BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[chowhou]

You two are both silly in your own special ways. That building was built in 1911. They'd be banned from building this nowadays even though it's a completely reasonable housing form.

People and politicians speak a lot about the missing middle, but there's a missing bottom too? We're allowed to pack people into SFH bedrooms and living rooms 12 a pop, but heaven forbid we have 200sqft micro suites huh?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Some new builds are 300-400 sq ft.

Originally Posted by chowhou

People and politicians speak a lot about the missing middle, but there's a missing bottom too? We're allowed to pack people into SFH bedrooms and living rooms 12 a pop, but heaven forbid we have 200sqft micro suites huh?

Good thing we've just upzoned a large chunk of the metro and adjusted the building code for larger units so that we can have Option 3: none of the above.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Some new builds are 300-400 sq ft.

The City of Vancouver allows micro suites as small as 250 sq ft. 325 Carrall was approved in 2018, and completed in 2021, with a mix of 38 studios and micro suites between 250 and 319 sq ft.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The City of Vancouver allows micro suites as small as 250 sq ft. 325 Carrall was approved in 2018, and completed in 2021, with a mix of 38 studios and micro suites between 250 and 319 sq ft.

Under the proposed new building codes I can't see how those units will still be legal.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Under the proposed new building codes I can't see how those units will still be legal.

250 sq ft may be more difficult as a workable bathroom layout and required doorway width might add a few sq ft. 300 sq ft should certainly be achievable. You can rent a fully accessible room in several Downtown hotels that are that size that have two queen beds.

With only one bed, (or a Murphy bed) it should be possible to design a reasonable micro suite. It's having walls between rooms that adds to the space needed to make them accessible, and multi use flex space (without fixed items like kitchen Islands) can more easily meet the needs of disabled residents.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You two are both silly in your own special ways. That building was built in 1911. They'd be banned from building this nowadays even though it's a completely reasonable housing form.

People and politicians speak a lot about the missing middle, but there's a missing bottom too? We're allowed to pack people into SFH bedrooms and living rooms 12 a pop, but heaven forbid we have 200sqft micro suites huh?

It's heavily known one of the houses in my old neighborhood out in North Surrey has 20 people crammed into 4 bedrooms. Counted about 11 cars in the driveway and front lawn.

At least micro suits or pods would allow us to better build the surrounding infrastructure (sewage, parking, electrical grid) to handle this capacity while taxing the landlord an appropriate rate.

[Changing City]

There's an interesting (short) presentation on the BC Legislation, and its impact on Metro Vancouver's growth modelling, that went to the July 4 Regional Planning Meeting where the new projections were also presented.

The main conclusions:

- no impact on overall growth, but more development on Transit Corridors, and less in Urban Centres.

- Model predicts greater density in single detached neighbourhoods, but some areas will see minimal changes, while others will see greater intensification.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Sounds about right. Oakridge will naturally see more demand than Sunset.

[jollyburger]

City of Vancouver wants to get in on the act.

Exclusive: City of Vancouver enters new territory, buying new $38.5-million apartment building

The City of Vancouver has quietly stepped into a new role recently, buying a brand new residential building with plans to operate it as a market-rate landlord.

Property records show the City of Vancouver spent $38.5 million to buy a six-storey building at the corner of Main Street and East 41st Avenue, with 46 market rental homes and a private liquor store on the ground floor. The building is now in the final stages of construction, with completion expected soon.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...tment-building

[BaddieB]

Cities should unironically become real estate developers with a branch with market housing to generate profit and another for social housing. However, this is $800k per unit, which is ridiculous, even with the commercial space.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Cities should unironically become real estate developers with a branch with market housing to generate profit and another for social housing. However, this is $800k per unit, which is ridiculous, even with the commercial space.

Maybe the units are furnished with Herman Miller furniture!

Ron.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Cities should unironically become real estate developers with a branch with market housing to generate profit and another for social housing. However, this is $800k per unit, which is ridiculous, even with the commercial space.

