BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[chowhou]

And don't forget that my beloved Vancouver Special (the original multiplex, despite Vancouver's attempt to kill it) was effectively a free (<$100 at least) standardized design that all-but-solved housing from the 1960s into the 1990s.

[logicbomb]

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...ecision-on-densifying-burkeville-9475088

Richmond city council plans to issue formal letters opposing the provincial government's pressure to build up to eight-storey buildings on 11 single-family properties in Burkeville.

This topic was discussed during Tuesday's general purposes committee meeting by council and the Sea Island Community Association.

Provincial legislation requires rezoning to allow densification of single-family neighbourhoods in all municipalities, with higher densification near rapid transit.

The 11 Burkeville properties along Lancaster Crescent fall within 800 metres of the Aberdeen Canada Line Station — this radius around a rapid transit station is known as a transit-oriented area (TOA) and requires higher density than in other areas of Richmond.

However, residents would need to cross the Fraser River via the Moray Channel Bridge on foot, a distance closer to two kilometres than 800 metres.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie described the province's approach to densifying Burkeville as "ridiculous," with Coun. Kash Heed calling it an "asinine decision."

"We've not gained a lot of ground in terms of the province, but we are fairly unrelenting in this," said Brodie.

Seems silly for this area. Russ Baker Way is completely clogged with traffic on good days.

There's zero pedestrian access to Templeton Station. Your options are walking on a shoulder on Grant McConachie Way.

It's also a 1.5-2km walk from Aberdeen Station.

The 412 ends rather early.

A solution would involve building a pedestrian overpass over Russ Baker Way and a Pedestrian Bridge over the Fraser River but the provincial government seems hell bent on densifying without taking into consideration the necessary infrastructure improvements that are required. It's the same reason why I'd never live on Port Royal because there's limited entry points in and out of the community without seriously backtracking.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Seems silly for this area. Russ Baker Way is completely clogged with traffic on good days.

There's zero pedestrian access to Templeton Station. Your options are walking on a shoulder on Grant McConachie Way.

It's also a 1.5-2km walk from Aberdeen Station.

The 412 ends rather early.

A solution would involve building a pedestrian overpass over Russ Baker Way and a Pedestrian Bridge over the Fraser River but the provincial government seems hell bent on densifying without taking into consideration the necessary infrastructure improvements that are required. It's the same reason why I'd never live on Port Royal because there's limited entry points in and out of the community without seriously backtracking.

It is a bit silly, there shouldn't be demand, but if there is then let them build. That traffic is caused by development further away that is also silly.

Pedestrian access to Templeton could be built quicker than any of this is redeveloped, Richmond city council should probably be prioritizing that instead of whining and moaning about complying with the legislation.

It's also weird how everyone seems to neglect that these properties are directly across from the BCIT campus? Why would we have put a higher education institution there if we don't want people also living there? There's also an office park and a 10-storey hotel across the street? Why did Richmond permit this if this is such a silly place for housing?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...ecision-on-densifying-burkeville-9475088



Seems silly for this area. Russ Baker Way is completely clogged with traffic on good days.

Isn't it clogged with traffic mainly because people are driving to the island to access their work? If housing is adjacent a major employment area isn't that just as fine as being next to rapid transit? I understand that isn't the goal of the Provincial policy, but it can still be good for urban planning / housing.

Right now almost 29,000 people work on the island for the airport. Not sure if that includes the jobs by Inglis Drive. Then there is Arthur Glen shopping centre, BCIT and the Radisson.

Same reason, I'd say, that Willoughby is good for density due to the proximity to the large industrial area to the north; however, a better questions is should this neighbourhood even continue to exist at all.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by mcj

It is a bit silly, there shouldn't be demand, but if there is then let them build. That traffic is caused by development further away that is also silly.

Pedestrian access to Templeton could be built quicker than any of this is redeveloped, Richmond city council should probably be prioritizing that instead of whining and moaning about complying with the legislation.

It's also weird how everyone seems to neglect that these properties are directly across from the BCIT campus? Why would we have put a higher education institution there if we don't want people also living there? There's also an office park and a 10-storey hotel across the street? Why did Richmond permit this if this is such a silly place for housing?

Because office parks have always been placed in areas where land was cheapest?

You cannot just rezone an entire neighborhood without taking into considering the total lack of infrastructure there. This right now is happening in North Surrey, Port Kells and Langley where you have newly planned or build apartments that have zero amenities with zero betterment in infrastructure to handle the increasing population.

