BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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.

Not only is it sponsored by the hotel lobby, but I'm always skeptical when all analysis of a policy end up being sourced from one single guy. David Wachsmuth has built his entire career on STR opposition, so it would be really nice to hear something similar from someone else. Otherwise I'm not usually one to believe a single source of information.

[chowhou]

Election cuckoldry continues.

Province grants six-year pause on Steveston densification
Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie has been critical of the way Bill 44 was pushed through.

The province is granting the City of Richmond a six-year extension on rezoning parts of Steveston for higher density.

After the province passed Bill 44, which allows densification in single-family neighbourhoods, Richmond city council asked for an extension in Steveston where they say infrastructure upgrades need to be done.

The city asked for a pause on rezoning requirements for the area between Steveston Highway and Chatham Street and No. 1 Road and Seventh Avenue.

The city is planning to spend $9 million over the next five years to upgrade the sewers in Steveston.

The province announced on Monday that Richmond would get its requested extension, with Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon saying an independent engineering company reviewed the request and confirmed it was a “challenge.”

Furthermore, Kahlon said he met with the mayor and city staff on Monday, and it appears 11 properties in Burkeville, that would have been rezoned high-density with up to eight-storey towers, “does make sense” to exclude.

“Generally, mayor and council made a good point on those 11 properties,” Kahlon told the Richmond News.

The 11 properties were within 800 metres - as the crow flies - of the Aberdeen Canada Line Station, but, in reality, were about a two-kilometre drive from the station. Transit-oriented areas are being earmarked for densification up to eight storeys high.

Richmond city council, including Mayor Malcolm Brodie, have criticized the province for forcing densification, which over-ride municipal zoning plans.

While the City of Richmond has allowed densification in certain areas, Kahlon said if this were sufficient, “the reality is if that were the case, we wouldn’t be in a housing crisis."

He noted New Zealand introduced similar legislation and has seen “positive outcomes” in its housing situation.

He added, having the new zoning rules in place will free up municipal staff time to put their resources “to better use.”

Bill 44 affected the zoning of about 27,000 properties in RIchmond.

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...pause-on-steveston-densification-9535026

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Election cuckoldry continues.

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news...pause-on-steveston-densification-9535026

No doubt the NDP wants every last vote for Kelly Green and their other shaky Richmond seats. How else to explain their pandering by "pausing" the construction of new supportive housing in Richmond.

'It's going to happen,' but not yet: Premier explains pause of Richmond supportive housing project
Published Sept. 4, 2024 4:39 p.m. PDT

A planned six-storey, 90-unit supportive housing complex at Cambie and Sexsmith roads in Richmond is no longer going forward. Unless it does. Which it definitely will, but maybe at a different site.

That was the complicated position Premier David Eby laid out Tuesday when asked about his government's recent decision to suspend the project amid criticism from local residents.

"The housing minister made the decision to put this particular project on pause because of concerns that inadequate work had been done with the community to ensure this is the appropriate site, to ensure that all issues in the community have been addressed," Eby said.

"One of the things that we need to do better on is (to) ensure that when we're opening supportive housing in a community, that we have all the pieces in place in advance and not after it opens."....

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/it-s-going-to-happ...ond-supportive-housing-project-1.7025719

It's hard to believe any voter would be stupid enough to fall for that.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yucks: One of the reasons I don't hang out much in East Vancouver. These buildings are really ugly. They can do much better today.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yucks: One of the reasons I don't hang out much in East Vancouver. These buildings are really ugly. They can do much better today.

We can indeed do better! Hopefully a genius developer can find some loophole/grey area in the new multiplex zoning that can provide some additional grey market housing like the original Vancouver Specials did.

[whatnext]

Multiplex zoning will probably do more to make owning a house an impossibility for families than any other recent policy. Now that character house is no longer a fixer-upper to give someone a first home, it’s a development site.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Multiplex zoning will probably do more to make owning a house an impossibility for families than any other recent policy. Now that character house is no longer a fixer-upper to give someone a first home, it’s a development site.

Condemned SFHs are millions of dollars. Literally unliveable. I'm not sure how putting 6 units on the same property will somehow be less affordable.

[chowhou]

Has whatnext ever considered that in 30 to 40 years the currently new multiplexes are going to be fixer uppers too? Older existing duplexes in Vancouver and Burnaby are significantly more affordable than the SFHs that surround them.

[BaddieB]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Multiplex zoning will probably do more to make owning a house an impossibility for families than any other recent policy. Now that character house is no longer a fixer-upper to give someone a first home, it’s a development site.

Houses in Vancouver go for $2M. The possibility of owning a house in Vancouer has long been gone.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Has whatnext ever considered that in 30 to 40 years the currently new multiplexes are going to be fixer uppers too? Older existing duplexes in Vancouver and Burnaby are significantly more affordable than the SFHs that surround them.

