Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I've been talking about the actual election this entire time, and "current results" are somewhat useless in that regard.

Francophone or not, Polly Oliver's already thrown in support for the convoys and WEF conspiracies (I'll make it fair and give him the benefit of the doubt on the anti-abortion, Straight Pride and MGTOW crap); that's plenty of social conservative baggage just in the first ten months. Will the Libs who hate JT pick him over Singh just for a "develop or else" platform? Probably not.

Current results are absolutely not useless. They're a reflection of the current public opinion. They don't exist in a vacuum. The LPC needs to turn the tide around in the next two years (alternatively the CPC needs to shoot itself in the foot again) or we will be looking at a CPC government again.

I'm sorry, but you have to be very urbanized to believe that Poilievre's current rhetoric isn't capturing voters right now. I understand you don't like what he has to say, but for every federal ABC voter right now there seem to be plenty of "anything-but-red-orange" voters. Again, try not to have a Hillary Clinton vs Trump moment.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's why everybody wants Ottawa to waive GST on market rentals, among other things.



Which is why the NDP is offering to work with those elected municipal governments instead, and only against them as an ultra-last resort. The only source saying that it's the first resort is the Liberal United opposition that caused the housing crisis in the first place (either on purpose or through negligence, take your pick).

The CPC's plan is to work against them as the only resort. That's the difference.

Exactly. The Provincial carrot approach seems to be working quite well. No one is forcing anyone to build anything, just to allow builders to be able to build outside of the select highly speculated, land inflated zones.

Rental is tight (as always), but I haven't seen it really slow down. Of course the expensive condo market in Vancouver and Toronto are putting things on hold!

Province works with towns and cities for updated OCPs.

Feds waive GST for rental and CMHC makes their loan proogram better and we're off without a bump in the road from today.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, the Tory "plan" is full of childish political rhetoric that they couldn't, or wouldn't, do if they won. Welcome to politics.

Well for the "party in waiting" I'd expect a mediocre plan or list of ideas, at minimum. CPC should be all over tax breaks.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm sorry, but you have to be very urbanized to believe that Poilievre's current rhetoric isn't capturing voters right now. I understand you don't like what he has to say, but for every federal ABC voter right now there seem to be plenty of "anything-but-red-orange" voters. Again, try not to have a Hillary Clinton vs Trump moment.

If we're going to bring up 2016, then it's fair to note that everybody started out thinking Jeb Bush would be the frontrunner.

This entire argument is about how the Cons' housing platform will snare YIMBYs away from the Libs. He'll definitely get a lot of people who were already leaning that way, but the kind of YIMBYs that go for a "density by any means" platform also tend to be the kind that's "anything but blue." Conservative voters OTOH tend to like detached single houses, big SUVs and not too many neighbours.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This entire argument is about how the Cons' platform will snare YIMBYs away from the Libs. He'll definitely get a lot of people who were already leaning that way, but the kind of YIMBYs that go for a "housing by any means" platform also tend to be the kind that's "anything but blue."

You might be surprised at the strange bedfellows that single issue voters make.

[GenWhy?]

And to be fair, if the BC Liberals enacted the Housing Supply Act and the federal CPC proposed the GST cut and streamlined CMHC financing for rental I'd be all over it. Good policies and good policies.

[GenWhy?]

Not to mention as well that even though Vancouver will be approving their Multiplex policy this Autumn, it is largely presenting builds that are not financially feasible and Staff are only expecting about 100 applications a year.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You might be surprised at the strange bedfellows that single issue voters make.

We'll see if there's 900 of those living in Cloverdale and Langley in October 2025. I'm betting on "no."

Personally, I think the Cons should've stuck with O'Toole. If it were him instead, then no argument here - he'd be the next PM by default.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Not to mention as well that even though Vancouver will be approving their Multiplex policy this Autumn, it is largely presenting builds that are not financially feasible and Staff are only expecting about 100 applications a year.

Mind explaining how they are not financially feasible? 4 addresses on a standard lot at 1.0 FSR seems extremely financially feasible based on my back of the envelope calculations. After all, if 0.7 FSR duplexes are financially feasible, how can this not be?

[logan5]

Yeah, it would be very educational as well as interesting to see why the math doesn't add up for a 50 foot lot in the the west side where you can build 6 strata units averaging 1000 sq feet (FSR 1) or 8 rental units.

[GMD]

So far, no level of government in Canada is proposing anything as radical as what is now happening in Hawaii, it will be interesting to track that one. Even if not adopted 100% here, could be some good ideas.

Hawaii declares YIMBY martial law..

