General Vancouver Updates

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by cov

1717 Lorne Street is a terrible location for residential use. Tons of industrial activity and truck traffic nearby between 1st and 2nd. Rental housing is great but must we squeeze them all along the most unpleasant lots in the city?

All that industrial is being bulldozed.

[officedweller]

Second & Main

By City of Rain taken May 18th:

Originally Posted by City Of Rain, post: 1452566, member: 70034

IMG_0284 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0286 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0290 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0293 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0293 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0298 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0300 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0302 by Hung Lam, on Flickr
IMG_0308 by Hung Lam, on Flickr

[Feathered Friend]

East Hastings Street Homes Offer Vancouver a Chance to Design the Public Spaces of Tomorrow

1943 – 1967 East Hastings
Since Darren and I began participating in various civic events, we have learned some areas of our city are far more opposed to change than others. For instance, as this property is located at the edge of the Cedar Cove industrial area along Hastings Street, we were pretty sure the attendance at this open house for 131 homes in an 8 storey building would generate a very low attendance.

So I was not shocked when I arrived to find the gym of Xpey’ Elementary virtually empty, aside from the members of city staff and the applicant team. In one way this was kind of nice, as there was plenty of small cakes and coffee to enjoy. On the other hand, the neighbourhood missed a chance to help determine the programming of the large community space being provided.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/05/30...to-design-the-public-spaces-of-tomorrow/

[GenWhy?]

"Unfortunately, the applicant does not think they have the height available to make the green rooftop a usuable space. While it is theoretically possible staff may permit this relaxation, it would require a bit of public support. "

Seems odd.

[Feathered Friend]

City Duo’s Guide to the AHCIRP – Helping Vancouver make an Affordable Choice

This post will remain at the top of City Duo’s Homepage. As this program has had slow uptake, updates may not be frequent. Last Update: 4 June, 2019

After I wrote our MIRHPPs guide (with Hannah’s help), we wondered how hard would it be to gather a list of all the homes proposed under the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy since it was created in 2012. As you can see from the map below, my curiosity eventually won out and, a few hours later, this guide was born.

As an official map of these projects has never been released by the city, we’ve tried to make this one as accurate as possible.

Come see the map at :
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/06/04...ing-vancouver-make-an-affordable-choice/

[GenWhy?]

The 10-block radius kills this policy and was furiated when it wasn't adjusted. Oh well.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Vancouvermarket has blogged details of three of the Moderate Income Rental Housing Pilot Project buildings. Two are on East Hastings, for PCI, and one on Stainsbury Avenue just West of Victoria Drive. There are 94 and 118 units in 14 storey buildings on East Hastings, and 80 in a 5-storey building (rezoning from RS-1 single family).

The neighbourhood was not happy about these two yesterday. Curious to see where it goes - seems like a lot of opposition. Ultimately I don't know how organised they will get in trying to fight it.

Nearly all opposition was for the height and precedent. Most were not at all opposed to redevelopment along Hastings, long as it conformed to the existing height and build form. Precedent came as the second worry - if these were built would other lots be rezoned to maintain build form? Would the gap between these two be eventually filled be a same size tower?

The renders are also a lot more appealing. Few colourful box style balconies, overall look a lot less drab than above.

One thing to add - and this is something I heard 3 or 4 times. A lot of people conflating real estate values going down with vacancies going up. I heard a lot of "well its not a problem any more, real estate is getting cheaper." It would seem like people were trying to say cheaper asset prices somehow have also resolved the 1% vacancy rates.

[GenWhy?]

Every neighbourhood has some opposition to MIRHPP developments, but the City is more-or-less holding their own on these. I think tower separation guidelines prevent a tower going in the middle. The precedent is that a rezoning could be applied for... in 5 years - if the program remains! - for 20% income-tied units... and then someone might see construction in 10 years.

So if in 15 years the precedent is a 12-storey building with rental and 20-30% income-tied units on an arterial road with a B-line... thats a good precedent.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

One thing to add - and this is something I heard 3 or 4 times. A lot of people conflating real estate values going down with vacancies going up. I heard a lot of "well its not a problem any more, real estate is getting cheaper." It would seem like people were trying to say cheaper asset prices somehow have also resolved the 1% vacancy rates.

