Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The one thing right-wing and left-wing individuals agree on (if they're rich and own their own home) is NIMBYism. Suburbanites in SF and Dallas may not agree on much, but neither group wants a bunch of social housing (or any dense housing, really) built in Atherton or University Park. So yes, I think both left- and right-wing NIMBYs will likely be annoyed at this policy regardless of which party they supported in the last election.

I think when Greetingsfromcanada mentions "leftists", they are referring to your idea that the government should build all the affordable housing and that the market can never address the affordability issue.

For leftists, it's backed by an eternal lie that state housing for all is literally the only good and "moral" housing. Many of these people are hypocritical retirees who bought market rate housing themselves at a fraction of the cost that just want any excuse that makes them feel good and righteous while being horrible people.

Or it's young people caught up in political hotheadedness and lacking in the history of zoning.

For many right wingers, it's way more straightforward. They'll just tell you they hate your guts if you can't afford a detached home, regardless of circumstance. They "bought into a neighborhood". Or sometimes it's "we don't want crime". It's crude. But it's easy to notice and push aside. Unfortunately, leftist failures on housing have a veneer of well meaning

[madog222]

Politics can be taken to that respective thread. Not that blabbering on about "leftists" and "right wingers" is has a place there.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by madog222

Politics can be taken to that respective thread. Not that blabbering on about "leftists" and "right wingers" is has a place there.

The philosophy, motivators, and history of how we got to a piece of legislation is pretty damn relevant to a thread about said piece legislation. Especially in housing policy where dogma usually defeats accepted scientific fact on how make housing cost less. It's like talking about the covid vaccine, having people bring up alternative "cures" and then expecting everyone to just accept it as a neutral comment instead of a political one

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Allow unlimited FSR, 3.5 storey 8 plexes to be built in Vancouver on every lot. Allow 12 storey apartments within 1km of any 10 minute transit service. Allow single staircase buildings to be built again. Allow point access blocks to be built.

Yeah, if Vancouver's four- and six-plex plan has a weakness it is the minimal increase of FSR.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

The one thing right-wing and left-wing individuals agree on (if they're rich and own their own home) is NIMBYism. Suburbanites in SF and Dallas may not agree on much, but neither group wants a bunch of social housing (or any dense housing, really) built in Atherton or University Park. So yes, I think both left- and right-wing NIMBYs will likely be annoyed at this policy regardless of which party they supported in the last election.

I think when Greetingsfromcanada mentions "leftists", they are referring to your idea that the government should build all the affordable housing and that the market can never address the affordability issue.

And how many developers would have incorporated affordable housing into their projects without it being mandated by municipal governments? As businesses why would they have?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Cap fees on newbuilds to a set amount that has to be justified and approved by the province. At the very least stop forcing apartment dwellers to subsidize detached homeowners. Introduce a land value tax to replace the property tax. This will encourage developers to actually build ASAP instead of sitting on land.

Allow unlimited FSR, 3.5 storey 8 plexes to be built in Vancouver on every lot. Allow 12 storey apartments within 1km of any 10 minute transit service. Allow single staircase buildings to be built again. Allow point access blocks to be built.

Allow BC crown corporations and translink to simply ignore even these zoning laws and let them build market rate at an advantaged position and use the proceeds as a permanent cash stream to build provincially owned housing. For translink, use as a cash stream to supplement operating or capital costs

If I had it my way, I would deregulate zoning further. But I'm being reasonable here.

Some of your new policies seem to be concerned with affordability (fees on apartment construction) and others are about theoretically adding volume (3.5 storey 8 plexes on every lot).

Presumably you're also abandoning any requirement for providing any parking, or lot coverage? While you say an 8 plex 'on any lot' with unlimited density, are you including 25 foot lots, or those without a laneway? And why only Vancouver, where SFH land prices are greatest? You'd generate more affordability in suburban municipalities where lot sizes can be bigger and land persq ft if often lower.

Taking a typical 33' x 120' Vancouver lot, it seems like it would be theoretically possible to build a 27' wide structure, which had 1,600 sq ft per floor (with two units per floor over 4 floors). It would be a 'shotgun' design, 60 feet from front to back) with some quite gloomy rooms, but it would have 50% site coverage (so with some outdoor amenity space) and end up at 1.6 FSR.

