Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Kinda been over this a few times: those Urban Villages effectively only densify the walkup apartment zones which were already "dense" to begin with; the SFHs are almost 100% untouched, which is the problem.

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by scryer

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

City of Burnaby - Housing Choices Program

[jollyburger]

I guess from Burnaby's perspective if you densify the town cores enough then it gives them more flexibility to redevelop those SFH areas. No one is going to convert into duplex/multiplexes until they have some financial incentive to sell out.

But even if you want different housing types it's hard to see even with relaxed zoning in terms of density comparing it with the speed of development around Brentwood/Lougheed/Metrotown.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by scryer

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

Burnaby's plan for housing is a joke - their planning department is worse than Vancouvers in terms of how conservative they are. In a city that's 40% as dense as Vancouver (it's the same density as Point Grey) with a major highway and two major transit lines in place it's done nothing but densify what's already dense.

Their housing start rates are modest at best considering their starting point and advantages: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...ommunities.pdf

Folks see the towers going up and assume that Burnaby is doing tonnes of construction but they don't allow densification anywhere outside of existing density. Their "biggest" move in the last 15 years has been to allow laneways which, at best, will result in 500 more homes and these are homes that can't be bought. Their plans to allow multiplexes are still years away (maybe 2030?) and all signs are they'll be very conservative in what they allow despite lots sizes that are significantly bigger than Vancouver's (6000-8000sf lots are common).

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Folks see the towers going up and assume that Burnaby is doing tonnes of construction but they don't allow densification anywhere outside of existing density. Their "biggest" move in the last 15 years has been to allow laneways which, at best, will result in 500 more homes and these are homes that can't be bought. Their plans to allow multiplexes are still years away (maybe 2030?) and all signs are they'll be very conservative in what they allow despite lots sizes that are significantly bigger than Vancouver's (6000-8000sf lots are common).

Burnaby "DID" tonnes of construction, just those towers are mostly or completely empty. The prices of the condos do not reflect the reality of peoples wages. Likewise the rents being asked do not reflect the reality of peoples wages. The living wage is 24.04/hr, which means any cost of housing over $1100/mo is beyond their means.


You know what was really funny-sad? So one of the unions moved into one of those towers. The office space is entirely vacant. Everyone is working from home.

I'm Okay with the fact that there is office space being built in mixed-use towers. What I'm not okay with is this bizarre assumption that renters are deadbeats by the city. This same tower, has "poor doors".

That should NEVER have been approved. Likewise, buildings where the "Luxury Condo" tower is built of concrete, and the "Rental" part is made of cheap combustible materials. At what point do we stop treating renters with this antagonistic disrespect? There is no reason why the entire podium space covering the parking could not be a clone of the proposed tower except rental. No the developers just simply don't want to build rentals as long as they can sell the pathetic sized condos as "luxury" to foreigners who have no idea that 2 bedroom unit you can't fit a queen size bed into any bedroom is a joke.

No, the prevailing attitude seems to be that "renters" aren't expected to live in their units very long, and don't want to mingle with the condo owners.

More people would just own their unit if they could afford it, and opportunistic people bought these under-sized over-hyped condos thinking they can just rent them out, and are now getting burned by the increases in interest rates.

In all seriousness, I hope the interest rates just skyrocket to where they were in the 80's (22.75%) and banks have to foreclose on all these bad idea mortgages.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Kisai

That should NEVER have been approved. Likewise, buildings where the "Luxury Condo" tower is built of concrete, and the "Rental" part is made of cheap combustible materials.

You do realize we can all just look at the buildings going up, and can see that most projects with separate condo and rental towers use concrete for both? Please provide an example of a 30-story wood frame rental building, because I haven't seen any

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Kisai

In all seriousness, I hope the interest rates just skyrocket to where they were in the 80's (22.75%) and banks have to foreclose on all these bad idea mortgages.

In this scenario, it's the rich that get richer. Be careful with what you wish for.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by djmk

In this scenario, it's the rich that get richer. Be careful with what you wish for.