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Mind explaining how they are not financially feasible? 4 addresses on a standard lot at 1.0 FSR seems extremely financially feasible based on my back of the envelope calculations. After all, if 0.7 FSR duplexes are financially feasible, how can this not be?

The land is more valuable as a result of being able to build more on it plus there are more fees being charged if you build larger buildings.

https://morehousing.substack.com/p/proforma
https://morehousing.substack.com/p/multiplex-fee-schedule

There's other analysis of this that have taken place but more or less what will happen is that the duplexes that are being built will get replaced by fourplexes and nothing else will change b/c it's only financially viable to build on lots that are teardowns (current status).

In order to make it that there are lots of new builds the FSR needs to be closer to 1.5.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by ecbin

The land is more valuable as a result of being able to build more on it plus there are more fees being charged if you build larger buildings.

I don't understand how the land becomes so much more valuable because you can build more on it, that you can't build more on it. How does that work?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Well for the "party in waiting" I'd expect a mediocre plan or list of ideas, at minimum. CPC should be all over tax breaks.

To be fair, it is a list of ideas but the problem is they are mainly silly ones designed to try and convince voters younger voters the CPC will fight the system to deliver affordability. The Liberals have had eight years controlling the levers of government and haven't delivered anything that's made a real difference.

We don't need programs that encourage buyers to get into more debt, we need programs that deliver cheaper housing that the free market hasn't seemed able to deliver (Supply) or we need policies that stop importing people competing for housing (Demand).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ecbin

The land is more valuable as a result of being able to build more on it plus there are more fees being charged if you build larger buildings.

https://morehousing.substack.com/p/proforma
https://morehousing.substack.com/p/multiplex-fee-schedule

There's other analysis of this that have taken place but more or less what will happen is that the duplexes that are being built will get replaced by fourplexes and nothing else will change b/c it's only financially viable to build on lots that are teardowns (current status).

In order to make it that there are lots of new builds the FSR needs to be closer to 1.5.

But then FSR 1.5 makes the land even more pricey.

I am skeptical of what gets said because a lot of what gets said is developer propaganda. They always want more than what is given. I’d love to see some actual numbers.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We don't need programs that encourage buyers to get into more debt, we need programs that deliver cheaper housing that the free market hasn't seemed able to deliver (Supply) or we need policies that stop importing people competing for housing (Demand).

Hence I'm surprised the CPC has not gotten onto the GST cut for rental construction bandwagon

[djmk]

unpopular opinion but....

open up the ALR (especially those that are currently golf courses or unused) to development.

Also, the Chinese seemed to be able to build fast with modular. Why is there such hesitation here? outsource that labour!

[Migrant_Coconut]

IIRC the ALR exists to prevent development. Expanding the city outward means more sprawl, more traffic, and a lot more new infrastructure to cover all the sprawl and traffic; it might make sense later on in some places, but for now, it's a better bet to expand upward on the infrastructure we already have. Urban golf courses will likely be replaced piecemeal by parks - I believe there was some talk about repurposing Langara a while back.

And I wouldn't confuse speed with efficiency in China's case. A lot of their stuff isn't up to code.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC the ALR exists to prevent development. Expanding the city outward means more sprawl, more traffic, and a lot more new infrastructure to cover all the sprawl and traffic; it might make sense later on in some places, but for now, it's a better bet to expand upward on the infrastructure we already have. Urban golf courses will likely be replaced piecemeal by parks - I believe there was some talk about repurposing Langara a while back.

AFAIK there is currently no ALR land that is remotely near anything medium+ density or on any rapid transit corridors. Those are the kinds of areas where neighbouring land would be expected to be developed. Once the SLS is built though, 176th and Fraser Highway is going to look a little bit silly. However, I'm pretty sure this is a political non-starter right now. Why waste political capital on that when you can just push for housing in existing built up ares.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IIRC the ALR exists to prevent development. Expanding the city outward means more sprawl, more traffic, and a lot more new infrastructure to cover all the sprawl and traffic; it might make sense later on in some places, but for now, it's a better bet to expand upward on the infrastructure we already have. Urban golf courses will likely be replaced piecemeal by parks - I believe there was some talk about repurposing Langara a while back.

And I wouldn't confuse speed with efficiency in China's case. A lot of their stuff isn't up to code.

the new surrey skytrain goes through massive amounts of ALR.

Landsdown Station is like 800 meters from an ALR

Riverway Golf course (in the ALR) is very close to the River District and can be high density.

And who the heck is farming in Point Grey?

I'm not say lets do it. But, I think some urban parcels should be worth a discussion

map : https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr-maps/