General Vancouver Updates

[logan5]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I agree our base zoning should allow for far higher density, but what is the logic here? Politicians are controlled by developers, because they make development way harder than it needs to be? If anything, Politicians are controlled by NIMBYs

Towers are the most expensive form of housing you can build, consequently those high costs are passed on to consumers. A 600 square foot condo costs nearly a million dollars in Vancouver (or exceeds that in certain areas). Why on Earth would the City so heavily favour housing like this in one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet? Why on Earth wouldn't land use policy lean heavily towards ground oriented housing that would be 100's of thousands of dollars cheaper? The area around Joyce Station is single detached homes, and they went with towers. Towers everywhere.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

Why on Earth would the City so heavily favour housing like this in one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet? Why on Earth wouldn't land use policy lean heavily towards ground oriented housing that would be 100's of thousands of dollars cheaper? The area around Joyce Station is single detached homes, and they went with towers. Towers everywhere.

Because they know all the homeowners who currently occupy the space for that ground oriented housing would try and boot them from office. Reasonably-priced towers allow them to do something while minimizing the angry Karens.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by logan5

Towers are the most expensive form of housing you can build, consequently those high costs are passed on to consumers. A 600 square foot condo costs nearly a million dollars in Vancouver (or exceeds that in certain areas). Why on Earth would the City so heavily favour housing like this in one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet? Why on Earth wouldn't land use policy lean heavily towards ground oriented housing that would be 100's of thousands of dollars cheaper? The area around Joyce Station is single detached homes, and they went with towers. Towers everywhere.

i will never understand this argument against towers. it doesn't matter what it costs to build, the market rate will be the market rate. so if they save 100k building it, but the market still supports 1m prices, it will sell for 1m.

just like removing the parking requirement for buildings was never going to make places cheaper. it doesn't matter if building a spot cots 40k. the market will still dictate the rate. and that's why more buildings still come with parking.


the cost of building these really only matter in areas with a market not-like-ours. our market sells high for cheap 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[cov]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will never understand this argument against towers. it doesn't matter what it costs to build, the market rate will be the market rate. so if they save 100k building it, but the market still supports 1m prices, it will sell for 1m.

there is a reason why jobs with lower barriers to entry pay less. Products that are easier and cheaper to make tend to be cheaper. Housing that are easier and cheaper to build will end up cheaper simply by the nature that more can be built.

this of course assumes that enough land is rezoned to provide for a supply elastic production. otherwise it's kind of moot. For that same reason why building one tower doesn't change anything. If mixed used 6 floor multifamily become legal on all residential land then vancouver property value will decline every year for decades to come.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will never understand this argument against towers. it doesn't matter what it costs to build, the market rate will be the market rate. so if they save 100k building it, but the market still supports 1m prices, it will sell for 1m.

just like removing the parking requirement for buildings was never going to make places cheaper. it doesn't matter if building a spot cots 40k. the market will still dictate the rate. and that's why more buildings still come with parking.


the cost of building these really only matter in areas with a market not-like-ours. our market sells high for cheap 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

I will never understand this argument. The market doesn't support 1 million dollar prices. This is why we've been saying for years that we have a housing crisis.

Every industry that sells products to consumers has a line that suits average income brackets. Even real estate does this, except Vancouver, where they the supply of new housing is almost exclusivly high rise condo. It's the equivalent of the auto industry selling only Mercedes and BMW, and not providing Toyota Corolla's or Honda Civic's for the average person.

Policy writers have failed for decades now to respond to market conditions. Either they are monumentally stupid, or there are outside forces manipulating how land use policy is written.

And it's not just a "unique to Vancouver" thing. Most Metro Vancouver houses sit on lots that are 60 to 70 feet wide. That's twice the size of a CoV lot, but with one house on it. These lots could accommodate at least 2 houses, or 10 stacked townhouses, which could come with surface parking, no common areas, eliminate the elevator and other mechanical and electrical systems, and you save 100's of thousands, and you re-zone enough so that you can reach the market that is currently locked out of the real estate market. This type of housing is the Civic and Corolla of the housing industry. Instead we see these big plans for town centres featuring towers - the most expensive housing form in the one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet.

The game is obviously fixed, so the sooner the Province steps in, the better.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by logan5

I will never understand this argument. The market doesn't support 1 million dollar prices. This is why we've been saying for years that we have a housing crisis.

This.

Plus with the pandemic literally killing industries in the last two years (and essentially committing genocide on small businesses), it makes no sense why RE prices are soaring when less people are working. I even called this out two years ago when the pandemic began... I just have to sift through my history to find the post .