The building is 40,817 sq ft. The City paid $38.5m, and got vacant possession of 46 rental apartments with a mix of unit sizes from studio to 2-bed and a leased commercial space. That's under $1,000 per sq ft - which seems like a very reasonable price in the current market.

[csbvan]

Not a bad deal at all for a brand new building, in this rental market and with leased retail.

[WarrenC12]

Exactly. All empty units that can get today's market rental prices? Sign me up.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The building is 40,817 sq ft. The City paid $38.5m, and got vacant possession of 46 rental apartments with a mix of unit sizes from studio to 2-bed and a leased commercial space. That's under $1,000 per sq ft - which seems like a very reasonable price in the current market.

This is a blatant misuse of statistics. When calculating price/sqft for housing units you only count the square footage of the units themselves. The whole building is 40,817 sqft which includes everything in the building such as hallways and common areas.

There's no guarantee with is under $1,000 per sqft, and why would anyone ever assume that a property owner is just going to sell below market value out of the goodness of their hearts?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

This is a blatant misuse of statistics. When calculating price/sqft for housing units you only count the square footage of the units themselves. The whole building is 40,817 sqft which includes everything in the building such as hallways and common areas.

There's no guarantee with is under $1,000 per sqft, and why would anyone ever assume that a property owner is just going to sell below market value out of the goodness of their hearts?

Nobody suggested individual residential units were valued at under $1,000 per sq ft,. The investment purchase cost the City under $1,000 per sq ft for the building, and the land it sits on. The 40,817 sq ft includes over 7,000 sq ft of commercial space, already leased and occupied, and the parking underneath.

Nobody said the property owner sold below market value either. Just that it's a reasonable price for the City to have paid.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nobody suggested individual residential units were valued at under $1,000 per sq ft,. The investment purchase cost the City under $1,000 per sq ft for the building, and the land it sits on. The 40,817 sq ft includes over 7,000 sq ft of commercial space, already leased and occupied, and the parking underneath.

Nobody said the property owner sold below market value either. Just that it's a reasonable price for the City to have paid.

Everyone knows what you mean when you say, "under $1,000 per sqft seems like a very reasonable price in the current market."

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Everyone knows what you mean when you say, "under $1,000 per sqft seems like a very reasonable price in the current market."

Well cbsvan and Warren seem to have understood, but you seem to have struggled. Let's not forget that this started when someone suggested that the residential units cost the City over $800,000 each, effectively discounting the value of the main floor commercial space. My statement was intended to clarify that the investment as a whole didn't seem to be a bad one.

So, for you, "The building is 40,817 sq ft. The City paid $38.5m, and got vacant possession of 46 rental apartments with a mix of unit sizes from studio to 2-bed and a leased commercial space. That's under $1,000 per sq ft for the building - which seems like a very reasonable price in the current market for both residential units and a pre-leased commercial space."

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Well cbsvan and Warren seem to have understood, but you seem to have struggled. Let's not forget that this started when someone suggested that the residential units cost the City over $800,000 each, effectively discounting the value of the main floor commercial space. My statement was intended to clarify that the investment as a whole didn't seem to be a bad one.

So, for you, "The building is 40,817 sq ft. The City paid $38.5m, and got vacant possession of 46 rental apartments with a mix of unit sizes from studio to 2-bed and a leased commercial space. That's under $1,000 per sq ft for the building - which seems like a very reasonable price in the current market for both residential units and a pre-leased commercial space."

You're trying to counter "it's $800,000 per unit" with "it's under $1,000 per square foot". C'mon. You're either not understanding that that's not a valid comparison, or you're lying. It's one or the other.

[LeftCoaster]

If it's $800,000 per door then they got a bunch of retail space for free. Great negotiation!

Total dev costs under $1,000 PSF buildable is a very fair price. City did just fine here.