HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 4:24 AM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 591
And so if course he gets to publish his views in basically every paper in the country, because why ask actual planning experts when you know they won't tell your nimby readers what they want to hear?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 4:50 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Chinese investors bought a piece of land for bonkers money, so let me share with you my dumba** plan on how to fix Vancouver Housing. - Patrick Condon

2018

Quote:
In an election of safe choices, Patrick Condon wants to be Vancouver’s ‘Bernie’

In an election dominated by Vancouver’s housing crisis, most candidates have been cautious so far.

The Non-Partisan Association’s Ken Sim and Vision Vancouver’s Ian Campbell have said they need to talk to more people before deciding on a platform, while independent Kennedy Stewart has said that current city hall policies are on the right track, but need to be more ambitious.

Patrick Condon, a University of British Columbia urban design professor who intends to seek the mayoral nomination for the Coalition of Progressive Electors, isn’t so circumspect.

“People want to have a different voice and I’m happy to try to provide that,” Condon told StarMetro in a telephone interview.

“The housing market has failed, is completely broken and a lot of people … have lost their faith in the market.”

COPE was once a dominant force in Vancouver city politics, but for over a decade the party has been sidelined by more centrist parties like Vision Vancouver. After COPE took a hard-left turn prior to the 2014 election, some members of the party formed the offshoot OneCity, which is also running candidates for council and the school board this election.

In an October 2017 byelection, COPE endorsed Jean Swanson, an anti-poverty activist who had garnered a following of young campaigners and was pushing for a mansion tax and a rent freeze. She ran as an independent and came in second in the byelection.

This time around, Swanson is running with COPE for council, along with Anne Roberts and Derrick O’Keefe. Condon previously worked with the Vancouver Greens on their election platforms. But he said he was attracted by Swanson’s ideas and the energy of her young supporters, who have crafted savvy messaging and drawn media attention by holding events like bringing an enormous “Jeanex” box to the affluent Shaughnessy neighbourhood.

Condon won’t know for sure whether he has the COPE nomination until Aug. 19, when the party will hold a final vote; COPE could choose to nominate him, or to endorse one of two independent mayoral candidates, Kennedy Stewart and Shauna Sylvester, who hope to get the support of COPE, OneCity and the Greens.

Condon said he saw a missing voice in the race; candidates who were willing to shake things up in the current housing system. He said he aspired to be a Bernie Sanders-like candidate and offer voters “the fire of the old left” compared to the centre-left Vision Vancouver or centre-right NPA.

“I didn’t think there was a very strong voice at all in the race in any of the parties who were forcefully saying the housing market is broken,” he said.

“They were reluctant to give any proposals generally, and no proposals that seemed like a departure from the status quo.”

Condon wants to raise taxes, both on homeowners and on developers, and use the proceeds — as well as contributions from the province and federal government — to raise the amount of non-market housing to represent 50 per cent of the city’s housing stock.

He insists that raising development fees won’t make housing more expensive — a common concern for real estate developers, who say they must pass on any increase to homebuyers.

“It’s not true. What (increased fees) really do is subtract from the cost of land and we have a situation where the land is inflated so high, it’s outrageous,” Condon said, using as an example the record sale of a one-acre site on Georgia St. that sold for a record $245 million in 2017.

“All that profit went to the land owner and the land speculator and none of that went to the city. Strategically, a set of taxes on development land can capture that money instead of the money going to land speculators, who’ve done nothing to earn it.”

Instead of the province’s new surtax on the value of properties over $3 million, Condon said he wants to see the City of Vancouver allowed to levy a progressive property tax that would tax high-value properties at a higher rate (this idea is the same as Swanson’s “mansion tax”).


He also wants to see Vancouver quickly adopt a citywide plan that, he said, would modernize obsolete zoning and allow for more density in single-family home neighbourhoods. Condon said a citywide plan would also provide clarity to homeowners and builders, who would not have to go through lengthy permitting processes for each project.

Condon thinks this wouldn’t create a land-value spike in neighbourhoods: “My hypothesis is that the rapid rise in the value of land has been driven by the city’s process of only releasing some land at a time.”

Although he’s a professor immersed in planning and land use policy, Condon has a flair for the dramatic. He says it’s imperative to switch away from the market-based real estate system to one where government is much more heavily involved because the future of the city is at stake.

“If the trajectory of the city is to persist, there would be no way for working families to live here,” he said.


