General Vancouver Updates

[vanman]

Anyone else catch this article in the Vancouver Sun?

Shelley Fralic: Heads up, Metro Vancouver mayors: A revolt is brewing

That something in the air? It’s anger

By Shelley Fralic, Vancouver Sun columnist January 19, 2016

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz3xoI5fFK1


Does it seem to you, as it does to me, that rarely a day goes by without yet another story of how Metro Vancouver real estate is being bulldozed, foreign-owned, over-priced, over-built, developer-designed and any other term to denote that our little urban world is changing faster than an ordinary taxpaying citizen can keep up with?

Does it also seem to you, as it does to me, although it’s a strictly anecdotal and gut-based observation, that the accelerated pace of demolition and new construction that is so drastically transforming our neighbourhoods has finally awakened the sleeping giant?

No question about it. There is something in the air these days.

Anger.

Civic taxpayers seem to be shaking off voter complacency and replacing it with outrage and outspokenness, filling council chambers and development meetings and all manner of public forums with a unified message: They no longer trust city hall politicians and bureaucrats to listen to their concerns or represent the greater public good in the face of unbridled growth and runaway residential and commercial development in their communities.

Last week, a column I wrote about New Westminster’s upcoming Official Community Plan, and the massive rezoning changes some of its proposed scenarios would foist upon the city, was meant as a wake-up call to residents. Speak up now, I enjoined, or forever hold your peace when your neighbourhood is suddenly unrecognizable.

And the inbox avalanche, from all over the region, began.

We agree, readers said, everyone needs to be involved in change. But there was also this overriding sentiment: We can’t trust our growth-at-any-cost elected representatives; we fear decisions are made well before the public is given a say and thus our input is meaningless. Oh, and we’re sick and tired of developers and consultants deciding how and when, if at all, our neighbourhoods should be rezoned and reimagined in the name of progress.

A sampling of the many comments:

“At what point is enough, enough? Do our leaders envision Los Angeles north? Should we aim to be larger than Toronto? Do residents really want more urban chaos and pollution and fewer tress and open spaces?”

“Developers are salivating and our elected officials have their own agendas.”

“The ‘planners’ of Langley and Langley Township are sorely out of sync with the current population growth and the needs for infrastructure. Decisions are made in the same way as New West. Count on the lack of resident participation and charge forward without consideration of the area’s immediate needs.”

“It may be that this eagerness to permit excessive residential development has its origins in the generous donations by developers that keep elected officials in office. In any case, it is wise not to accept the official rationale for development in your neighbourhood at face value.”

“Density is not destiny. It is a choice. Density does not add one more square inch of parks or roads. In fact, it subtracts at the margins. It is very puzzling that the population has bought into the ‘one million people are coming by 2040’ statement without any significant questioning of the wisdom thereof.”

“Welcome to West Coquitlam. They want suggestions for a new name? I sent in Bosa Town. Our lovely 60-year-plus neighbourhood is going away, house by house. We were told by Major Stewart and his merry band of councillors you have to look at the ‘big picture.’ West Coquitlam was a great place to raise our family. That way of life has now changed to make way for the high rises. Time to head for the hills. Oh wait, no more hills? They’re gone and replaced by multiple dwellings.”

Granted, it’s hardly a scientific sample, but if I were a Metro Vancouver municipal official, I wouldn’t discount the simmering anger that has been building of late among the folks who pay the bills and have a vested interest in what you are doing to their streets.

Your people are mad as hell, and if the sound and fury of their growing discontent is any indication, they are not going to take it any more.

[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business...#ixzz3xoGYQV3F

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

How is the Metrotown example at all relevant here? Replacing single family homes with any multifamily project increases affordability immediately as well. It's safe to say that if Vancouver allowed housing to be built consummate to demand, there would be far less pressure to redevelop relatively dense buildings in the suburbs. When Vancouver mandates single family homes to surround 2 of their rapid transit stations, of course demand is going to get pushed further down the line into Burnaby. It's maddening, but that's what happens when densities are totally arbitrary.

