General Vancouver Updates

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I'm surprised demolition of the older building was allowed by mayor and council, isn't there a policy on that? Perhaps it had been stratified at some point?

Mayor and Council wouldn't have been involved. Rate of Change Policy also doesn't apply here.

The zoning for that lot is 'C-2' - mixed commercial and residential. Rate of Change, and retention of existing rental only applies to 'RM' zones.

That's the case for the time being - In future the rate of change policies might be extended to include the 'C' zones where rental buildings can currently be redeveloped as strata.

[GenWhy?]

^Exactly, and in that case we're (developers) are going to need parking relaxations and height increases. Building rental and mixed-use on major thoroughfares around the 4-6 storey mark with current parking calculations is making our rents for our units jump quite a bit. If we have to build rental to replace the older stock on a C-2 site things are going to need a policy to work on the development and business side of development as well as a protection policy.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It is also a C-2 zoned site. Major difference in the way Rate of Change works and demos. We're currently in the process to tear down a building with about just under 20 1 bed rentals built in the 50's, 3-storeys and replacing it with - along the adjacent properties that are vacant, into luxery condos for empty nesters... it's a C-2 site and we offer ample move-out times, heads up, and compensation packages with moving support and help them move into rentals near by. All within policy and guidelines.

That's all very nice, but of what happens when there are no equivalent rentals nearby? That's 20 affordable units lost forever. They won't be coming back at those rents under any scenario, unless perhaps the state (ie the taxpayer) gets sucked into building social housing units to replace those that allowed a private developer to benefit.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's all very nice, but of what happens when there are no equivalent rentals nearby? That's 20 affordable units lost forever. They won't be coming back at those rents under any scenario, unless perhaps the state (ie the taxpayer) gets sucked into building social housing units to replace those that allowed a private developer to benefit.

"Affordable". When I look at buildings and examine the rent roll, rents that are well under the market rate are those that have been living there for 15+ years. Those just under market rates are those between 7-10 years, and those that are paying market rates in these older buildings are tenants under 6 years - which is above 50% of the tenants on the buildings I've worked on to replace in Vancouver and Burnaby. In Burnaby, we replace 3-storey walk ups near a Skytrain station with a massive tower, and Burnaby has a horrible tenant relocation and aid policy for renters. Vancouver, on the other hand, has a great relocation policy. We work within the system and the system allows this. The system also prevents us from building the necessary rental buildings across Vancouver due to years to change Area Plan zonings, and rezonings being limited, lengthy, and costly - only a few rezonings allowed within a small community area at a time - look at the Grandview-Woodland area... no up-zone for townhomes and 4-storey apartments until 2019, 2 years behind schedule.

I agree C-2 regulations on not permitting to replace existing rentals is not great, but it's allowed. So we follow the rules.

[GenWhy?]

New rentals cost much more due to land costs, construction costs, and parking minimums. Not to mention stringent and encroaching City regulations on setbacks, sidewalk dedications, difficulty in getting parking relaxations, and height limitations. We would build more rentals, and quicker, if the City had more realistic policy.

I imagine C-2 sites will be next on the block with Rate of Change requirements.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Rising property values aren't helping either. For more:

... land values along transit corridors and near rapid transit stations has soared, making it difficult for private developers to justify building rental housing for people making a low-to-middle income...

... If municipalities want to encourage more rental for lower-income people, they’ll have to look at reducing construction and development costs. That could include reducing the number of parking stalls required in new developments, lowering development fees and even helping to finance construction.

Reducing property taxes could help reduce the overall operating costs for rental buildings. But, the report notes, municipalities would have to make up the resulting shortfall by increasing tax on other properties.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Rising property values aren't helping either. For more:

yeah because removing required parking will give intensive. it'll allow more profit though.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

yeah because removing required parking will give intensive.

I'm just pointing out that this idea isn't limited to Random Internet Commenters (TM) - I never said it made complete sense. Would it be possible to remove the parking mandate only around SkyTrain stations?

[GenWhy?]

It would certainly help construction costs dramatically, thus helping smaller developers and landowners to develop rentals, and more per site, with lower rents, justified by the greatly reduced construction costs. It's crazy to think a building cannot have almost no parking if it's in a highly walkable neighbourhood serviced by Skytrain and major bus routes. You usually need to jump through hoops to get those relaxations, and even then they are not that much. The best way we get out of parking minimums is by building car share into our projects, but the city isn't a fan of car share in every location and every project (some are "too small" (5 units in two stacked townhomes on a small lot) or the car share company doesn't see the parkade/location of the stalls as servicing their best interests or they simply don't have enough cars to go around.