“We’re well on our way to becoming the Monaco of North America: a great place to park your cash and to visit every year or two, but otherwise very few people who earn ordinary wages will be able to live here.”
https://www.thestar.com/vancouver/in...4648b42a9.html

Last edited by jollyburger; Jan 19, 2025 at 5:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 5:33 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
Quote:
In an election of safe choices, Patrick Condon wants to be Vancouver’s ‘Bernie’
For a very brief moment I thought I was about to read that Condon was going to run in the city council by-election.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 5:44 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
For a very brief moment I thought I was about to read that Condon was going to run in the city council by-election.
Mayor Condon. I added 2018 above the article
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 7:22 AM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 591
“We’re well on our way to becoming the Monaco of North America...so I want to speed up that process "
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 4:53 PM
BaddieB BaddieB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Posts: 631
Can I please get a source for where Condon said the Canada Line has 20-30 riders per train that is so funny
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 6:11 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaddieB View Post
Can I please get a source for where Condon said the Canada Line has 20-30 riders per train that is so funny
I looked and couldn't find it. The only sort of reference might have been to Canada Line passenger utilization at off-peak hours..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2025, 7:55 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Another adjunct professor at UBC actually trying to figure out Condon's math

Jan 17, 2025 on X

Quote:
In addition to running Liveable City Planning, I love teaching graduate students and sharing real-world planning and development experience. This lecture has become a regular opener for my classes with Design & Planning students - a cautionary story about math-challenged people who want to shape planning and housing policy. It's one thing to publish a mistake; it's another to ignore fatal errors and carry on the charade that one has the correct answer!


https://x.com/LcpVan/status/1880314141866435055/photo/1

One more from him on his blog:

Quote:
Math vs Myth: Rezoning for new intensity does not inflate land costs

With increasing frequency I see people opposed to new intensities of land use complaining that rezonings for high rise buildings are driving land speculation and increasing the cost of ownership and rental housing. A case in point is this disappointing story in Business in Vancouver where a planning colleague and a ‘retired developer’ allege that the Broadway Plan is driving massive increases in property value and increasing the cost of housing.

Are there any editors fact-checking stories these days?

Yes, new land use intensities increase the absolute value of a property. However the critics miss a critical point: new land use intensity amortizes the new land price over a multiple of the old floor areas. In the article, the critics complain that the value of an aging property rezoned from 35 affordable rental homes to 182 new ones has skyrocketed from $14.5M to $26M. This is their glaring evidence of unaffordability.
https://liveablecityplanning.com/202...te-land-costs/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2025, 11:31 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Speaking of the economics of home construction..

Quote:
How Developers Think About Parking In The Age Of Transit-Oriented Development

"How Beedie is approaching it is really a project-by-project approach," said Neeser. "For example, at Fraser Mills, we're transit-friendly, but not on a transit station. We've spent a lot of time learning and studying the market, and we might have a slightly higher parking ratio there than we would [at] our Moody Centre project in Port Moody where we're 200 metres from the station."
Quote:
Neeser says he hasn't personally seen costs get quite that high, but can see it happening in projects where underground parkades go beyond five levels and the soil conditions are poor. Otherwise, costs are generally closer to around $40,000 to $60,000 per stall, but have steadily risen along with general construction costs.
Quote:
"It's not only the cost, it's also the carry and the construction debt," said Jones. "Time is a big consideration in these underground parkades, too. How long does it take to dig to the bottom of the hole? How long does it take to get out of the ground? A typical 25- or 30-storey tower, assuming you've got plus or minus 200 stalls of parking, you're probably looking at about a year to go down and up and get to grade. And you're financing that. Interest rates are coming down, but if that year all of a sudden becomes a year-and-a-half, you're financing that cost, too."
Quote:
"Regulations around increased bike parking — that takes up a larger footprint, and physically the bike parking has to be near or at grade, otherwise you have put in a dedicated bike elevator in," said Neeser. "That has a cost associated with it and it means you're just going down deeper into the ground to provide the same parking stalls you would have otherwise been providing."
Quote:
"What we've discovered as we've been going down this path is there's a massive reduction in carbon," Jones said. "If we were to not build that cut-off wall and not excavate a parkade that's four or five storeys deep, it actually works out to be like a 40% reduction in carbon in the building. The cut-off wall is using five Olympic swimming pools of concrete, by volume, and a whole bunch of steel, and 3,000 to 4,000 dump-truck trips for the excavation. It's really expensive and it's really carbon-intensive. If we didn't have to do that, we'd also save likely a year on construction time, so that's a year that housing gets built faster and it's a year of less staff, construction, interest on our loans, and neighbourhood disruption. The cost saving is really really significant."
https://storeys.com/metro-vancouver-...lopment-costs/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 12:31 AM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 591
It's almost like it has never made sense to have a one size fits all rate for parking, and like it or not, the developers are the ones best equipped to determine the actual parking required for a project.

Developers won't build developments without parking if it makes it difficult to sell them
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 5:17 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Kerry Gold article in Vancouver Magazine has some more stuff on the economics of a development and financing. Along with the usual list of things: view cones, permitting, foreign investors...

