Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody wants to call this out, but the Trudeau Liberals had two very large tracts of land available that could have been used in Vancouver for the government to build nothing but affordable housing, but they decided to do some virtue-signalling instead.

https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/jericho-lands
https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/heather-lands

Nice try, but a swing and a miss. For Jericho, "Canada Lands acquired the site (21 hectares/52 acres) in October 2014 as part of an historic joint venture with the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh (MST) Nations." That would be during the life of the 41st Paliament (2011-2015), Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by someone123

What's the alternative? Preventing this type of construction is part of what got Vancouver where it is today. Building a bunch of 20 storey apartments around Commercial-Broadway will be a win for the rental market. Taller buildings means fewer renovictions and less disruption for the same amount of new supply. They should probably allow higher FARs to minimize the redevelopment pain.

Of course. And I do agree that on the whole, it's a positive. Simply pointing out the competing interests and unfortunate irony that in order to help out the rental market, a bunch of renters will be evicted. A net benefit still comes at a cost.

I do think there are better ways to do things though, eg. requiring rental replacement units, incentivizing development of underused or lower-density properties over existing mid-density multifamily, broader upzoning, etc.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody wants to call this out, but the Trudeau Liberals had two very large tracts of land available that could have been used in Vancouver for the government to build nothing but affordable housing, but they decided to do some virtue-signalling instead.

https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/jericho-lands
https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/heather-lands

I don't know how you could look at a development like this and think it was a missed opportunity to build housing...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Nobody wants to call this out, but the Trudeau Liberals had two very large tracts of land available that could have been used in Vancouver for the government to build nothing but affordable housing, but they decided to do some virtue-signalling instead.

https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/jericho-lands
https://www.clc-sic.ca/real-estate/heather-lands

Virtue signaling? They are working with First Nations to build a ton of housing on both sites. Some will no doubt be relatively affordable rentals.

You and your neighbours already came out in protest of the density plan for Jericho. No doubt you'd have lost your mind if they planned to house the dirty poors there.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Virtue signaling? They are working with First Nations to build a ton of housing on both sites. Some will no doubt be relatively affordable rentals.

You and your neighbours already came out in protest of the density plan for Jericho. No doubt you'd have lost your mind if they planned to house the dirty poors there.

What a larf. There's some token "below market" rental but it is a completely lost opportunity to build nothing but affordable rentals. The greatest barrier to building such housing is the land cost and the Feds just threw away the opportunity.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What a larf. There's some token "below market" rental but it is a completely lost opportunity to build nothing but affordable rentals. The greatest barrier to building such housing is the land cost and the Feds just threw away the opportunity.

'Cause building large quantities of public housing within a constrained space has worked out so well in the past, right?





In any case, both developments are planned to contain a significant portion of affordable rentals; and at least in the case of Jericho (not sure about Heather), the land was ceded to the First Nation's nearly a decade ago - ie. by the previous government and before the housing situation was at our current crisis levels. For all the flak they rightfully deserve for their role in the crisis, it's a poor take to attribute this as a failure of the current (or any) federal government.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What a larf. There's some token "below market" rental but it is a completely lost opportunity to build nothing but affordable rentals. The greatest barrier to building such housing is the land cost and the Feds just threw away the opportunity.

Why should the FN be forced to build "nothing but affordable" while everybody else can build market condos?

[harls]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why should the FN be forced to build "nothing but affordable" while everybody else can build market condos?

Check the conversation in the Kapyong Barracks thread.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Why should the FN be forced to build "nothing but affordable" while everybody else can build market condos?

Who says the land should have been given to First Nations to do anything? It belonged to ALL Canadians and should have remained that way.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who says the land should have been given to First Nations to do anything? It belonged to ALL Canadians and should have remained that way.

Simple. The courts make that decision based on the fact the government never negotiated any treaties with first nations in BC.

[urbandreamer]

Now that I'm looking for a home, I'm seeing "affordable" mobile home and tiny home communities being advertised from around $250-300k. I suppose developers are hoping to convert condokids into small town tiny home owners?

So it got me searching and I discovered without a basement, I can buy plans for about $2000 and construct a home in either semi rural Eastern Ontario or Southern Alberta for ~$150-200k. 900-1100 sqft, 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom with a garage. Realistic?

(And from within the Mennonite community, those 1800sqft homes in NE Ontario without a hydro/water connection cost ~$100-150k! Add a solar roof and a solid state battery and off grid living is tempting.)

[harls]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Now that I'm looking for a home, I'm seeing "affordable" mobile home and tiny home communities being advertised from around $250-300k. I suppose developers are hoping to convert condokids into small town tiny home owners?

So it got me searching and I discovered without a basement, I can buy plans for about $2000 and construct a home in either semi rural Eastern Ontario or Southern Alberta for ~$150-200k. 900-1100 sqft, 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom with a garage. Realistic?

(And from within the Mennonite community, those 1800sqft homes in NE Ontario without a hydro/water connection cost ~$100-150k! Add a solar roof and a solid state battery and off grid living is tempting.)

I thought you were moving to Manitoba.. the Winkler area is what you'd be looking for, sir.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who says the land should have been given to First Nations to do anything? It belonged to ALL Canadians and should have remained that way.

