BC to look into Development Approval Process

[misher]

Thank god its finally happening! "Minister Selina Robinson announces a Review of the Development Approval Process to promote efficiency and effectiveness."

https://business.facebook.com/BCProvincialGovernment/videos/604708883258040/

Skip to 24:00.

[misher]

More criticism of the approval process. Some nice quotes below. And then I go into a nice rant.

https://www.straight.com/news/1138316/ur...ers-pay-high-price-paralyzed-bureaucracy

fees, charges, and taxes account for 30 to 40 percent of the cost of the average unit in Vancouver,

community amenity contributions...cover about 55 percent of the capital budget. This money from developers funds everything from childcare spaces to parks to separated bike lanes.

meaning that much of the cost of new housing comes from the government.

For a new project

it can take five to seven years, whereas a project in the city of Langley gets a green light within seven months.

And of course the city treats density like gold.

In Grandview-Woodland, they’re saying six-storey new buildings are too high—in the busiest transportation hub on the West Coast?

Some nice statistics below:



I ask you, does it make sense that a city where every politician mentions housing crisis every few weeks has the longest approval times?
Yes it does, but only if those politicians are doing their best to create a crisis.

Ask yourself:


What do we get for our higher taxes?


Why is the Vancouver government making it much more expensive to build housing in Vancouver when we need more cheap housing?


The government has hammered foreign buyers, speculators, etc. Just like they hammered oil companies when gas prices went up. But they neglect to mention that they are partially responsible as well and do their best to sweep this under the rug. They even increased gas taxes while gas prices were rising. They've done the same with real estate, as real estate has gone up they've introduced new taxes and fees.

For gas prices in Vancouver around one third of the price is tax. So ask yourself, what part of our high real estate prices is caused by the government? I've seen mention of people saying that the economy should wean itself off its reliance on the real estate industry. But shouldn't the government do so first?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by misher

ok.

[MIPS]

I still think that most of Strathcona should be razed and replaced with low and medium income apartment blocks. I'm putting a heavy amount of faith into believing that unlike 50 years ago we can convert an entire neighborhood into hundreds or thousands of new apartments WITHOUT turning it into "The Projects"

At the same time I don't think denisification should be reaching too far until we are better able to deal with speculation and foreign ownership. It drives me nuts when someone rents a place and the property owner is just a someone who answers calls from tenants while the actual property owner lives in Beijing.

[misher]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I still think that most of Strathcona should be razed and replaced with low and medium income apartment blocks. I'm putting a heavy amount of faith into believing that unlike 50 years ago we can convert an entire neighborhood into hundreds or thousands of new apartments WITHOUT turning it into "The Projects"

At the same time I don't think denisification should be reaching too far until we are better able to deal with speculation and foreign ownership. It drives me nuts when someone rents a place and the property owner is just a someone who answers calls from tenants while the actual property owner lives in Beijing.

Since foreign sales are less than 1% now I think this is solved. A 20% tax pretty much made any person buying as an investment who is a foreigner go to a different city in canada. Also a rental apartment would not be affected by the proposed speculation tax. It’s mostly (Canadian) people with vacation homes or who are retired and travel who are hit by the speculation tax.

[Aroundtheworld]

I think it's good that the Province is looking at how municipalities can make the approval process more efficient. However, if they're going to make it difficult for municipalities to leverage developments through CACs they should also give municipalities more ways of raising tax revenue other than property taxes. Many other cities around the world can raise sales taxes, income taxes, hotel taxes so they can pay for basic services and civic improvements.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I still think that most of Strathcona should be razed and replaced with low and medium income apartment blocks. I'm putting a heavy amount of faith into believing that unlike 50 years ago we can convert an entire neighborhood into hundreds or thousands of new apartments WITHOUT turning it into "The Projects"

At the same time I don't think denisification should be reaching too far until we are better able to deal with speculation and foreign ownership. It drives me nuts when someone rents a place and the property owner is just a someone who answers calls from tenants while the actual property owner lives in Beijing.

LOL you talk about not creating the projects, but your plan is to literally bulldoze the poors, throw up apartments, and not "reach to far" with densification. Like into the creme de la creme areas?