Originally Posted by logan5

Policy writers have failed for decades now to respond to market conditions. Either they are monumentally stupid, or there are outside forces manipulating how land use policy is written.

This. And I would say that they are generationally stupid.

Originally Posted by logan5

And it's not just a "unique to Vancouver" thing. Most Metro Vancouver houses sit on lots that are 60 to 70 feet wide. That's twice the size of a CoV lot, but with one house on it. These lots could accommodate at least 2 houses, or 10 stacked townhouses, which could come with surface parking, no common areas, eliminate the elevator and other mechanical and electrical systems, and you save 100's of thousands, and you re-zone enough so that you can reach the market that is currently locked out of the real estate market. This type of housing is the Civic and Corolla of the housing industry. Instead we see these big plans for town centres featuring towers - the most expensive housing form in the one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet.

Also this.

Originally Posted by logan5

The game is obviously fixed, so the sooner the Province steps in, the better.

Do you think that government officials are not in on this as well? Something's not clean in the buttermilk.

[Changing City]

Any chance you could take the "I don't understand why Metro Vancouver real estate prices are so high, so it must be some sort of conspiracy" debate to an appropriate thread, and leave this one for updates to developments in Vancouver?

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Any chance you could take the "I don't understand why Metro Vancouver real estate prices are so high, so it must be some sort of conspiracy" debate to an appropriate thread, and leave this one for updates to developments in Vancouver?

Wasn't starting a debate.

Don't like what I wrote? That's a you-problem, not a me-problem .

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Wasn't starting a debate.

Don't like what I wrote? That's a you-problem, not a me-problem .

You were continuing a debate that's in the wrong thread. What you wrote was neither here nor there. (Well, it was here, and it should have been there).

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You were continuing a debate that's in the wrong thread. What you wrote was neither here nor there. (Well, it was here, and it should have been there).

Wrong.

I just simply agreed with what another poster wrote, added a little bit of an opinion, and asked a question. Now let's please get back on topic.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logan5

And it's not just a "unique to Vancouver" thing. Most Metro Vancouver houses sit on lots that are 60 to 70 feet wide. That's twice the size of a CoV lot, but with one house on it. These lots could accommodate at least 2 houses, or 10 stacked townhouses, which could come with surface parking, no common areas, eliminate the elevator and other mechanical and electrical systems, and you save 100's of thousands, and you re-zone enough so that you can reach the market that is currently locked out of the real estate market. This type of housing is the Civic and Corolla of the housing industry. Instead we see these big plans for town centres featuring towers - the most expensive housing form in the one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet.

The game is obviously fixed, so the sooner the Province steps in, the better.

Council had a vote on duplexes in RS areas in 2018 and on sixplexes this year; both times, they had developers ready to build... and local Karens blocking it every step of the way. If there's a fix, it's coming from the bottom, not the top.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

I will never understand this argument. The market doesn't support 1 million dollar prices. This is why we've been saying for years that we have a housing crisis.

"The market" is what buyers and sellers are actively doing every day, which is selling condos for $1M.

If you want to talk about local incomes and what they can reasonably afford, that's another matter.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

"The market" is what buyers and sellers are actively doing every day, which is selling condos for $1M.

If you want to talk about local incomes and what they can reasonably afford, that's another matter.

Market is short for local market.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by logan5

I will never understand this argument. The market doesn't support 1 million dollar prices. This is why we've been saying for years that we have a housing crisis.

Every industry that sells products to consumers has a line that suits average income brackets. Even real estate does this, except Vancouver, where they the supply of new housing is almost exclusivly high rise condo. It's the equivalent of the auto industry selling only Mercedes and BMW, and not providing Toyota Corolla's or Honda Civic's for the average person.

Policy writers have failed for decades now to respond to market conditions. Either they are monumentally stupid, or there are outside forces manipulating how land use policy is written.

And it's not just a "unique to Vancouver" thing. Most Metro Vancouver houses sit on lots that are 60 to 70 feet wide. That's twice the size of a CoV lot, but with one house on it. These lots could accommodate at least 2 houses, or 10 stacked townhouses, which could come with surface parking, no common areas, eliminate the elevator and other mechanical and electrical systems, and you save 100's of thousands, and you re-zone enough so that you can reach the market that is currently locked out of the real estate market. This type of housing is the Civic and Corolla of the housing industry. Instead we see these big plans for town centres featuring towers - the most expensive housing form in the one of the least affordable housing markets on the planet.