Using a back of an envelope development cost estimate, If they were each 800 sq ft units I think it would cost at least $600,000 per unit once a developer had financed a house purchase, demolished it and constructed the 6,400 sq ft 8-plex, so they might be sold at about $700,000 each. (That's an average - more on the west side, less in some of the east side). That's a bit less than current market values for a pre-owned apartment. There would still have to be a strata for the building, but it could be self-managed. If homeowners also want to own a vehicle, you've also got a significant parking problem to solve.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Yes. Why? Because leftists are the bane of good housing policy. Even within the BCNDP, for years, MPs readily accepted Andy Yan's empty condo theory and chinese money theory of housing and built policy after policy around that simple lie. Yes, there were some empty condo units. No, they were never more than a fraction needed to end the housing crisis.

I think this is more the case in the Federal NDP than it is for the BC NDP. (Although I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "MPs" because we don't have MPs provincially, we have MLAs). Don Davies spoke out against a rental housing development in his neighbourhood because it was too tall and it was all market rental. Bonita Zarillo's said on Facebook that she's not in favour of market rental or strata because it's not affordable.

The view presented by some left wing politicians that we shouldn't build housing unless it's affordable is just as anti-housing as old white boomers crossing their arms and complaining about shadows.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Yes. Why? Because leftists are the bane of good housing policy. Even within the BCNDP, for years, MPs readily accepted Andy Yan's empty condo theory and chinese money theory of housing and built policy after policy around that simple lie. Yes, there were some empty condo units. No, they were never more than a fraction needed to end the housing crisis.


The harm done by people who wanted easy answers is incalculable. There is no housing policy that can fit Canada's needs without massive market reforms. And that's what these policies are. Market reforms. It's not an "order to build". It is literally just letting housing be built when the goddamn fiefdoms that are municipalities imposed government mandated scarcity

The fact that you dismiss Yan's research work as a 'simple lie" speaks volumes.

Your theory seems predicated on the premise that if developers could only build more, faster, prices will come down. Why would any developer who has been able to get $1.5 million for a crappy two bed skybox do anything to bring those prices down? Trying to recoup price decreases by amping up the volume simply isn't possible given the supply of resources and labour.

The model of having developers build luxury condos with a token amount of mandated social housing hasn't helped meaningfully with affordability so far. And as that article points out, that is amply demonstrated by nearby developments built on the same model such as Lelem. it is time for bolder and bigger steps. Large sites like this that were owned by government would have been a perfect place to try those measures out.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The fact that you dismiss Yan's research work as a 'simple lie" speaks volumes.

Your theory seems predicated on the premise that if developers could only build more, faster, prices will come down. Why would any developer who has been able to get $1.5 million for a crappy two bed skybox do anything to bring those prices down? Trying to recoup price decreases by amping up the volume simply isn't possible given the supply of resources and labour.

The model of having developers build luxury condos with a token amount of mandated social housing hasn't helped meaningfully with affordability so far. And as that article points out, that is amply demonstrated by nearby developments built on the same model such as Lelem. it is time for bolder and bigger steps. Large sites like this that were owned by government would have been a perfect place to try those measures out.

We've already been over the reason why supply flexibility is weak barely a couple comments ago. The fact that you would ignore that to build a strawman speaks volumes of your immaturity and total unwillingness to argue from data over your feelings. I'm sorry you believe in total nonsense. Feeling bad about that won't make what you're saying true.

You preface your position by using the same tired, lazy and wrong arguments retiree leftists will use. "We don't have the labour or resources". Says who? Have you tried? No? How surprising. Meanwhile ranchers get torn down every day to build mcmansions. There's a whole lot of labour that is solely dedicated to building luxury detached homes

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I think this is more the case in the Federal NDP than it is for the BC NDP. (Although I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "MPs" because we don't have MPs provincially, we have MLAs). Don Davies spoke out against a rental housing development in his neighbourhood because it was too tall and it was all market rental. Bonita Zarillo's said on Facebook that she's not in favour of market rental or strata because it's not affordable.

The view presented by some left wing politicians that we shouldn't build housing unless it's affordable is just as anti-housing as old white boomers crossing their arms and complaining about shadows.