And who cares where the owner lives. If they are renting their property here and obeying the tenancy laws, so what?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

LOL you talk about not creating the projects, but your plan is to literally bulldoze the poors, throw up apartments, and not "reach to far" with densification. Like into the creme de la creme areas?

And who cares where the owner lives. If they are renting their property here and obeying the tenancy laws, so what?

Strathcona is hardly the "poors" these days and certainly not comparable to where it was in the late Sixties. Just think of all the affordable housing stock we would have if the freeway had gone ahead and all those woodframe SFH had been bulldozed and replaced with durable concrete highrises!

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Strathcona is hardly the "poors" these days and certainly not comparable to where it was in the late Sixties. Just think of all the affordable housing stock we would have if the freeway had gone ahead and all those woodframe SFH had been bulldozed and replaced with durable concrete highrises!

Funnily enough I don't agree with this. And I tend to be pro development.

I think we have enough empty land and low rise commercial that we don't need to knock down low rise woodframe buildings. A lot of the commercial along hastings is 1 level, we can turn that into 10 stories with commercial on the bottom without hurting our rental stock. East Hastings is very undeveloped considering its a major street. We can get rid of the street parking and create underground parkades instead so it becomes a 3 lane highway with major buildings on the sides.

Once Hastings is developed then yes I may agree with upgrading our low rise woodframe buildings. I think doing it now though would be too soon. I encourage the slow transformation as these wood frame buildings are getting very old and dangerous but not a quick one.

[MIPS]

I don't see Hastings becoming more of an arterial route closer to the core until other social issues are cleaned up. Don't forget that there's that entire chunk around Hastings and Main where speeds are reduced to a crawl because it was impossible to stop crazies just wandering across four lanes of traffic and getting flattened by a bus.

LOL you talk about not creating the projects, but your plan is to literally bulldoze the poors, throw up apartments, and not "reach to far" with densification. Like into the creme de la creme areas?

You want density? Here's your damn density in the form of urban renewal. That section of town already contains high density buildings that are currently vacant because they are too unsafe to occupy. It's helping nobody to let them sit empty when complete structure replacement will add larger and more efficient low income housing and a region that needs it the most. This is not about gentrification or replacing low income with "low income" suites.
Adding to that you have dump like this where single lot density cannot be increased due to zoning conflicts and they don't want to sell and open the possibility for rezoning because ye ol' "I know how much this is worth" schtick.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I still think that most of Strathcona should be razed and replaced with low and medium income apartment blocks. I'm putting a heavy amount of faith into believing that unlike 50 years ago we can convert an entire neighborhood into hundreds or thousands of new apartments WITHOUT turning it into "The Projects"

At the same time I don't think denisification should be reaching too far until we are better able to deal with speculation and foreign ownership. It drives me nuts when someone rents a place and the property owner is just a someone who answers calls from tenants while the actual property owner lives in Beijing.

I think you would get a lot of push back on that. Most houses already have between 2 and 4 units on a single 25' lot.

There's a lot of room for the existing BC housing sites to be densified and the arterials to be developed before they would have to touch single family homes though.

The amount of pointless lawns and surface parking lots that the BC housing sites have is rather amusing. Nothing but a waste of fenced off space that doesn't get used very intensely.

[MIPS]

My concern is what do we consider ripe for densification and what is just generic suburb we want to redevelop to add more space for chinese speculation? I'm not standing behind densification in places outside of arterial or downtown core regions until the mainlanders are brought under control. Otherwise I just do not see what the extra housing adds beside more space to sit on for money and apartments owned by foreign investors and sublet to locals to evade empty housing penalties. Pretty much where we are now.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by MIPS

My concern is what do we consider ripe for densification and what is just generic suburb we want to redevelop to add more space for chinese speculation? I'm not standing behind densification in places outside of arterial or downtown core regions until the mainlanders are brought under control. Otherwise I just do not see what the extra housing adds beside more space to sit on for money and apartments owned by foreign investors and sublet to locals to evade empty housing penalties. Pretty much where we are now.