And squeezied, of course "there's nothing wrong with townhomes." What is wrong is forcing densities down to an arbitrary level dictated by political expediency rather than demand for housing. It is clear here, and all along Oak unfortunately, that we only have townhomes because nothing more is permitted by the city. Translink found a few years ago that transit ridership among residents adjacent to the Frequent Transit Network is nearly as high as for those adjacent to rapid transit - and here we are wasting an entire FTN arterial in the centre of the city with 3-storey townhomes of a density not far off what can be found in most suburbs.

Who's buying along Oak Street? Probably one of the shittiest streets in Vancouver I can think of to live on. But then if you're building for investors it doesn't really matter does it, as long as the place has the right school catchment?

It's amazing the naivete of those actually believing the "if we just build more prices will come down" bullshit. It hasn't worked for the last decade.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by vanman

Anyone else catch this article in the Vancouver Sun?

I read that piece (one of many from Ms. Fralic and others in the 'preserve the city in amber' chattering class) and found to my ear that the "sound and fury" she remarks upon hearing with increasing frequency sounds a lot like a noisy attempt by vocal Baby Boomers to pull up the ladder behind them whilst hanging a "city's full" sign from street lamps at the city limits.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who's buying along Oak Street? Probably one of the shittiest streets in Vancouver I can think of to live on. But then if you're building for investors it doesn't really matter does it, as long as the place has the right school catchment?

It's amazing the naivete of those actually believing the "if we just build more prices will come down" bullshit. It hasn't worked for the last decade.

As has been explained countless times, you are confusing "allowing any housing to be built" with "allowing demand to drive the amount of housing built." Of course if the city allows some housing that it still far less than demand, you're not making much progress. Multifamily housing is still banned on most of the city's land area, and where densification is allowed, it is kneecapped by FSR limits. See: downtown littered with projects of lower-than-suburban density; the Cambie Corridor mostly capped at 6 storeys with townhomes on 1/3rd of the lot.

jlousa: If 10 storeys was the limit along most of Cambie as opposed to 6, would development actually have occured at a slower pace than what we see today as developers would wait for more demand to build? The explosive, near-instantaneous build outs of SEFC and Cambie, once they were zoned for growth, don't exactly paint a picture of developers building at their own pace waiting for demand to reach a certain point. Rather, it looks like developers wait for a supply of appropriately zoned land. Of course there are the Westbank/Wall/Rize willing to take a punt and go for a rezoning on spec, and I applaud them for that, but it's easy to see why most builders don't want to subject themselves to a relatively more costly, risky, opaque process.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I read that piece (one of many from Ms. Fralic and others in the 'preserve the city in amber' chattering class) and found to my ear that the "sound and fury" she remarks upon hearing with increasing frequency sounds a lot like a noisy attempt by vocal Baby Boomers to pull up the ladder behind them whilst hanging a "city's full" sign from street lamps at the city limits.

Really? I've talked to a fair amount of young people who are as disgusted with the selling out of the city they grew up in.

[BodomReaper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Really? I've talked to a fair amount of young people who are as disgusted with the selling out of the city they grew up in.

I'm actually a young person and by far the majority of folks I encounter are aggressively pro-growth and disgusted with boomers trying to freeze the city in the 1970's, to the direct detriment of our living standards.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I read that piece (one of many from Ms. Fralic and others in the 'preserve the city in amber' chattering class) and found to my ear that the "sound and fury" she remarks upon hearing with increasing frequency sounds a lot like a noisy attempt by vocal Baby Boomers to pull up the ladder behind them whilst hanging a "city's full" sign from street lamps at the city limits.

Agreed. I have seen zero evidence of any revolt she's talking about either.

[WarrenC12]

Everybody likes to look at history with rose colored glasses. Classic "good old days" viewpoint.

Maybe the NPA's next slogan should be "Make Vancouver Great Again".

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who's buying along Oak Street? Probably one of the shittiest streets in Vancouver I can think of to live on.