There are many issues surrounding parking... which is insane considering land and constructions costs, our vacancy rate, the cost of a car, the cost of living here, under 50% commute to work by car in Vancouver, and the city is aiming to lower that number. Currently we can only really build no parking if it's social housing. The issue there is the margins are nill and finding a housing partner isn't the easiest, and the city wants you to gift the building to them...

Sure the developer makes more money, but they're less likely to make up for the high costs of construction for parkades from renters by charging more per square foot. That's the way it currently works.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

It would certainly help construction costs dramatically, thus helping smaller developers and landowners to develop rentals, and more per site, with lower rents, justified by the greatly reduced construction costs. It's crazy to think a building cannot have almost no parking if it's in a highly walkable neighbourhood serviced by Skytrain and major bus routes. You usually need to jump through hoops to get those relaxations, and even then they are not that much. The best way we get out of parking minimums is by building car share into our projects, but the city isn't a fan of car share in every location and every project (some are "too small" (5 units in two stacked townhomes on a small lot) or the car share company doesn't see the parkade/location of the stalls as servicing their best interests or they simply don't have enough cars to go around.

There are many issues surrounding parking... which is insane considering land and constructions costs, our vacancy rate, the cost of a car, the cost of living here, under 50% commute to work by car in Vancouver, and the city is aiming to lower that number. Currently we can only really build no parking if it's social housing. The issue there is the margins are nill and finding a housing partner isn't the easiest, and the city wants you to gift the building to them...

Sure the developer makes more money, but they're less likely to make up for the high costs of construction for parkades from renters by charging more per square foot. That's the way it currently works.

I disagree with everything you said, no offense. Downtown New Westminster has been a mess for decades because it did not have adequate parking (built too early). Reducing parking requirements just cripples the city in the future, drives up profits for developers and does nothing for locals. Parking is such a minuscule part of the cost of a project yet is so necessary not only today but especially in the future (20, 50, 100 years from now). You can always temporarily re-purpose it or have a minor excess for a few years or decades, but you can never add more when you need it later on. Parking requirements are there for a reason and should not be budged with.

[GenWhy?]

Parking, for rental mixed-use buildings can around 1/4 of the overall construction costs. So for a 12,000sf site, on a major transit route and arterial road in Vancouver, even with relaxations (3/4 of residents get a stall), and 7 commercial stalls you're looking at squeezing in 2 levels of underground parking at about $2.5 million. Most areas to build taller rental buildings in Vancouver (4-6 storeys) are along routes that promote mixed-use, so commercial parking requirements are always an issue.

Now, looking at many areas within this policy that we use to be able to actually rezone sites to build rental and apartments, we're still required to build at least above 50% parking stalls for all the units for the majority of the sites. So at 4 or 3 1/2 storeys you're still looking at 1 level of underground parking or more (due to site constraints) and the same $1.5-$2.5 million for an underground parkade. Not to mention land can be almost as much as your hard costs.

How do you get away without building parkades, units with more than 1 bedroom, and allowing your price per square foot to be lower and thus being able to change less for rents? Easy. You build a fraction of the number of units not along major transit routes or arterials, more in single-family homes neighbourhoods at about 3.5 storeys tall with the anticipation that you can get at least 2 car share stalls (= 10 car stalls). With that you can maybe build 15 units, and that's if the community and City staff allows that relaxation. Units prices will hold to what the City dictates I the rezoning policy.

Meanwhile vacancy is under 1%, apartments rent for high rates, land prices are high, and car use is dropping and commutes by car are under 55%. Almost a whole underground level is now occupied by bike storage, unit storage, mechanical rooms, stairwells and elevators, parking ramps and drive aisles... on a site that's 12,000sf and 1 level of parking, you could fit 17-19 parking stalls at maybe 44 units (including 2 and 3 bed units). That's about 50% stall to unit ratio with a $1.5 million parkade almost 1/4 of your construction cost.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I disagree with everything you said, no offense. Downtown New Westminster has been a mess for decades because it did not have adequate parking (built too early). Reducing parking requirements just cripples the city in the future, drives up profits for developers and does nothing for locals. Parking is such a minuscule part of the cost of a project yet is so necessary not only today but especially in the future (20, 50, 100 years from now). You can always temporarily re-purpose it or have a minor excess for a few years or decades, but you can never add more when you need it later on. Parking requirements are there for a reason and should not be budged with.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded part of your statement, that parking is a "minuscule part" of a project's cost.