Logic has no place in Vancouver. Prices and affordability are loosely related at best but no one understands that as prices are an easy number to look at. Rent has not dropped, rental vacancies have not increased, and less first time buyers are purchasing/entering housing than ever. Supply creation is decreasing while immigration is increasing. None of the stats are pointing to Vancouver being more "affordable". There mostly just so people on the side can laugh as homeowners lose money and are taxed more. The talk about money laundering and foreign buyers as if those have something to do with our vacancy rates being low. I don't know how taking foreign buyers and money laundering away would suddenly create more rental apartments. I can see how this would decrease the amount of rental apartments though.

If you look at the latest stats, most don't think Vancouver is any more affordable than pre-tax.
https://www.livabl.com/2019/06/bc-reside...e-housing-initiatives-arent-helping.html

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

Logic has no place in Vancouver. Prices and affordability are loosely related at best but no one understands that as prices are an easy number to look at. Rent has not dropped, rental vacancies have not increased, and less first time buyers are purchasing/entering housing than ever. Supply creation is decreasing while immigration is increasing. None of the stats are pointing to Vancouver being more "affordable". There mostly just so people on the side can laugh as homeowners lose money and are taxed more. The talk about money laundering and foreign buyers as if those have something to do with our vacancy rates being low. I don't know how taking foreign buyers and money laundering away would suddenly create more rental apartments. I can see how this would decrease the amount of rental apartments though.

If you look at the latest stats, most don't think Vancouver is any more affordable than pre-tax.
https://www.livabl.com/2019/06/bc-reside...e-housing-initiatives-arent-helping.html

Actually, if you look at data (that last link isn't data - it's what people feel) - then CMHC's rental data shows that the 1.0% vacancy is better than 2017 (0.9%) or 2016 (0.7%). So it's an incremental change, but in the right direction. Rents have gone up though, although presumably the BC Government's change in the allowable increase might see that changing this year.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by rofina

The neighbourhood was not happy about these two yesterday. Curious to see where it goes - seems like a lot of opposition. Ultimately I don't know how organised they will get in trying to fight it.

Nearly all opposition was for the height and precedent. Most were not at all opposed to redevelopment along Hastings, long as it conformed to the existing height and build form. Precedent came as the second worry - if these were built would other lots be rezoned to maintain build form? Would the gap between these two be eventually filled be a same size tower?

The renders are also a lot more appealing. Few colourful box style balconies, overall look a lot less drab than above.

One thing to add - and this is something I heard 3 or 4 times. A lot of people conflating real estate values going down with vacancies going up. I heard a lot of "well its not a problem any more, real estate is getting cheaper." It would seem like people were trying to say cheaper asset prices somehow have also resolved the 1% vacancy rates.

In our experience that event was a rough one. The atmosphere was generally toxic, with people literally talking over others, interrupting and ignoring facts they didn't like.

Many had a thinly veiled contempt for allowing more renters in the neighbourhood and several even described them as a lower class of people. Obviously we'll talk more in detail about it later.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

In our experience that event was a rough one. The atmosphere was generally toxic, with people literally talking over others, interrupting and ignoring facts they didn't like.

Many had a thinly veiled contempt for allowing more renters in the neighbourhood and several even described them as a lower class of people. Obviously we'll talk more in detail about it later.

In their defence that will be 5 rental towers in a 2 block radius. Describing someone as lesser because they rent is absurd, but its probably accurate to say this area will have more rental buildings along a 2 block stretch than anywhere in Vancouver. That being said, not sure if that even means anything.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Every neighbourhood has some opposition to MIRHPP developments, but the City is more-or-less holding their own on these. I think tower separation guidelines prevent a tower going in the middle. The precedent is that a rezoning could be applied for... in 5 years - if the program remains! - for 20% income-tied units... and then someone might see construction in 10 years.

So if in 15 years the precedent is a 12-storey building with rental and 20-30% income-tied units on an arterial road with a B-line... thats a good precedent.

I mean I see both sides of the coin.

Some of these MIRHPP proposals are much bigger than what would otherwise be there. Most people already have concerns about your regular 5/6 floor build - let alone a 14 floor tower. This is like a surefire way to upset people that are already new building sensitive.

I'm not really defending them, but I get it to a degree. I will always maintain the tragedy here is that the hundredths of SFH around these towers remain SFH. If this all had been rezoned over the last few decades people wouldnt be whining as much. But having a 14 story tower across the lane from your SFH is kind of strange.

[misher]

Originally Posted by rofina

I mean I see both sides of the coin.