Quote:
A lot of it comes down to financing, which is controlled by the lenders, says Tom Huang, co-owner and managing director of Tera Development. “We feel like we are all working for our lenders, our banks. They will look at the pro forma and say, ‘If you are not making at least 15 percent on the cost, we are not lending at all,’” he says.

“For them to feel this particular project is safe, they need that margin to be present in order to lend it to a developer to build.”
https://www.vanmag.com/city/real-est...just-build-it/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 8:51 PM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 591
It's understandable that developers and banks would expect those returns when parking your money in other less risky investments can get you 5-10%. That's why I don't think we are getting out of the housing crisis without government interventions. Any drop in home values and developers will hold on developing until prices go up again and they can get their returns.

There's a lot the government can do to build housing without spending tax payer money. Low interest loans, non profit housing corps (still break even), or even for profit housing that only need ~5% returns. For some reason our governments don't have the willpower or they feel they don't have the political capital to do this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 9:33 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,667
CMHC is likely coming out with new wacky rules on their loan programs - so making them worse - but there is some active lobbying to reverse those possible changes... ideally get us closer to the old MURB program without all the extra requirements on energy and affordability.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 11:30 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamusmcduff View Post
It's understandable that developers and banks would expect those returns when parking your money in other less risky investments can get you 5-10%. That's why I don't think we are getting out of the housing crisis without government interventions. Any drop in home values and developers will hold on developing until prices go up again and they can get their returns.

There's a lot the government can do to build housing without spending tax payer money. Low interest loans, non profit housing corps (still break even), or even for profit housing that only need ~5% returns. For some reason our governments don't have the willpower or they feel they don't have the political capital to do this.
Why not use taxpayer money to build housing? We use it to build bridges and transit.

As l've said before, developers are businesses operating to make money. Which is why incentives, tax breaks and other programs just nibble around the edges of the housing crisis. Only the federal government has the resources to truly to build housing at a large scale without worrying about profit. I'd prefer a market solution but the problem now seems to big for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 11:43 PM
seamusmcduff seamusmcduff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 591
I'm not against using government money, but with the shift to the right and attacks directed at taxes, social safety nets and social housing in general, I can't see their being enough political capital for even the NDP to go that route.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2025, 11:51 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
I wonder if the COV/Translink experiments with building rental properties will be a future route for government to get more actively involved?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2025, 4:40 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
From a developers POV enter Jon Stovell..

Heritage restorations

Quote:
The importance of municipal grants and tax incentives to make heritage projects financially viable.
The hidden complexities of old buildings, where some structures are more adaptable than others.
The role of heritage buildings in shaping the future of Vancouver’s real estate market.
Encouraging development

Quote:
Excessive bureaucracy and overlapping regulations that slow down projects and increase costs.
The impact of interest rates and inflation, which have escalated construction expenses by over 60% in just a few years.
Why many developers are taking their investments outside Vancouver, seeking better returns in other markets such as the U.S.
Quote:
Streamlining approval processes to reduce development timelines.
Creating a more balanced regulatory environment that benefits both developers and residents.
Encouraging public-private collaboration to drive innovative housing solutions.
The market in 2025

Quote:
Developers need to focus on strategic planning and adaptability.
Potential federal and provincial policy changes could impact market dynamics.
Vancouver’s long-term attractiveness as a city will continue to drive demand.
Video Link


https://addyinvest.ca/2025/01/27/ins...r-real-estate/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2025, 5:44 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,691
Interview with Kahlon

DCCs

Quote:
We've been having conversations with Metro [Vancouver] and the federal government about how we can have both the infrastructure we need in communities, as well as a better balance of what fees are collected. There is a path forward. I can't comment on where we'll land, other than to say that we've been making some good progress.
Quote:
Yes, there will be legislation coming this spring session to help us enable more housing to come online. It won't be as much legislation as I brought in last year, but there are a couple of substantial pieces that will be coming in the spring session for sure. I can't speak to them yet, unfortunately.
https://storeys.com/ravi-kahlon-hous...nterview-2025/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2025, 10:07 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,748
This is exactly why Ken Sim is right in refusing more DTES social housing. The suburbs need to start shouldering their part of the problem:

Richmond cancels B.C.-backed supportive housing project
By Charles Brockman
Posted February 13, 2025 11:19 am.
Last Updated February 13, 2025 12:07 pm.

Richmond city council and Mayor Malcolm Brodie announced Thursday that the city has cancelled a proposed supportive housing project at Cambie Road and Sexsmith Road.

The provincial government had previously paused work on the controversial project in August – a couple of months ahead of the October provincial election. Last week, B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said that after reviews of five alternative locations, the project would proceed in its original location.…


https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2025/0...using-project/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2025, 10:41 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,667
"That’s what we’ve been working on for six, seven years"

Big yikes
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.