The game is obviously fixed, so the sooner the Province steps in, the better.

Originally Posted by logan5

Market is short for local market.

"Could you keep your spammy 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in your own thread?" Quote from a certain forumer

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Don't you have some fried chicken to line up for somewhere?

Eby (and the BC NDP) need to stay in their lane which means not getting involved in municipal zoning. Of course looking at yesterday's Translink announcement you can see exactly why they're meddling: to feed that bottomless pit. They'll try and squeeze more money from developers to pay for Translink. It's not really clear how those fees will help at all with affordability (along with their planned annual gorging on property tax increases).

Wow, just wow. You just don't cease to amaze here.

[cov]

1477 Broadway rezoning update:

Hardwick and Degenova just motioned to delay the vote until September, motion failed.

Carr just voted yes on the project.

Dominato also voted in favour, meaning the abcs will put in 3 votes for yes.

Pretty sure the project will pass. But holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵 what an atrocious circus that was. Public hearings on land redevelopment need to be significantly reformed. Attention on development will sooner or later crowd out all other municipal issues, leaving them completed neglected. For the nimbys on this sub, do you care about these development so much that you are willing to let basic services rot?

Everyone knows whatnext is a racist 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵. I'm not even offended. He is effectively exposing the trashy and unsalvageable nature of the nimby culture in vancouver by putting himself on naked display. Honestly I appreciate what he is doing. What better way to humiliate and deprive the nimbys of all support than by being who you are. The man is a gift. I implore other asian users on this forum to not be offended by his racial references. He is essentially inflicting self harm and I really don't want him to stop.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Vin

"Could you keep your spammy 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in your own thread?" Quote from a certain forumer

You repeat the same things day in and day out, all over the forum. Major difference.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by cov

1477 Broadway rezoning update:

Hardwick and Degenova just motioned to delay the vote until September, motion failed.

Carr just voted yes on the project.

Dominato also voted in favour, meaning the abcs will put in 3 votes for yes.

Pretty sure the project will pass. But holy 🞵🞵🞵🞵 what an atrocious circus that was. Public hearings on land redevelopment need to be significantly reformed. Attention on development will sooner or later crowd out all other municipal issues, leaving them completed neglected. For the nimbys on this sub, do you care about these development so much that you are willing to let basic services rot?

1477 W Broadway was approved.

It's not easy to see what further reforms there could be to the rezoning process under current legislation. Council already reduced the time for speakers to 5 minutes. What extends the hearings is when a Councillor who gives the appearance of being opposed to a project (as they're not supposed to take part in a public hearing with a pre-determined position - (ha!) - asks speakers questions that significantly extend their time to address Council in answering. The last thing anyone wants is for the courts to get involved - remember how long 8X took as a result of the New Yaletown group's court challenges.

With luck, over time, with this project and the Birch rental tower underway, and an approved Broadway Plan, opposition will fade away. For the first several years of the Cambie Corridor Plan there were objections to even the 6-storey buildings, and rezonings could extend to a second night for apparently projects that fitted into the plan parameters. The same extended hearing happened with The Independent. Now projects on Cambie have far fewer people objecting. The next location that you can predict a long hearing will be the Safeway E Broadway towers.

[cov]

Originally Posted by Changing City

1477 W Broadway was approved.

It's not easy to see what further reforms there could be to the rezoning process under current legislation. Council already reduced the time for speakers to 5 minutes. What extends the hearings is when a Councillor who gives the appearance of being opposed to a project (as they're not supposed to take part in a public hearing with a pre-determined position - (ha!) - asks speakers questions that significantly extend their time to address Council in answering. The last thing anyone wants is for the courts to get involved - remember how long 8X took as a result of the New Yaletown group's court challenges.

With luck, over time, with this project and the Birch rental tower underway, and an approved Broadway Plan, opposition will fade away. For the first several years of the Cambie Corridor Plan there were objections to even the 6-storey buildings, and rezonings could extend to a second night for apparently projects that fitted into the plan parameters. The same extended hearing happened with The Independent. Now projects on Cambie have far fewer people objecting. The next location that you can predict a long hearing will be the Safeway E Broadway towers.

Speakers are given 3 minutes. and any questions be asked in the after hours during the councillor's own time, not publicly recorded council time. I guarantee none of the councillors will ask questions if its not recorded for the public to see. This is theatre.

[Migrant_Coconut]

9-2 in favour? That sounds fairly promising for everything else in the pipeline.