This legislation only came into effect and it can take years to get all stakeholders (Translink, BC Government, First Nations, and YVR) to come together to approve certain upgrades. Hell, the newly planned road near me was approved and has been stuck in limbo for 3 years now due to a developer that doesn't want to play ball.

Densifying around Skytrain or transportation hubs is smart and wise (Brentwood, Lougheed, Coquitlam). Densifying in areas that are mostly only accessible to vehicular traffic...is criminally stupid.

[GenWhy?]

Had my response in a draft for over a hour and missed your post, mcj, and agree that jobs next to housing with some infrastructure changes is do-able. We're straining the system regardless of where the housing goes for folks to access jobs on the island.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Because office parks have always been placed in areas where land was cheapest?

You cannot just rezone an entire neighborhood without taking into considering the total lack of infrastructure there. This right now is happening in North Surrey, Port Kells and Langley where you have newly planned or build apartments that have zero amenities with zero betterment in infrastructure to handle the increasing population.

This legislation only came into effect and it can take years to get all stakeholders (Translink, BC Government, First Nations, and YVR) to come together to approve certain upgrades. Hell, the newly planned road near me was approved and has been stuck in limbo for 3 years now due to a developer that doesn't want to play ball.

Densifying around Skytrain or transportation hubs is smart and wise (Brentwood, Lougheed, Coquitlam). Densifying in areas that are mostly only accessible to vehicular traffic...is criminally stupid.

Those office parks were put in without any consideration for the total lack of infrastructure (and housing) either, so I don't see why the city of Richmond should all of a sudden correct course now that they've got to upzone for what will quite frankly be 1 or 2 8-storey buildings here.

And you can just rezone an entire neighbourhood, that's literally what this legislation is supposed to do. If we wanted to build infrastructure ahead of time we would have to fund it through property taxes on existing residents, which we don't do on purpose. If the city of Richmond would like to fundamentally change how infrastructure is funded, they should have thought about doing that before the housing crisis became as desperate as it is. But let's not kid ourselves, nearly everyone complains about taxes, we're not about to start funding infrastructure investments to the degree we need for past growth, might as well present growth, and we're so far away from funding future growth it's leading to the desperate situations you describe.

This is densifying around Skytrain, it's within the same catchment that applies to other stations. No exceptions should be made. The market will determine where demand is.

There's even a brand new multi-use path running the whole length of Burkeville that they've fenced themselves off from that leads toward Templeton Station.

[chowhou]

Can we drop the "rezone entire neighbourhood" talking point? It's 11 properties.



https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/housin...hmond_aberdeen_station_toa_map_day_1.pdf

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mcj

It is a bit silly, there shouldn't be demand, but if there is then let them build. That traffic is caused by development further away that is also silly.

Pedestrian access to Templeton could be built quicker than any of this is redeveloped, Richmond city council should probably be prioritizing that instead of whining and moaning about complying with the legislation.

It's also weird how everyone seems to neglect that these properties are directly across from the BCIT campus? Why would we have put a higher education institution there if we don't want people also living there? There's also an office park and a 10-storey hotel across the street? Why did Richmond permit this if this is such a silly place for housing?

Probably because those three existing structures you refer to were all tied into airport operations: hotel, aerospace tech school and the office building was built for Canadian Airlines as a reservation centre. One has to wonder where the current 29k employees at YVR are commuting from now. Would they even be able to afford new market housing there? Many of those jobs don't pay particularly well, not everyone's a pilot.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Would they even be able to afford new market housing there?

Can't Richmond mandate inclusionary zoning and tenure under the policy (I honestly can't recall the details)? But... Only one way to find out in the end who lives there and what gets built.

[mcj]

Would imagine the new market housing will be significantly cheaper than what is currently for sale on these properties. I wonder if they considered the effect a 5 bedroom house with a 3-car garage would have on traffic before approving this?

(Let's not kid ourselves, of course they didn't).

[seamusmcduff]

I really don't get what the big deal is. It will literally allow for maybe 2 low rise buildings along the water. The impact to the neighbourhood and traffic is negligible.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mcj

It is a bit silly, there shouldn't be demand, but if there is then let them build. That traffic is caused by development further away that is also silly.

Pedestrian access to Templeton could be built quicker than any of this is redeveloped, Richmond city council should probably be prioritizing that instead of whining and moaning about complying with the legislation.

It's also weird how everyone seems to neglect that these properties are directly across from the BCIT campus? Why would we have put a higher education institution there if we don't want people also living there? There's also an office park and a 10-storey hotel across the street? Why did Richmond permit this if this is such a silly place for housing?