For years, the range I've heard used as the average cost per space in an underground parking structure is $40,000-50,000. That's significant and adds up extremely quickly.

For all of the talk of the burden placed on a project's financial viability by DCLs, DCCs, and CACs, they still don't add up to the cost of a parking space on a per-unit basis.

As for the long-term necessity for parking, I would tend to agree that creating underground parking after the fact is basically impossible, or at least not at anything resembling financial viability. Furthermore, having the space built into buildings creates the potential for creative re-purposing over the long-term, though the typically sloping nature of the floorplates necessary in most tight urban development sites hampers the ease with which the parking levels can be repurposed to non-automotive uses, like storage.

On-site, secure automobile parking with individually metered vehicle-appropriate high-voltage AC & DC electrical connections are going to be essential to expedient mass urban adoption of electric vehicles.

With all of that said, I don't think that there should be mandated minimums for the number of on-site parking spaces. I think the "make the legacy policy minimums the new maximums" approach is appropriate for downtown sites, those on major arterials, and in the catchment areas of rapid transit stations. Further afield than those locations, far lower parking minimums (or no minimums at all) will help put smaller sites into play for redevelopment by lowering the site area required for assembly.

[GenWhy?]

Another example of a building under the Rental 100 Policy that we need to see more of but if parking like this is allowed at more sites, without needing to rezone and could be approved as a Development Permit, we would see a lot more rental being built and primarily thanks to less parking requirements. The listed site has only 1 car share stall and the basement is for storage.

http://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/4459rupert/index.htm

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I respectfully disagree with the bolded part of your statement, that parking is a minuscule part of a project's cost.

For years the range I've heard used as the average cost per space in an underground parking structure is $40,000-50,000. That's significant and adds up extremely quickly.

For all of the talk of the burden placed on a project's financial viability from DCLs, DCCs, and CACs, they still don't add up to the cost of a parking space on a per-unit basis.

They are indeed $40,000 on the low end of a cost per stall.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

...Meanwhile vacancy is under 1%, apartments rent for high rates, land prices are high, and car use is dropping and commutes by car are under 55%...

Just to be clear, is that commuting stat foe residents of Vancouver, workers of Vancouver or is it Metro Vancouver?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Just to be clear, is that commuting stat foe residents of Vancouver, workers of Vancouver or is it Metro Vancouver?

My recollection of the <50% car commute for work stat was that it was for City of Vancouver residents, not Metro Vancouver-wide.

[GenWhy?]

City of Vancouver study of Vancouver residents is where the less than 50% findings in the media and reports largely come from, but Stats Can has lots of info to back that up as well. Stats are just getting around to differentiate between car (ownership) and car (car share).

[SpongeG]

skimmed. Loads of rental buildings have parking in them now but based in my friends and people i know they are required to pay $$$ per month on top of their rent so they just get street parking cause its cheaper and than the parking lot sits empty. I've even heard of people who don't own cars but get free parking rent their parking stall out to randoms. Most of these apply to buildings in the west end.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

skimmed. Loads of rental buildings have parking in them now but based in my friends and people i know they are required to pay $$$ per month on top of their rent so they just get street parking cause its cheaper and than the parking lot sits empty. I've even heard of people who don't own cars but get free parking rent their parking stall out to randoms. Most of these apply to buildings in the west end.

yes, very true. it is generally 100-150/month to rent an off-street parking spot in the west end. so naturally most people wanted the 8/month street permit. one of the reasons in raising the permit price was to get it closer to off-street parking costs. although now it is only about 30/month for a permit. we will see if it was a high enough increase to encourage more to use off-street spots.

this is what happens when you don't build enough building parking; you get the West End parking problem. and deceasing the amount of parking in the building will do nothing to lower costs of places. it just increases the amount of profit the developer gets while making all of the residents in the CoV to subsidise the lack of parking provided by the developer.

Yaletown is an example of adequate parking vs the West End.

[chrisel]

Looks like this will be going up at the former Gas station plot which was bought by Landa:





Source: https://www.landaglobal.com/projects/alma-intro/