What's wrong with Oak Street? I think it has much more "character" than Knight Street or the much-coveted Granville Street. Yes, they are all busy streets, but I find Oak the best of the three.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Agreed. I have seen zero evidence of any revolt she's talking about either.

Revolt might be a strong word, but I've noticed people getting more and more brazen about the comments they make. There is some huge resentment building up in this city.

[Krissy]

Originally Posted by squeezied

If it were up to me, there wouldn’t be any single family houses in the whole neighbourhood in the first place. The block in question would be substantially higher in density than 41 units if I had it my way. It could be stacked townhouses, mid-rises or high-rises for that matter. However, the form of development, and ultimately density, depends on the context of the site.

Good developments provide a variety of housing types and increase housing stock all at the same time complimenting and relating to the existing neighbourhood. The fact is the block in question is located in an area surrounded by single family houses. To ignore this fact and build something completely out of scale for the sake of density is a big FU to the community.

The city has set out the Marpole Community plan where the Oak Street corridor that calls for Oak and 67th to be the urban node with mixed use buildings up to 8 storeys. North and south of this node, buildings step down to 6 storeys and 3 storeys townhouses buffering between the 6 storeys buildings and existing single family houses. I think this is a sensible approach to add a variety housing types and density while still respecting the existing single family neighbourhood. So to rephrase your question, do I think that the 3 storeys townhouses buffering between the existing single family houses and 6 storeys midrises shouldn’t be denser? I think 3 storeys townhouses are suitable at this block given the context of the overall approved plan. I do also think 4 storeys stacked townhouses are appropriate buffers.

The Marpole Community plan (with corridors along Cambie, Oak, Granville and Hudson) calls for a range of housing types, with higher density types located at key areas (neighbourhood centres, existing commercial zones, proximity to transit) and lower density types transitioning to existing neighbourhoods. This 41 unit townhouse development just so happens to be located in the transition zone.

Link to the Marpole Community plan: http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/marpol...unity-plan.pdf

Thanks for the link, I think it's actually a pretty comprehensive plan. There's a good number of towers proposed along SW Marine Dr, that route does have a high frequency of bus service (10, 17, and 100) going to and from Marine Dr station.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It's amazing the naivete of those actually believing the "if we just build more prices will come down" bullshit. It hasn't worked for the last decade.

Prices haven't come down because there hasn't been enough new housing coming onto the market to satisfy the huge demand.

Since the supply within the CoV is nowhere near what the demand is, the demand has shifted to other areas such as Metrotown, which have seen their prices rise astronomically and they themselves are barely able to keep up with demand (look at how quickly new towers sell out in Burnaby). Heck, you're now even seeing a mini-boom in Surrey Central with at least half a dozen towers being built at the moment.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Krissy

Thanks for the link, I think it's actually a pretty comprehensive plan. There's a good number of towers proposed along SW Marine Dr, that route does have a high frequency of bus service (10, 17, and 100) going to and from Marine Dr station.

There were suppose to be more row-house/townhouse, but the local action group put a stop to it.

Mike Burdick, spokesman for a coalition of residents who are seeking to preserve Marpole’s single-family housing, said the city needs to implement a better consultation process.

Mr. Burdick said it doesn’t make sense for city planners to encourage the construction of townhouses and apartments smack dab in the middle of areas traditionally zoned for single-family housing. Instead, it would be a better move for the City of Vancouver to selectively approve more residential high-rises to go up on main streets such as Cambie, Oak and Granville...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle13835886/

Contrary to popular belief, the City is doing exactly what the voters tell them to do... leave their neighbourhoods alone and build towers in industrial areas where there is the least amount of protest.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Supply is only provided when there is demand. When the market paused a few years ago, what happened? Developers stopped providing supply, there was no downgrade in zoning. There were no buyers so the developers cut new supply. Developers will only build if there is demand, zoning isn't what's keeping costs up. There is so much underdeveloped lots in Vancouver that even if they were just built to their existing zoning without rezoning it would keep builders busy for a couple of decades minimum. The issue in Vancouver is demand people. Increasing zoning will not have developers flood the market and bring prices down. Developers can draw a supply and demand chart as well and decide where they want the points to meet, the professors can build their charts but they aren't building buildings...