Everyone seems to think that when interest rates hit 22.75%, they'll still have a job.

(Unemployment)

[djmk]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Everyone seems to think that when interest rates hit 22.75%, they'll still have a job.

while those with excess cash were earning 22%+ on just a simple GIC or picking up properties on the cheap.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Burnaby "DID" tonnes of construction, just those towers are mostly or completely empty.

But they DIDN'T and I listed the evidence: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...ommunities.pdf

Too many people see the towers going up and assume Burnaby is a leader in housing starts which is simply not true. Empty or not, they're not building enough of it. There are plenty of problems with the housing market but they all start from a lack of supply - homes didn't become investments for no reason, they became investments because there's not enough of them. Rents didn't increase for no reason, they increased because there aren't enough homes.

[Sheba]

I don't know if anyone here saw this little gem... Amid housing targets, Oak Bay greenlights condo complex after decade of rejection

[Changing City]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but as the thread has 'housing supply' in the title, and there isn't a housing data thread - here's the 2024 Housing starts data from CMHC, by municipality.

The Province use housing completions rather than starts to assess whether a municipality is meeting its targets, so these aren't the appropriate data. Somewhere down the road these starts will turn into completions, but not for around two or three years for most of them.

Some significant differences between 2023 and 2024, and overall a 15% drop in housing starts in Metro Vancouver. Burnaby saw a dramatic drop, and Coquitlam a huge increase. As in 2022, and 2023, there were more housing starts in Vancouver than Surrey, despite Surrey adding a lot more people than Vancouver.

The numbers are total starts in 2024, difference and percentage difference between 2023 and 2024.

Vancouver CMA 28,112 (5,132) -15%

Anmore 4 (10) -71%
Belcarra 1 0 0%
Bowen Island 47 +22 +88%
Burnaby 2,502 (2,702) -52%
Coquitlam 4,909 3,290 +203%
Delta 627 284 +83%
Langley City 390 (413) -51%
Langley District 1,695 (648) -28%
Lion's Bay 0 (-2) -100%
Maple Ridge 523 (275) -34%
New Westminster 578 (22) -4%
North Vancouver City 813 +774 +1,985%
North Vancouver DM 547 (299) -35%
Pitt Meadows 37 26 +236%
Port Coquitlam 159 (350) -69%
Port Moody 422 (117) -22%
Richmond 1,432 (878) -38%
Surrey 5,118 (2,361) -32%
University Endowment Lands (Area A) 639 +485 +315%
Vancouver 6,674 (1,258) -16%
West Vancouver 318 +130 +69%
White Rock 204 +43 +27%
Indian Reserves 473 (851) -64%

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I wasn't sure where to put this, but as the thread has 'housing supply' in the title, and there isn't a housing data thread - here's the 2024 Housing starts data from CMHC, by municipality.

The Province use housing completions rather than starts to assess whether a municipality is meeting its targets, so these aren't the appropriate data. Somewhere down the road these starts will turn into completions, but not for around two or three years for most of them.

Not exactly. The province uses net housing added to assess supply targets, not housing completions. All of this housing start data does not take into account housing demolition data. For instance, I highly doubt that the one Belcarra housing start is on a greenfield lot, it's probably an older SFH being replaced by a new SFH and thus a net zero housing supply.

[jollyburger]

Patrick Condon. A link to his column in Macleans and an excerpt from his book. [The book] Classic example of going way too far down the rabbit hole to explain urban planning (oversimplifying everything at the same time) while pretending to be relevant as the stereotypical Kitsilano NIMBY.

https://macleans.ca/economy/why-cana...emand-problem/

https://www.ubcpress.ca/asset/96201/...560_sample.pdf

[Migrant_Coconut]

IIRC he reviews his own books on Amazon.