Those lands "belonged" to Canada because they were taken by force, never having been surrendered to the crown by treaty or other negotiation. It's simply being belatedly returned to the communities from which it was taken. This is fine.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who says the land should have been given to First Nations to do anything? It belonged to ALL Canadians and should have remained that way.

Jericho and Heather are being developed in partnership with the Feds. This isn't like Senakw.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Those lands "belonged" to Canada because they were taken by force, never having been surrendered to the crown by treaty or other negotiation. It's simply being belatedly returned to the communities from which it was taken. This is fine.

In the case of former DND/RCMP lands in urban areas they are also way more productive as housing, and will generate tons of economic activity and taxes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Those lands "belonged" to Canada because they were taken by force, never having been surrendered to the crown by treaty or other negotiation. It's simply being belatedly returned to the communities from which it was taken. This is fine.

To be honest I don't think this is a helpful argument in this case for a couple of reasons. First, there are lots of examples of historical conquest that was never accepted in a treaty by the defeated party (likely covering almost all territory on earth including First Nations conquering each other), and there are lots of historical treaties with elements we wouldn't want to enforce today. But more importantly in this particular case, it's not some ancestral claim in these areas. There were indigenous people living in these parts of Vancouver in the early 1900's who got evicted and it was well documented. This case is a lot like Turtle Grove or maybe Africville. It made sense to hand this land back because it was clear who owned it before, how it was taken, and there is no private owner today. If you bundle that up with ancestral grievance arguments you're watering down the claim.

This issue is a third rail and I don't mean to suggest anybody here is saying these things but I find that often the FNs themselves have very specific reasonable problems or requests, and they want to get along with the local communities, but then there are more distant political groups that make wilder claims (like all of Canada is stolen and give the land back, though that rarely applies to whatever land those people are using themselves) that are likely to be politically counterproductive. You also see political groups projecting goals like environmental protection onto indigenous communities (they have the same trade-offs of economic development as everybody else), and finding community members who "speak for the community".

IMO that argument about public housing project tower blocks is also not relevant to the concept of "affordable housing" in Vancouver which is needed by ~90% of the younger population here. Affordable purpose-built rental is just standard housing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Jericho and Heather are being developed in partnership with the Feds. This isn't like Senakw.

Yes but they are being developed in the same tired manner of market housing subsidizing a few below market and social units. That method hasn't worked yet and it won't make any meaningful difference in affordability here.

The federal and provincial governments need to take bolder and more hands-on approaches and that doesn't happen by giving away land.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Of course. And I do agree that on the whole, it's a positive. Simply pointing out the competing interests and unfortunate irony that in order to help out the rental market, a bunch of renters will be evicted. A net benefit still comes at a cost.

I do think there are better ways to do things though, eg. requiring rental replacement units, incentivizing development of underused or lower-density properties over existing mid-density multifamily, broader upzoning, etc.

Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon's quote in that article was interesting to see that municipalities could still impose tenant relocation requirements on these types of redevelopment, citing the Broadway Plan's measures on this as a specific example. If that's the case, municipalities could theoretically make those requirements as liberal or arduous as they decide is necessary to support those tenants.

What I'm unclear about is how exactly that's supposed to work. There's no specific mention of tenant relocation requirements in any legislation, so they're implemented primarily as a condition of rezoning. If this almost pre-zones these lands, it'd be nice to get more clarity and confirmation, whether within the coming regulations or elsewhere, as to whether tenant relocation requirements will be legitimate to impose even on by-right development.

There's also the rumour of updates coming to the Residential Tenancy Act to strengthen relocation requirements and take the pressure of municipalities to implement their own, because what's in place now is practically useless in most cases.

Of course, depending on context, the legislation may actually help take pressure off rental building redevelopment as more single-family lands become available to redevelop instead.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes but they are being developed in the same tired manner of market housing subsidizing a few below market and social units. That method hasn't worked yet and it won't make any meaningful difference in affordability here.

The federal and provincial governments need to take bolder and more hands-on approaches and that doesn't happen by giving away land.

I know you don't believe in supply and demand.

"Bolder approaches" meaning billions of your tax dollars to support housing for the poor? For some reason I think you'd have other arguments against it if that started happening.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes but they are being developed in the same tired manner of market housing subsidizing a few below market and social units. That method hasn't worked yet and it won't make any meaningful difference in affordability here.

It hasn't made a meaningful difference in affordability because the number of units being built is drop in the bucket compared to the near-unlimited demand we're facing; but the point stands that it's the best model to deliver affordable unit without the cost implications of old school housing projects built en masse.

As we all well know, the easiest and most effective way for the feds to create affordable housing to reduce demand by lowering our immigration intake back to historic norms.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes but they are being developed in the same tired manner of market housing subsidizing a few below market and social units. That method hasn't worked yet and it won't make any meaningful difference in affordability here.

The federal and provincial governments need to take bolder and more hands-on approaches and that doesn't happen by giving away land.

It's weird you say this because Senakw was "given away" and the Squamish Nation is turning it into one of the boldest developments to hit Metro Vancouver.