The sheer number of misconceptions and falsehoods contained in this post is astounding.

If "developers will only build if there is demand," as you claim, then logically there must be little demand for affordable housing in Vancouver, since developers are not building very much of it. But we all know that is false. The demand for affordable housing in Vancouver is not just high; it has never been higher. Thus, since there is in fact high demand for affordable housing, which the developers are not sufficiently building, it cannot be the case that "developers will only build if there is demand."

Obviously, then, it is not a lack of demand that is limiting the existence of affordable housing. It is something else. What is it?

Developers can draw a suppy and demand chart fairly well, but as business people they can draw a cost/benefit chart even better.

The reason developers are not creating an adequate supply of affordable housing, despite the overwhelming demand for it, is that they cannot afford to. Restrictive zoning policies and costly approval procedures are a double edge sword: they reduce project income while increasing project costs. As a business person, the developer is thus faced with a choice: he doesn't build any housing at all because the cost-to-benefit ratio has been rendered too small by the city's inefficient zoning policies and approval processes, or he builds anyways and makes up for those inefficiencies by passing them onto the purchaser in the form of substantially higher prices. Both the former and the latter are occuring in Vancouver right now. Hence the absence of affordable housing and the presence of high prices.

Maximizing density and minimizing approval costs, by contrast, increase incomes while decreasing costs to redevelop land. A plot of land that restrictive zoning policies and costly approval processes once made uneconomical for affordable housing, is now made viable by liberal zoning policies and simplified approval processes. The abundant demand for affordable housing exists; the policies that make the anbundant supply of that housing possible do not.

Observe that other industries are capable of supplying an abundance of products to meet the demands of a wide range of income levels. There are $200,000 Bentleys and Ferraris for wealthy persons or there are $10,000 Chevrolet Sparks and Nissan Micras for low-income persons. But this would not be the case if the government dramatically restricted the number of cars each Chevrolet or Nissan factory was allowed to produce. If the government restricted the the number of cars each factory is allowed to produce to the degree the city restricted the number of dwelling units each piece of land is allowed to support, then Chevrolet and Nissan would have to start passing the government-created inefficiencies onto the consumer in the same way land developers are currently passing city-created inefficiencies onto the purchaser. Just as density restrictions force land developers to sell houses and condos at prices similar to mansion homes, so production restrictions would force Chevrolet and Nissan to sell Sparks and Micras at prices similar to luxury cars. Would you then claim there must be an absence of demand for $10,000 economy cars, since car producers are not supplying them?

There are so many other misconceptions contained in your statements, but one can only address so many at one time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The sheer number of misconceptions and falsehoods contained in this post is astounding.

If "developers will only build if there is demand," as you claim, then logically there must be little demand for affordable housing in Vancouver, since developers are not building very much of it. But we all know that is false. The demand for affordable housing in Vancouver is not just high; it has never been higher. Thus, since there is in fact high demand for affordable housing, which the developers are not sufficiently building, it cannot be the case that "developers will only build if there is demand."

Obviously, then, it is not a lack of demand that is limiting the existence of affordable housing. It is something else. What is it?

Developers can draw a suppy and demand chart fairly well, but as business people they can draw a cost/benefit chart even better.

The reason developers are not creating an adequate supply of affordable housing, despite the overwhelming demand for it, is that they cannot afford to. Restrictive zoning policies and costly approval procedures are a double edge sword: they reduce project income while increasing project costs. As a business person, the developer is thus faced with a choice: he doesn't build any housing at all because the cost-to-benefit ratio has been rendered too small by the city's inefficient zoning policies and approval processes, or he builds anyways and makes up for those inefficiencies by passing them onto the purchaser in the form of substantially higher prices. Both the former and the latter are occuring in Vancouver right now. Hence the absence of affordable housing and the presence of high prices.