Some of these MIRHPP proposals are much bigger than what would otherwise be there. Most people already have concerns about your regular 5/6 floor build - let alone a 14 floor tower. This is like a surefire way to upset people that are already new building sensitive.

I'm not really defending them, but I get it to a degree. I will always maintain the tragedy here is that the hundredths of SFH around these towers remain SFH. If this all had been rezoned over the last few decades people wouldnt be whining as much. But having a 14 story tower across the lane from your SFH is kind of strange.

The high density MIRHPP units are getting lots of press but many of the proposals are around 1 FSR I believe. 2109 west 35th is 0.86.

Map is here:
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/06/04...ing-vancouver-make-an-affordable-choice/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by misher

The high density MIRHPP units are getting lots of press but many of the proposals are around 1 FSR I believe. 2109 west 35th is 0.86.

Map is here:
https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/06/04...ing-vancouver-make-an-affordable-choice/

Oh Misher, one day you'll understand something, but I guess not today.

The W35th rental building isn't under the MIRHPP program - it was the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy. There's still Rental 100 as well. I know, more than one program, how can you be expected to keep up?

[misher]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Oh Misher, one day you'll understand something, but I guess not today.

The W35th rental building isn't under the MIRHPP program - it was the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy. There's still Rental 100 as well. I know, more than one program, how can you be expected to keep up?

My bad! Mixed up the AHCIRP program.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

The talk about money laundering and foreign buyers as if those have something to do with our vacancy rates being low. I don't know how taking foreign buyers and money laundering away would suddenly create more rental apartments. I can see how this would decrease the amount of rental apartments though.

I don't see that being argued by anybody but the NIMBYs.

What the urbanists are arguing is that removing external factors is needed just as much as increased supply. Otherwise, much of that increased supply will be pre-bought and flipped and resold before they even get to potential owners/renters, and that'll drive prices up instead of down. It's like trying to fill a leaking bucket; gotta patch the leaks too, not just add more hoses.

[mcminsen]

June 5 '19, my pics

fullsizeoutput_80f2 by mcminsen, on Flickr


fullsizeoutput_80f1 by mcminsen, on Flickr


fullsizeoutput_80eb by mcminsen, on Flickr


fullsizeoutput_80f0 by mcminsen, on Flickr


fullsizeoutput_80f6 by mcminsen, on Flickr


fullsizeoutput_80ee by mcminsen, on Flickr

[cov]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I don't see that being argued by anybody but the NIMBYs.

What the urbanists are arguing is that removing external factors is needed just as much as increased supply. Otherwise, much of that increased supply will be pre-bought and flipped and resold before they even get to potential owners/renters, and that'll drive prices up instead of down. It's like trying to fill a leaking bucket; gotta patch the leaks too, not just add more hoses.

Units are rented out or how much renters are willing to rent the unit for, not how much the owner bought it for. The money laundering talks are mostly nimby talking points who believe scapegoating minorities can slow developments in their neighborhoods. It might, to some extent, but it won't increase affordability for sure, nor is affordability their real concern.

[Feathered Friend]

https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/708renfrew/documents/renderings.pdf

June 11th, 2019 Public Hearing – Local Business Owner Fights for East Van Renters as City Council Prepares to Reject 21 Rental Homes in Shaughnessy

June 11th, 2019 Public Hearing
Last month, Hannah and I predicted this public hearing was going to be a rough one, and unfortunately it seems like we were right. While the elimination of over over 2,000 sq.m (20,000 sq.ft) of retail and living space has blunted opposition to the rental homes in Hastings Sunrise. Then again, perhaps it was just the support, and good food from the owner of the nearby Whiskey Six restaurant that has changed the tide.

That said, it seems no amount of change can calm the anger over the addition of 21 new rental homes in Shaughnessy. Already two city councillors have voted against allowing the public a chance to speak on that item, and we fully expect this to become the first rental housing project rejected by our new city council. In contrast, we expect barely any opposition to the townhomes proposed along the Cambie Corridor.

Backlash Expectations

Item #6 – 708 – 796 Renfrew St and 2906-2908 East Georgia St – High
Despite the major cutbacks, there’s still a dedicated group against any new housing here

Item #7 – 4575 Granville – Extreme
Misinformation and concerns about hospice care have led to overwhelming opposition

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2019/06/10...o-reject-21-rental-homes-in-shaughnessy/