your number seems too high. The recently approved Bosa 'jenga' Ole Scheeren tower on West Georgia has a combined Development Cost Levy, Public Art and Community Amenity Contribution of $279,400 per unit. The average size of the units in that project is greater than 900 sq. ft. - over two thirds will be 2-bed or larger. The CAC, which is over $250,000 per unit, was offered by the developer based on the increase of land value that is created by adding the residential tower. This is one of the higher CACs, because it's a high density tower with a very high anticipated value (so the CAC as % of the land lift will be greater). Lower density projects with lower land lift should generate a lower CAC per unit.
If you really think that if the developer would charge $250,000 less per unit if they didn't have to offer a CAC, then you have a very different understanding of how housing markets work. Almost all the CACs are going to pay for the new and upgraded facilities that will be provided in the West End, with around $5m to support the Heritage Action Plan. You can see all the details here.
If the developer wasn't expected to pay a CAC, either land values would be even higher, or the developer would make an even greater profit, and the West End wouldn't see any benefit in the form of new or upgraded facilities. |
Discrepancy in figures aside, I don't disagree with a anything you said.
That wasn't my intended point, Ill elaborate.
Land all across Metro Vancouver is being valued on highest and best use, based on speculation on zoning policy.
Cambie corridor is a fitting example - when up zoned few years back, the homes along Cambie went from a market value of $1.5 to $3.0 because of a change in density and potential for assembly - I'm using round numbers.
Point #1: Zoning policy is causing land speculation and valuing properties at far above their current use.
Downtown - I agree that the city has managed to extract value out of the developments by using the CAC's, I don't mean to dispute this. There is a benefit to added facilities for resident use.
Point #2: High rise construction will never bail us out of high housing costs because of construction costs will always be inherently higher, CAC's are high, and land costs are high.Important note: by no means is this a suggestion of not building high rise, it absolutely needs to be a major part of the housing stock. Going forward it cannot, and will not, be an affordable solution.
Lastly, if the above 2 are true (I believe so) what is a feasible and locally applicable solution?
Point #3: Firm zoning policy to allow smaller freehold or freehold/strata dwellings on the miles and miles of residential zoned land currently in the Metro. Firm zoning is key here - meaning no room for land lift via rezoning 3 years down road to a mid-rise or high-rise. It means 800-1000 sq/ft dwelling in residential areas - similar to what a laneway homes offer, only scaled to whole city blocks.
High rise is not a viable affordable housing solution, baring the willingness of government to move into non-profit building on donated land - ala Singapore. I don't see this being politically viable in the Metro.
Threaded Mode