Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[GenWhy?]

Regner says "what's the point"?

I think the point was to secure a rental building, land, and generate revenue.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Regner says "what's the point"?

I think the point was to secure a rental building, land, and generate revenue.

The rental units were already secured (being built). Why should the city be in the business of market rentals ( or are we considering $3500 for 739 sq/ft z2 beds social housing now?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The rental units were already secured (being built). Why should the city be in the business of market rentals ( or are we considering $3500 for 739 sq/ft z2 beds social housing now?

Is there another Whatnext? Or are you the same one who was extolling the virtues of Vienna having a huge number of publicly owned market rental units? And who wants governments to own more rental housing? So now the City adding to their portfolio by buying a building (at what looks like a reasonable price) you don't like it?

The City has built market rental buildings in the past, like the one on Main over the Community Centre and library. What difference does it make if they hire a construction company to build a rental building, or buy one that was built by a construction company for a developer? The only concern would be if they paid more than it would have cost for them to develop it themselves, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm intrigued that the developer chose to sell the building, but not that the City chose to acquire it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Is there another Whatnext? Or are you the same one who was extolling the virtues of Vienna having a huge number of publicly owned market rental units? And who wants governments to own more rental housing? So now the City adding to their portfolio by buying a building (at what looks like a reasonable price) you don't like it?

The City has built market rental buildings in the past, like the one on Main over the Community Centre and library. What difference does it make if they hire a construction company to build a rental building, or buy one that was built by a construction company for a developer? The only concern would be if they paid more than it would have cost for them to develop it themselves, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm intrigued that the developer chose to sell the building, but not that the City chose to acquire it.

Really? You were a planner, surely you understand the difference beteeen this and Vienna?


Kögler’s situation is not unique in Vienna, where social housing is not exclusively for the poor: More than 60 percent of the city’s 1.8 million inhabitants live in subsidized housing and nearly half of the housing market is made up of city-owned flats or cooperative apartments.

In the 1920s and 30s, Vienna’s government invested in providing the working classes with quality housing fit for the bourgeoisie.
“Social housing policies in Vienna have been shaped by the political commitment that housing is a basic right,” Deputy Mayor Kathrin Gaal told POLITICO, adding that the city’s mission had been made simpler thanks to its determination to keep the massive stock of subsidized homes built during the past century …

https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Really? You were a planner, surely you understand the difference beteeen this and Vienna?


Kögler’s situation is not unique in Vienna, where social housing is not exclusively for the poor: More than 60 percent of the city’s 1.8 million inhabitants live in subsidized housing and nearly half of the housing market is made up of city-owned flats or cooperative apartments.

In the 1920s and 30s, Vienna’s government invested in providing the working classes with quality housing fit for the bourgeoisie.
“Social housing policies in Vienna have been shaped by the political commitment that housing is a basic right,” Deputy Mayor Kathrin Gaal told POLITICO, adding that the city’s mission had been made simpler thanks to its determination to keep the massive stock of subsidized homes built during the past century …

https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/

You seem to have missed my point. Either you think it's a good thing for municipalities (Vienna, Vancouver, or Valencia), to own housing, or you don't. In the past you seemed to support the idea of public housing. This is an example of the City adding to the stock of publicly owned housing. We didn't start building public housing in the 1920s, but we are now, and this is another way to add to the stock. We also get developers to build non-market housing in projects like Landmark, which the City owns and then leases. Some is leased at market rates, some below market, and some deep discount for tenants who can't afford full market rents.

You haven't said what you object to about the City buying the building. Robert Renger seems to think there's some question about the finances of buying the building, and then renting it at market rents with commercial and residential tenants, but he's a cityhallwatch contributing sceptic who doesn't like all sorts of developm... wait... Robert... is that you?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The rental units were already secured (being built). Why should the city be in the business of market rentals ( or are we considering $3500 for 739 sq/ft z2 beds social housing now?

"secure" as in owned by the City. The City having a revenue-generating asset and new land seems decent.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

In the 1920s and 30s, Vienna’s government invested in providing the working classes with quality housing fit for the bourgeoisie.
“Social housing policies in Vienna have been shaped by the political commitment that housing is a basic right,” Deputy Mayor Kathrin Gaal told POLITICO, adding that the city’s mission had been made simpler thanks to its determination to keep the massive stock of subsidized homes built during the past century …[/I]

https://www.politico.eu/article/vienna-social-housing-architecture-austria-stigma/

Sounds like we're at 1920s Vienna stage. I'd assume the city-owned units won't charge maximum rent with maximum yearly rent increases once the loan is paid off. But if they do, that revenue goes into the system.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You seem to have missed my point. Either you think it's a good thing for municipalities (Vienna, Vancouver, or Valencia), to own housing, or you don't. In the past you seemed to support the idea of public housing. This is an example of the City adding to the stock of publicly owned housing. We didn't start building public housing in the 1920s, but we are now, and this is another way to add to the stock. We also get developers to build non-market housing in projects like Landmark, which the City owns and then leases. Some is leased at market rates, some below market, and some deep discount for tenants who can't afford full market rents.