[seamusmcduff]

Essentially a tax on windfall profits, this strategy demonstrates how to manage urban growth equitably. By redirecting speculative gains from private pockets to public purposes, Vancouver was able, for a time, to build a robust network of amenities that enhanced quality of life for all residents, not just the wealthy few. Unfortunately, political will eroded in the face of an unrelenting housing affordability problem, and public officials began to believe that public policy was the problem, not the solution. With it, Vancouver’s ability to capture the newly created land values eroded too. Today, the city has entirely eliminated these kinds of taxes and fees for new market housing developments. It hoped this would make housing more affordable. It didn’t. What it did was further enrich land speculators.

What on earth is he talking about here? Every city in metro vancouver still has fees meant to capture land lift, and they haven't been reduced in recent years, if anything they've been increased. One could argue they are actually too high, requiring home prices to be high in order for development to be profitable, causing developers to stop developing anytime there is a slight oversupply in order to keep prices high.

[jollyburger]

I just noticed something weird. In Macleans:

But something weird is happening in the city of Vancouver. Between 1970 and 2020, the city tripled the number of homes within its limits, primarily by adding density to already built-up areas, but the population only rose by around 70 per cent. No other major city in North America can claim a comparable feat: New York City increased its housing stock by only 30 per cent over the same period, and Los Angeles and San Francisco had similarly modest gains.

He links to this graphic on his X which I assume is his reference to that statistic.

Now that political dust has settled-sort of-can we talk about "supply and demand" for housing? Vancouver tripled housing units/supply since 1970. All of it "infill". No other center city comes close. This level of new supply should have led to lower prices. Nope. Highest in NA.

https://x.com/pmcondon2/status/18550...896760/history

Am I the only ones that notices the graphic says 1960-2020?

In 2023 he was saying "1960"

I offer here just one relevant (and disturbing) empirical example that would seem to disprove Glaeser’s theory.
The City of Vancouver, since the 1960’s, when this center city was already “built out,” (with no undesignated unoccupied lots) has more than tripled the number of housing units within this small center city – all through “infill” development.

Even with a tripling of units built in Vancouver between 1960 and now, the price per sq ft of market housing quadrupled in real terms. Salaries stayed stubornly flat in real terms. Adding density was good for many reasons. I am a fan. But low prices did not result.

https://x.com/pmcondon2/status/1653128501468495874

https://x.com/pmcondon2/status/1672732492825239552

Someone posted this to Linkedin and correctly notes it starts in 1960. And some of the replies addressed my concern with the whole basis of the chart.

Oren Friedman

The slide shows rate of change. It doesn’t show where each city started/ended in absolute figures or relative to demand. If Vancouver had 10 homes and grew to 100, it might outpacing NYC in growth, but still well below what is required. No?
Also, does this account for population growth? If New Orleans is growing at a slower pace (or negative), then its housing growth might be lower but sufficient. If Vancouver population grew X times then it’s possible that outpacing other cities is still not enough.

How is % of change a meaningful comparable across different cities?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thoma...765284352-QSD7

His data (also says 1960-2020):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?gid=0#gid=0

You know it's good data when a few column headers include "Best Estimate"

[seamusmcduff]

Even with a tripling of units built in Vancouver between 1960 and now, the price per sq ft of market housing quadrupled in real terms. Salaries stayed stubornly flat in real terms.

The disconnect to not consider that our development fees may contribute to this

[BaddieB]

There is more demand to construct new housing where housing is expensive.

This is also a lousy comparison. Real estate markets happen at the metropolitan level. Restricting the analysis to the cities-proper is just disingenuous, because it doesn't show all the new development happening in the suburbs that keep housing more affordable.

In short this person is intentionally lying.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Reminder for newbies: this is the same UBC landscaping prof who hates SkyTrains and highrises, published a "study" asserting that the Canada Line averaged ~20-30 riders per train, thinks the UBC and Langley extensions should be streetcars, supports Rail for the Valley, joined a coalition to make the Jericho Plan shorter, and wants to build lowrises on the golf courses.

If Patrick Condon is on one side of the argument, the correct side is the other one.