BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There’s no question floor plates have become too small thanks to outrageous land prices. However this will saddle 100% of new home buyers with an extra cost to benefit what percentage of possible buyers that have a disability that will be helped>5%?

As BaddieB pointed out, this is not necessarily a complete deadweight cost if it's reasonable to assume that most people can effectively use the extra space. I can see this having a small upwards pressure on the smallest studio/1br units linear with the required space requirements, but probably not much of an effect on the 2br+ market.

Still, why is it for every regulation we tear down we have to add a new one...?

My biggest worry is if this means that kitchens are going to have a lot fewer kitchen islands.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

The Province should use legislation to require municipalities to exclude from zoning GFA calculations the incremental increase in GFA that is associated with conforming with the new requirement that dwellings must be able to be modified to accommodate universal accessibility. There would have to be an upper limit on the percentage of incremental GFA that could excluded, of course.

This will result in larger floorplates, but okay. Fine with me. BC tower floorplates are already about 100 m2 smaller than typical Ontario tower floorplates.

This is the only way. I was recent in one of our finished units and I was thinking "how did my Client let this HUGE unit get built"? The accessible design requirements made for a much better unit - however, it eats into precious FSR and there are a lot of things that should not count towards FSR today, let alone, once these new accessibility rules come into play.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The great David Eby, making housing unaffordable:

B.C. to require new homes to be adaptable for disabilities, prompting concern from developers
FRANCES BULA
VANCOUVER
PUBLISHED JULY 1, 2024
UPDATED JULY 2, 2024

All new homes constructed in British Columbia will be required starting next March to be easily adapted so anyone with a disability can live in them, but builders are raising concern about the expenses of the changes, prompting Vancouver to delay compliance.

Developers say the new rules will add potentially tens of thousands to the cost of all news homes because ensuring all builds can accommodate someone with a wheelchair or walker, for example, will require bigger kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, among other changes.…

….. It can mean having to increase the size of a unit by 5 to 10 per cent. Adding costs means you can’t build what people can afford,” said Anne McMullin, the president of the Urban Development Institute, the advocacy organization for the building industry…

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ies-prompting/

I don't think we should throw disabled people under the bus, we can do both

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

I don't think we should throw disabled people under the bus, we can do both

I know you're ride-or-die on Eby, but do we really need 100% of new homes to be disability adaptable? Do 100% of parking stalls need to be disability width now too?

I'm all for making accommodations for the disabled, but we shouldn't always have the needs of the minority (accessibility) supersede the needs of the majority (affordability).

[Tvisforme]

Increasing the number of units compatible with disabilities isn't just beneficial to a small group. It will make these units much more practical for seniors who have mobility challenges and are reluctant to downsize into units that cannot accommodate their needs.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Sooo... How many of these actually happened and how many have seen no action?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/ho...ne_30_2024.pdf

They've all been adopted as policy by municipalities, except by Burnaby. The deadline was June 2024, and the new policies all allow rezonings to be submitted at the new provincial densities, provided they meet municipal policies. In most locations (but not all) existing plans already allowed more density to be submitted than the province requires.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Increasing the number of units compatible with disabilities isn't just beneficial to a small group. It will make these units much more practical for seniors who have mobility challenges and are reluctant to downsize into units that cannot accommodate their needs.

This. The pros to this reform far outweigh the cons.

Also the main reason housing is so costly is due to not enough supply and too much demand. The zoning reforms alone should solve most of the housing price troubles.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Increasing the number of units compatible with disabilities isn't just beneficial to a small group. It will make these units much more practical for seniors who have mobility challenges and are reluctant to downsize into units that cannot accommodate their needs.

It means that someone who becomes disabled (temporarily, or permanently) doesn't have to move, or isn't confined to their home most of the time.

It's an embarrassment that BC only adopted the requirements now. Ontario adopted similar changes to their Building Code in 2012.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Just how much of a bigger room do most disabled folks need anyhow? I mean, if it needs to be 1.5x the "regular" size, that'll be a problem, but otherwise this seems like another molehill.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Increasing the number of units compatible with disabilities isn't just beneficial to a small group. It will make these units much more practical for seniors who have mobility challenges and are reluctant to downsize into units that cannot accommodate their needs.

Lots of older condos seem to have plenty of room for seniors and other with mobility issues. Maybe should just protect those?

Pretty much anyone I know with mobility issues (age or otherwise) wants no stairs. So we can lobby for no more of those useless new townhouses with endless stairs.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It means that someone who becomes disabled (temporarily, or permanently) doesn't have to move, or isn't confined to their home most of the time.

A friend ended up temporarily in a wheelchair. Before that he had no issues with his (tiny) suite - after he'd barely move for hours at a time and had trouble both with getting in / out of his suite and the building. This is someone who was used to be outside a lot so his cabin fever was extreme.

