Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

An underused/surplus field in a mature Calgary neighbourhood with a proposal for ~450 multi-fam to help support schools, with good transit there and walkable amenities was just turned down because of fears over 'congestion/traffic, construction noise and dirt'???

Seriously?

A more reasonable reason would be fears that the new constructions would cause the neighbors’ real estate to gain less value over time (supply/demand). It’s a common NIMBY motive, though rarely openly.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Any cut takes time to have an impact.

Another 0.25% cut isn’t going to fundamentally change anything, but it will continue to cause easing in lending rates which will free up cash in the economy.

It’s also a sign that the BoC is likely going to continue to make cuts.. September will likely be another 0.25%. After that we are looking at 0.75% below peak which is starting to be significant.

Yeah I would generally agree with this. I don't see them cutting more than .25 at a time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

In my humble opinion, it will take 100 basis points.

Plus, many mortgages are below prime right now by 100-200 points, so it may not do much there, but certainly will instill investor confidence.

We don’t need any more condo investors with “confidence, thanks very much. That’s what got us into this mess. Better Junior had decided to actually build housing directly with the money he earmarked to make sure your granny had nice teeth.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The BC legislation was introduced in November 2023, and while a few areas were required to allow specified densities around transit stations in December, most municipalities had until June 30, 2024, to designate the areas. So no housing starts will have resulted from the legislation yet. Most municipalities already had plans that allowed higher densities than the provincial legislation requires, but a few had pockets of single family homes that didn't allow redevelopment to higher densities, despite proximity to transit.

The other big move was to remove parking requirements for residential projects within those Transit Oriented Development areas. So far developers are still proposing to provide parking, but in some cases less than one space for each unit, which many municipalities used to require. That should speed up some projects (less digging) and make them less expensive to develop as a result.

And yet years ago the B.C. NDP gave municipalities the ability to designate “rental only” zoning. Curiously they haven’t forced municipalities to adopt that?
Why, because at the end of the day the real estate Ponzi scheme is about enriching developers not about providing housing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We don’t need any more condo investors ....

Who do you think is paying for rental stock to get built in this country?

[Coldrsx]

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-ne...arts-june-2024

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet years ago the B.C. NDP gave municipalities the ability to designate “rental only” zoning. Curiously they haven’t forced municipalities to adopt that?
Why, because at the end of the day the real estate Ponzi scheme is about enriching developers not about providing housing.

Why would the Province force cities to adopt it when it was cities that had requested it? It also appears cities have adopted policies that are better than a full heavy-handed rental only tenure zone, like higher density bonusing for purpose built rental, rental replacement, and inclusionary zoning with a municipal tenant relocation plan.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet years ago the B.C. NDP gave municipalities the ability to designate “rental only” zoning. Curiously they haven’t forced municipalities to adopt that?
Why, because at the end of the day the real estate Ponzi scheme is about enriching developers not about providing housing.

The thread is about getting more housing built. How would 'forcing' municipalities to adopt more restrictive zoning get more housing built? (And how would the province determine where those zones should be 'forced' to exist?)

The rental only zoning possibility has allowed municipalities to protect existing rental areas, and to approve new rental projects that then can't be switched to condo in future.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by whatnext

We don’t need any more condo investors with “confidence, thanks very much. That’s what got us into this mess. Better Junior had decided to actually build housing directly with the money he earmarked to make sure your granny had nice teeth.

I didn't say 'condo', I said investors who help drive the overall economy.

That's a byproduct.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The thread is about getting more housing built. How would 'forcing' municipalities to adopt more restrictive zoning get more housing built? (And how would the province determine where those zones should be 'forced' to exist?)

The rental only zoning possibility has allowed municipalities to protect existing rental areas, and to approve new rental projects that then can't be switched to condo in future.

LOL “protecting rental areas” yet not protecting the rental buildings in them. Again, it is all about handing developers sweet deals though I certainly doubt you’re against that.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Why would the Province force cities to adopt it when it was cities that had requested it? It also appears cities have adopted policies that are better than a full heavy-handed rental only tenure zone, like higher density bonusing for purpose built rental, rental replacement, and inclusionary zoning with a municipal tenant relocation plan.

So instead of simply saying “you can only build rental here” you think all the extra bureaucracy, relocation service consultants etc etc are a better solution…

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL “protecting rental areas” yet not protecting the rental buildings in them. Again, it is all about handing developers sweet deals though I certainly doubt you’re against that.

You're the one who posted "years ago the B.C. NDP gave municipalities the ability to designate “rental only” zoning." Now you're mocking municipalities who use it.

How does protecting poorly built 1960s walk-ups increase the housing supply (which is the thread topic)? Especially when the replacement buildings have five times the unit count, have the same number of low cost rental units that are in the old building, and there's a policy that requires the developer to ensure the existing tenants can return to the new building at the same rent, and support them to continue to rent while development takes place. Like this example.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So instead of simply saying “you can only build rental here” you think all the extra bureaucracy, relocation service consultants etc etc are a better solution…

If rental only zones were enacted all the same bureaucratic processes would likely still be required for new developments:
- Zoning change
- Permits
- Tenant relocation

Unless your intent to use this policy is to prevent the construction of new rental housing. Then I guess the items listed above would not be required... well, it might, once the building needs major repairs requiring the displacement of the tenants.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're the one who posted "years ago the B.C. NDP gave municipalities the ability to designate “rental only” zoning." Now you're mocking municipalities who use it.

How does protecting poorly built 1960s walk-ups increase the housing supply (which is the thread topic)? Especially when the replacement buildings have five times the unit count, have the same number of low cost rental units that are in the old building, and there's a policy that requires the developer to ensure the existing tenants can return to the new building at the same rent, and support them to continue to rent while development takes place. Like this example.

Much obliged. I'd add it likely would not change the cost of the land either as the rental projects is the more lucrative and is what you would mostly assess the land at - the more successful project and tenure type.

[SpongeG]

this was the topic on the talk show on my commute home. Some points from their discussion, mainly applies to BC, developer fees are just way to high and have been stalling and killing some projects, without investors many projects aren't going to even get a chance, many local investors just can't afford it anymore and without foreign money it's not helping, many of the foreign investors are just not looking to invest in BC or Canada now. Some developers are getting out of Canada and going to the states, apparently places like Texas are much cheaper to get a project done.

Toronto is down 60% and Vancouver is down 55%.

....

CMHC says annual pace of housing starts in June down 9% from May
The Canadian Press
Staff
Published July 16, 2024

The housing agency said the seasonally adjusted annual rate of housing starts in June amounted to 241,672 units, down from 264,929 in May.

“The higher interest rate environment appears to have caught up with some of Canada’s major centres as lower multi-unit starts, particularly in Vancouver and Toronto, drove both the (seasonally adjusted annual rate) and trend down in June," said CMHC chief economist Bob Dugan in a press release.

...

"While strong starts growth in June and the first half 2024 in Calgary, Edmonton, and Montreal mitigated some of these decreases, we expect continued downward starts pressure across Canada throughout 2024."

Non seasonally adjusted housing starts were markedly lower in two of Canada's three major cities compared with June 2023, with Toronto down 60 per cent and Vancouver down 55 per cent.

However, Montreal housing starts rose 226 per cent in June year-over-year as multi-unit activity picked up significantly.

...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cmhc...-may-1.6965727