Hit the nail on the head: Brodie's mismanagement of Sea Island (and Richmond in general) is his problem, not the province's. The mayor and council can make it easier for Burkeville to access Templeton or Capstan/Aberdeen on foot or by bus any time they want to.

Or, if he's hellbent on preserving it as it is for some reason, he could negotiate for density on Templeton's parking lots or the industrial area at Bridgeport; might not work, but it's a better shot than just saying No like West Van did. Really seems like more of a "my dog ate my homework" excuse the more they whine about it.

Originally Posted by mcj

There's even a brand new multi-use path running the whole length of Burkeville that they've fenced themselves off from that leads toward Templeton Station.

That said, that multi-use path become a deathtrap north of Miller Road. If I were future Burkeville, I'd start shopping around for a mayor who'll add in a proper car-free overpass.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mcj

Would imagine the new market housing will be significantly cheaper than what is currently for sale on these properties. I wonder if they considered the effect a 5 bedroom house with a 3-car garage would have on traffic before approving this?

(Let's not kid ourselves, of course they didn't).

True but that doesn't address the issue of whether the majority of the staff working at the airport would be able to afford new market-price condos or pure market rentals if they were built instead.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Assuming they're not already paying market rate somewhere else, or that YVR couldn't cover part of the difference.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Assuming they're not already paying market rate somewhere else, or that YVR couldn't cover part of the difference.

I assume you mean YVR covering part of the construction cost? Unlikely given how tightfisted they are for anything not in the terminal.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I assume you mean YVR covering part of the construction cost? Unlikely given how tightfisted they are for anything not in the terminal.

Rental costs too. UBC and Whistler subsidize their employees, YVR can do the same (or build their own units) if their ATCs and mechanics really can't make ends meet if they move to Burkeville.

[jollyburger]

"A Dramatic Shift": Provincial Fund Now The Biggest Buyer In BC's Multi-Family Market

British Columbia’s Rental Protection Fund has kicked into high gear since it was announced by Premier David Eby more than a year ago. The $500 million fund helps non-profit housing providers purchase and maintain older housing stock to protect renters from skyrocketing rents and displacement. As a result, the fund is responsible for more than half of all multi-family purchases in the province so far this year, with 33 acquisitions and 21 of them announced.

“That makes the community housing sector now the single largest buyer in that market, which [is] in contrast to years past, when the single largest buyers were much larger private and institutional buyers,” says Katie Maslechko, CEO of the Rental Protection Fund, which operates as a non-profit society, independent from government. “That's a dramatic shift.”

https://storeys.com/bc-rental-protection-fund-multi-family-buyer/

[jollyburger]

A long article on the covenants story/Brentwood. Still seems like a non-story when the covenants can be overridden and there's probably a lot of people in these neighbourhoods willing to cash in like everyone along Cambie.

In the Brentwood Park neighbourhood in north Burnaby, a handful of 1950s-era detached homes are for sale along Southlawn Drive.

They’re all about 2,500-square-feet in size, assessed at just over $2.1 million, and are listed for around $4.3 million each. The listings encourage prospective buyers to imagine the redevelopment potential of these properties.

Article content
“New provincial legislation allows for multi-family building up to eight storeys,” the listings state.

But there’s a catch.

The land title for each of the properties carries a restrictive covenant, registered in the 1950s, that stipulates only a single-family home can be built on the lot.

More than 400 lots in the area are believed to have such covenants, according to a neighbourhood group that is using the restrictions to fight provincial housing policies intended to increase density in areas that were previously zoned for single-family homes.

https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/bc-real-estate-covenants-bill-44

[Migrant_Coconut]

Rent in B.C. communities declined after short-term vacation home rules were implemented, report finds

Apartment rents in several urban neighbourhoods in British Columbia declined noticeably after city governments in those areas prohibited people from renting out entire principal residences as short-term vacation homes, a new report has found.

The rents as of October, 2023, were lower by $110 a month compared with the previous year in 52 key neighbourhoods – down to $1,821 from $1,931 – according to a statistical analysis by McGill University associate professor David Wachsmuth and researcher Cloé St.-Hilaire. In Vancouver, it is $147 a month less on average.

The report is set to be released Wednesday, a month before a provincial election in which the governing NDP’s own new policy restricting short-term rentals (STR) is a flashpoint. In the analysis, which says B.C.’s policy is the largest-scale initiative of its kind in Canada, Dr. Wachsmuth estimates that renters will end up paying $600-million a year less once the province’s regulations fully kick in...

https://www.timescolonist.com/real-estat...es-were-implemented-report-finds-9532750

Granted, this was apparently sponsored by a lobby with ties to hotel unions.