There's quite a bit of density present already though. It's not like Strathcona has Skytrain access or anything beyond good bus service.

The thing to note is that Strathcona as a neighbourhood is that it doesn't have a missing middle. There are row houses, and townhouses, and a few small walkup apartments, There's quite a few small co-ops or multifamily units that aren't tall, but have most of their site occupied.

This for instance.

Unless you started plopping down 10-15 floor buildings, the density isn't going to justify assembling the land parcels.

Most of the recent renovations of old houses put between 4 and 6 units on 25' or 50' of frontage. Heck, the lot I live on with a house and a laneway house have a FSR somewhere near 1.5, and houses 8. It could do 10 people in a pinch. Down the block from me, a 50' lot has a heritage restoration with 3 units and 3 townhomes. There's probably about 15 people living there now.

[misher]

Originally Posted by MIPS

My concern is what do we consider ripe for densification and what is just generic suburb we want to redevelop to add more space for chinese speculation? I'm not standing behind densification in places outside of arterial or downtown core regions until the mainlanders are brought under control. Otherwise I just do not see what the extra housing adds beside more space to sit on for money and apartments owned by foreign investors and sublet to locals to evade empty housing penalties. Pretty much where we are now.

Because the less than 1% of current buyers who are buying homes then renting them out are the problem? I thought we want more rentals lol. Can you at least pretend not to be racist and say foreign buyers?

[scryer]

Although I highly agree that re-zoning for denser developments is a large part of the solution. I also think that we should be increasing height limitations. It's time that we start taking drastic measures. I want a multiple-solution approach to this complicated problem.

[misher]

Originally Posted by scryer

Although I highly agree that re-zoning for denser developments is a large part of the solution. I also think that we should be increasing height limitations. It's time that we start taking drastic measures. I want a multiple-solution approach to this complicated problem.

Agreed! Why not go higher if we're already building a tower?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The thing to note is that Strathcona as a neighbourhood is that it doesn't have a missing middle. There are row houses, and townhouses, and a few small walkup apartments, There's quite a few small co-ops or multifamily units that aren't tall, but have most of their site occupied.

In 2016 Strathcona was made up of 4.9% row houses and 6.3% detached duplexes, which would probably be considered the "missing middle", for a total of 11.2%. Compared to the entire city of Vancouver, this is low - 3.5% and 18.7%, respectively, for a total of 22.2%.

Strathcona does have a much higher proportion of apartments though, at 81.2%, compared to 61.5% across the entire city.

This would imply that Strathcona isn't the best location to create new missing middle as there isn't very much to make denser. There are much better locations that have a higher proportion of single-family houses that can be densified better.

[misher]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This would imply that Strathcona isn't the best location to create new missing middle as there isn't very much to make denser. There are much better locations that have a higher proportion of single-family houses that can be densified better.

To be honest I never got the missing middle argument. I thought the middle between an apartment and a house when you need the size but can't afford a house was buying a house in a suburb.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

To be honest I never got the missing middle argument. I thought the middle between an apartment and a house when you need the size but can't afford a house was buying a house in a suburb.

That's a last resort. If you're already settled in the city, there's almost no logical reason why you'd resettle to the suburbs and spend a good part of the week commuting back into the city you just left - not unless you can't find anywhere else.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's a last resort. If you're already settled in the city, there's almost no logical reason why you'd resettle to the suburbs and spend a good part of the week commuting back into the city you just left - not unless you can't find anywhere else.

Seems like the last resort was used up since a bunch of people who work in Vancouver commute from North Van, Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey, Abbotsford, etc. So we're very late to the party?

To be honest the City of Vancouver is like a suburb of Downtown Vancouver.

Rather than work to pack more people closer to downtown. How about we create new city centres to move downtown closer to people?

Like a commercial centre at Marpole skytrain station, Oakridge, along Broadway, something in East Van similar to Brentwood/Lougheed, etc.

The more spread out our commercial offices are, the less pressure there will be on downtown's infrastructure to commute to it.

Also we can build a ton of towers around each centre like we did at Marpole.