Out of curiosity, didn't you recently buy a house? Presumably then you found some value to owning your own rather than a share in some multifamily arrangement?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Out of curiosity, didn't you recently buy a house? Presumably then you found some value to owning your own rather than a share in some multifamily arrangement?

Freehold duplex, rowhomes doesn't seem to be a thing here. Not sure if it's mainly a BC law thing, but slicing up land in Edmonton is more do-able than here.

[BaddieB]

Burnaby is preparing something on freehold row homes, which is great. I would love to live in one.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Out of curiosity, didn't you recently buy a house? Presumably then you found some value to owning your own rather than a share in some multifamily arrangement?

I don't owe you any details of my life but I have indeed bought a house where I currently live. However, it's not the housing form that I was after, it was the land. Very few Vancouverites are in the position that I am to be able to bury a huge amount of money in one asset, so for the good of society and the economy it's better if housing was more accessible to everyone.

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Burnaby is preparing something on freehold row homes, which is great. I would love to live in one.

Unfortunately, Vancouver has had legal freehold row homes in many areas of the city for many years now. In that time I believe the only 3 that have ever been built are at the corner of Cambie and 33rd. Why bother with a land assembly when you don't get all that much extra density to build out? Likely the only reason rowhouses were built there was because they were able to subdivide one lot into three. Might as well just lobby for a CD zone to build midrises when you have to go through the pain of a land assembly otherwise.

For the record, I love the concept of freehold rowhouses as well, but worldwide they're a very suburban concept. When all market forces seem to indicate that the economically viable land assembly housing form in all of Vancouver and Burnaby is midrises and up, we need the suburbs to really set up for that housing form to be viable.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Multiplex zoning will probably do more to make owning a house an impossibility for families than any other recent policy. Now that character house is no longer a fixer-upper to give someone a first home, it’s a development site.

Implying, of course, that the average Vancouver family can afford a fixer-upper. That hasn't been the case for over a decade.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Implying, of course, that Vancouver's fixer-uppers are affordable.

According to BC assessment, the land-to-structure value ratio of my house is almost 40:1. It would actually be nearly impossible for the building itself to be worth less; It's the definition of a "fixer-upper". However, the land costs alone are still far beyond the reach of 99% of Vancouver households. The only path forward is for more square footage and more homes to be built on the same amount of land so new homes can split the astronomical cost of the land.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Unfortunately, Vancouver has had legal freehold row homes in many areas of the city for many years now. In that time I believe the only 3 that have ever been built are at the corner of Cambie and 33rd.

Hmm I'll look that up and see what the lot size requirements were. I know that kills a lot of good designs - housing options. Front lot setbacks etc.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Hmm I'll look that up and see what the lot size requirements were. I know that kills a lot of good designs - housing options. Front lot setbacks etc.

My very brief understanding is that freehold row houses are completely economically viable; It's just that anywhere they're permitted always has even more economically viable housing forms allowed. Take a look at the RM-7, RM-8, and RM-9 zoning bylaws.

Also of note, Mary Hill actually has a lot of freehold rowhouses, but they're definitely from a very different time when housing was less of an over regulated mess.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VZU2t5rgayHDeZfw7

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

According to BC assessment, the land-to-structure value ratio of my house is almost 40:1. It would actually be nearly impossible for the building itself to be worth less; It's the definition of a "fixer-upper". However, the land costs alone are still far beyond the reach of 99% of Vancouver households. The only path forward is for more square footage and more homes to be built on the same amount of land so new homes can split the astronomical cost of the land.

And is that what you'll do with your lot?

Edited to add: I won't. That's the beauty of having your own house, not having to put up with other people's 🞵🞵🞵🞵!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And is that what you'll do with your lot?

It's not currently financially viable for me to do so. In the meantime, I regrettably get to ride the wave of land continuing to spiral upwards as everyone else suffers around me. My land makes almost as much every year in appreciation as I do from my paycheck and it's all tax free...

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

My very brief understanding is that freehold row houses are completely economically viable; It's just that anywhere they're permitted always has even more economically viable housing forms allowed. Take a look at the RM-7, RM-8, and RM-9 zoning bylaws.

Also of note, Mary Hill actually has a lot of freehold rowhouses, but they're definitely from a very different time when housing was less of an over regulated mess.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/VZU2t5rgayHDeZfw7

Oh absolutely I'm thinking primarily of the freehold townhome in multiplex areas. Instead of areas that traditionally are for apartments and have punitive lot size requirements. The Cambie 33rd site is definitely not a base case for a feasibility study. I wrote a longer post of areas I was thinking of but it was just all the multiplex areas now lol

Those Mary Hill buildings are quite the vintage! I'll look up their zoning too