You haven't said what you object to about the City buying the building. Robert Renger seems to think there's some question about the finances of buying the building, and then renting it at market rents with commercial and residential tenants, but he's a cityhallwatch contributing sceptic who doesn't like all sorts of developm... wait... Robert... is that you?

I support governments building and owning social or subsidized housing. This just seems like government buying a project that would have offered units at the same market rate anyway.

Far better that the city had bought one of the many stalled sites where China-backed developers collapsed and then build what wasn't already under way. For example, the the old Flamingo site on Cambie or the one at Park & Granville.

As the X poster originally asked about this purchase: "what's the point?" It certainly wasn't to make new housing available.

[Changing City]

duplicate. (This site is so unstable on my tablet these days.]

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I support governments building and owning social or subsidized housing. This just seems like government buying a project that would have offered units at the same market rate anyway.

Far better that the city had bought one of the many stalled sites where China-backed developers collapsed and then build what wasn't already under way. For example, the the old Flamingo site on Cambie or the one at Park & Granville.

As the X poster originally asked about this purchase: "what's the point?" It certainly wasn't to make new housing available.

I don't see any material difference between the City buying a site from a developer to build housing, or the City buying a site from a developer where the housing has already been built, but not tenanted. There's nothing stopping the City from leasing the apartments they've bought as social or subsidized housing, except financial prudence. For now, they seemingly intend to repay the purchase price, over time, back to the Property Endowment Fund that was used to buy the building. If they want to change that, as owners of the property, they can do it.

The two specific examples you suggest are different. Modus, at Park and Granville, are half-built townhouses, with pre-buyers already owning most of the units. The legal and financial minefield of getting it completed is better left to another townhouse developer. The ifortune site on Cambie is offered at $20m. If the City were to buy it to develop the 62 units approved, they would be committing far more money, having to find contractors, and maybe have some homes to lease in 3 years time that won't have cost any less to build than the ones they bought on Main. The deal they did gives them a reasonably priced asset now, with far fewer potential problems.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Far better that the city had bought one of the many stalled sites where China-backed developers collapsed and then build what wasn't already under way. For example, the the old Flamingo site on Cambie or the one at Park & Granville.

Financially, I don't think the City would be better off in those alternative options

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Financially, I don't think the City would be better off in those alternative options

Having a government entity hold residential property shouldn't be about financial return. We have private sector companies to fulfill that role. It should be about providing housing the market can't or won't.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Having a government entity hold residential property shouldn't be about financial return. We have private sector companies to fulfill that role. It should be about providing housing the market can't or won't.

Well this is a different conversation all together now.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Well this is a different conversation all together now.

All part of the same conversation, and back to original X post question "what's the point".

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

All part of the same conversation, and back to original X post question "what's the point".

To secure property and land and having a revenue-generating asset. If the City wants to charge less (not the maximum market rent at a given time to new or existing tenants by charging the maximum rent increase per year), when it is able to, that could be a benefit as well down the road.

To add, I can see the argument of "if private developers are building market housing, why is the government involving itself at all", but that focuses just on producing the homes and skips over the public ownership of the units and land as well as the revenue going directly to the City.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Previous update August 24th, 2024
https://www.instagram.com/p/C_wIjgfyIeu/?igsh=enhjM2xnNGh5ZXpw&img=&img

788 W 13th Ave – Heather Place Building B – Photos Taken Oct 12th, 2024
87 Social Housing Apartments, 8 Space Daycare Centre
Rezoning Application Submitted – June, 2013
Building Permit Issued – April 2023
https://www.instagram.com/p/DCsUzvKyilG/

[Feathered Friend]

2715 Kitsilano Diversion – The Kitsilano Diversion
https://hmrealty.bc.ca/properties-for-rent/vancouver/the-kitsilano-diversion/
14 Rental Homes
Rezoning Application Submitted – August 2017
Building Permit Issued – September 2021
Photos Taken - November 3, 2024

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCvHqcyP5tT/

[Feathered Friend]

https://www.orrdevelopment.com/residenti...rooftop%20amenity%20with%20ocean%20views.

2908 W 4th Avenue – Neighbour on 4th
54 Rental Homes, Ground-level Retail Space - Mass Timber Construction
Rezoning Application Submitted – September, 2022
Building Permit Issued – September 2023
Photos Taken November 3, 2024

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCxc5GISvaG/

[BaddieB]

What's with the setback?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://www.orrdevelopment.com/residenti...rooftop%20amenity%20with%20ocean%20views.












https://www.instagram.com/p/DCxc5GISvaG/

Wow, somebody found a way to make the 1980s era building on the left look daring and creative.