Maximizing density and minimizing approval costs, by contrast, increase incomes while decreasing costs to redevelop land. A plot of land that restrictive zoning policies and costly approval processes once made uneconomical for affordable housing, is now made viable by liberal zoning policies and simplified approval processes. The abundant demand for affordable housing exists; the policies that make the anbundant supply of that housing possible do not.

Observe that other industries are capable of supplying an abundance of products to meet the demands of a wide range of income levels. There are $200,000 Bentleys and Ferraris for wealthy persons or there are $10,000 Chevrolet Sparks and Nissan Micras for low-income persons. But this would not be the case if the government dramatically restricted the number of cars each Chevrolet or Nissan factory was allowed to produce. If the government restricted the the number of cars each factory is allowed to produce to the degree the city restricted the number of dwelling units each piece of land is allowed to support, then Chevrolet and Nissan would have to start passing the government-created inefficiencies onto the consumer in the same way land developers are currently passing city-created inefficiencies onto the purchaser. Just as density restrictions force land developers to sell houses and condos at prices similar to mansion homes, so production restrictions would force Chevrolet and Nissan to sell Sparks and Micras at prices similar to luxury cars. Would you then claim there must be an absence of demand for $10,000 economy cars, since car producers are not supplying them?

There are so many other misconceptions contained in your statements, but one can only address so many at one time.

You conveniently ignore that developers aren't building affordable housing
because they know they can build "luxury" product and sell it to a market not dependent on local incomes, which is also the biggest factor why land prices are astronomical, which is why it costs so much to build, which is why developers have to build high-priced units etc etc...

A vicious circle that can only be broken by government action.

[Jebby]

Fantastic post Prometheus.

[WarrenC12]

Developers will never, never build "affordable" housing unless they are required or provided incentives to do so by government, which is the case in many re-zoning applications today. Even then, those incentives have to be more worthwhile as compared to alternative opportunities available to them. That's why Vancouver can extract these requirements, along with CACs and public art, and still have developers interested. Surrey can't hope for anything similar.

They will always seek to maximize profits in the market. They are not constrained by any type of supply, they are constrained by their own size and financial risk levels. If they had Apple levels of corporate financing, Bosa would be redeveloping every piece of available land in Vancouver.

Furthermore your car analogy is terrible because the car market is an entirely different animal. Sparks and Micras are produced because of CAFE standards in the US. Ask any new car dealer, they make a pittance on those cars in terms of profit margin, if anything at all. Only economies of scale allow their production at all, something not possible in real estate development. They are there to get people into a dealership, or possibly into a car they can be upgraded from in the years to come. Those cars are also made of significantly cheaper parts than a Ferrari, with far less labour. Parts and labour are the main inputs to cars, whereas land and time (debt financing interest) are huge inputs to real estate development.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

A vicious circle that can only be brokencaused by government action.

Fixed that for you.

[subdude]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I read that piece (one of many from Ms. Fralic and others in the 'preserve the city in amber' chattering class) and found to my ear that the "sound and fury" she remarks upon hearing with increasing frequency sounds a lot like a noisy attempt by vocal Baby Boomers to pull up the ladder behind them whilst hanging a "city's full" sign from street lamps at the city limits.

yep. AMNOEs - After Me No One Else

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Maximizing density and minimizing approval costs, by contrast, increase incomes while decreasing costs to redevelop land

Not so sure maximizing density would decrease the cost to redevelop. After a certain density level, say 1.2 to 1.5 FSR (multi unit) or so, you have to build an underground parkade, which costs a lot to construct. Then at around 4 or 5 FSR you have to build with concrete instead of wood and you have a more complex mechanical system. This makes towers very costly to develop. So I think there is actually an optimal density that keeps costs low for the developer and subsequently the buyer. A wood frame structure with no underground parking would be the most cost efficient form of housing. That would equate to a density figure of around 1.2 FSR (for multi unit housing), as is seen in the Norquay plan.