Contrast that with my (admittedly larger) suite. I'd be able to move around pretty easily due to a fairly open practical layout and wider than average common hallways.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Sheba

A friend ended up temporarily in a wheelchair. Before that he had no issues with his (tiny) suite - after he'd barely move for hours at a time and had trouble both with getting in / out of his suite and the building. This is someone who was used to be outside a lot so his cabin fever was extreme.

Contrast that with my (admittedly larger) suite. I'd be able to move around pretty easily due to a fairly open practical layout and wider than average common hallways.

Yes. Even just using a walking frame can be a problem in some older buildings that have narrower doorways. And there was a trend for galley kitchens that you find in older apartments and condos, (even in some quite generously sized apartments) that are almost impossible to use in a wheelchair.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes. Even just using a walking frame can be a problem in some older buildings that have narrower doorways. And there was a trend for galley kitchens that you find in older apartments and condos, (even in some quite generously sized apartments) that are almost impossible to use in a wheelchair.

Our buildings are the same vintage and the doors are about the same width. But the layout between the two means mine would be way easier for anyone to move around in.

Very true about the kitchen. Once he graduated to a walker he could finally get into his galley kitchen again.

[simons]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Increasing the number of units compatible with disabilities isn't just beneficial to a small group. It will make these units much more practical for seniors who have mobility challenges and are reluctant to downsize into units that cannot accommodate their needs.

Exactly—about a third of seniors are disabled due to mobility, and if you’re lucky enough to make it to old age, there’s a chance you’ll become disabled too.

[LeftCoaster]

I am currently living and breathing a project redesign from non-adaptable to adaptable and I can stay everyone on this thread is vastly underestimating the impact this is going to have on housing costs.

A standard home is built with very tight tolerances and little wasted space due to the high cost of land and construction in BC. Every unit is designed with maximum efficiency in mind to drive the end users cost down and to add more units to the developers sales roster. These adaptable changes remove those efficiencies and in their place mandate large 'dead zones' in rooms that need them the least for the average user (bathrooms and bedrooms).

What this results in is for example a one bedroom unit that was previously 500 SF now being 560 SF. On the face that isn't too bad, but the expansion doesn't result in larger living rooms or kitchens where people spend most of their time, it results in oversized bathrooms, bedrooms and hallways. And that space isn't free. Assuming $1,000 PSF sales price, that 500SF unit just went from $500,000 to $560,000, an instant 10+% increase in price. Not exactly what this province needs in the midst of a housing / cost of living crisis.

Now do I think there is a place of adaptable housing, of course! But 100% adaptable housing is going to come at a very very high price. To me there is a compromise somewhere much closer to 30%.

We will see if the province listens to the concerns of the industry or not, but do not be mistaken, the costs of this will be borne by home buyers, not developers.

[logan5]

Hope I don't sound too insensitive here, by why even as high as 30% when the number of disabled is way lower than that?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

Hope I don't sound too insensitive here, by why even as high as 30% when the number of disabled is way lower than that?

It's close to impossible to argue against feelgood policies since you're always going to sound insensitive.

Remember that almost every policy that supresses housing supply in BC comes from original good intentions!

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by logan5

Hope I don't sound too insensitive here, by why even as high as 30% when the number of disabled is way lower than that?

I think there's those who are disabled and then there's the people who need to accommodate the disabled in their lives whether it's a partner, child or parent. I don't know what the right number is and I think the 30% is just a hypothetical compromise anyways but the percentage is likely some multiple of the number of people who have a disability.

Even if the multiple is 3x the number of disabled it would still take generations to provide enough units for these folks - it's another case of us having kicked the can down the road on something that's real that we ignored so now we have a game of catchup to play.

There's no good answer here - the policy by itself is a good thing but the consequences of it from a cost perspective suck.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Roughly 21% of BC has a disability... but if we only build 21% of units as adaptive housing, what's the guarantee that they'll stay vacant for disabled folks? I suspect any kind of newly-made department meant to guarantee that will be just as expensive and complicated as 100% adaptive.

Also consider people who moved in when able-bodied, but then grew old and/or suffered an accident and are now unable to navigate their own home. IMO somewhere around 30-40% would satisfy both ends of the equation.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Roughly 21% of BC has a disability... but if we only build 21% of units as adaptive housing, what's the guarantee that they'll stay vacant for disabled folks? I suspect any kind of newly-made department meant to guarantee that will be just as expensive and complicated as 100% adaptive.

Bear in mind that mobility is not 100% of disabilities. Larger bathrooms are going to do nothing for the dumb, deaf, blind kids (so to speak).