The BCNDP have matured so much that people forget Eby used to be an Andy Yan believer on housing and actively promoted/aided his work before disavowing it

https://www.straight.com/news/attorn...glicized-names

People also forget that were was a power struggle on housing that Eby fought and defeated leftists like Selina Robinson on. It has been a nearly decade long struggle to get to this point, with the right people willing to engage with the science


https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...p-developments


The federal NDP could have good positions. But their bench is a clownshow. People need to show initiative. Even it means forcing Don Davies to accept reality by talking him down in person

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The model of having developers build luxury condos with a token amount of mandated social housing hasn't helped meaningfully with affordability so far.

Agree that attempting to make affordability by a slim degree work within the current planning program and false free market does not work.

By allowing a more free market, which the Housing Act is getting at (obviously not close enough), it would help balance the market across the region.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Some of your new policies seem to be concerned with affordability (fees on apartment construction) and others are about theoretically adding volume (3.5 storey 8 plexes on every lot).

Presumably you're also abandoning any requirement for providing any parking, or lot coverage? While you say an 8 plex 'on any lot' with unlimited density, are you including 25 foot lots, or those without a laneway? And why only Vancouver, where SFH land prices are greatest? You'd generate more affordability in suburban municipalities where lot sizes can be bigger and land persq ft if often lower.

Taking a typical 33' x 120' Vancouver lot, it seems like it would be theoretically possible to build a 27' wide structure, which had 1,600 sq ft per floor (with two units per floor over 4 floors). It would be a 'shotgun' design, 60 feet from front to back) with some quite gloomy rooms, but it would have 50% site coverage (so with some outdoor amenity space) and end up at 1.6 FSR.

Using a back of an envelope development cost estimate, If they were each 800 sq ft units I think it would cost at least $600,000 per unit once a developer had financed a house purchase, demolished it and constructed the 6,400 sq ft 8-plex, so they might be sold at about $700,000 each. (That's an average - more on the west side, less in some of the east side). That's a bit less than current market values for a pre-owned apartment. There would still have to be a strata for the building, but it could be self-managed. If homeowners also want to own a vehicle, you've also got a significant parking problem to solve.

The entire province needs zoning reform. But Vancouver is where demand is clearly highest and where employment and transit is actually available in a meaningful way. I was just making a point about Vancouver specifically. Ultimately, the entire province at least needs some sort of 6plex/townhouse as the baseline for zoning on every lot

[chowhou]

Housing, legalise it!

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Housing, legalise it!

That's right

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

That's right

At the very least I would like to see the Norquay Village RM-7 zoning applied to the entire Lower Mainland. I really don't see a reason why it shouldn't be.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Housing, legalise it!

Pretty much solves most of our issues.

Okay everyone... we can close this thread now!

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

At the very least I would like to see the Norquay Village RM-7 zoning applied to the entire Lower Mainland. I really don't see a reason why it shouldn't be.

Freehold rowhomes!

And get rid of lot size requirements. Let architects and code consultants figure that out.

EDIT: Does Van allow "porkchop" lots? I think Edmonton does and it's pretty rad for laneways. Allows access for garbage / service from the lane to the house at the front, or on wider lots a full parking stall.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

The BCNDP have matured so much that people forget Eby used to be an Andy Yan believer on housing and actively promoted/aided his work before disavowing it

https://www.straight.com/news/attorn...glicized-names

People also forget that were was a power struggle on housing that Eby fought and defeated leftists like Selina Robinson on. It has been a nearly decade long struggle to get to this point, with the right people willing to engage with the science


https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...p-developments


The federal NDP could have good positions. But their bench is a clownshow. People need to show initiative. Even it means forcing Don Davies to accept reality by talking him down in person

David Eby says whatever he thinks will get him re-elected at the time.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

EDIT: Does Van allow "porkchop" lots? I think Edmonton does and it's pretty rad for laneways. Allows access for garbage / service from the lane to the house at the front, or on wider lots a full parking stall.

Doubt anybody'll give up their backyard willingly - they'd have to wait for somebody to sell, and at that point wouldn't it be easier to just build a duplex or quadplex?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Freehold rowhomes!

Now if only we had brownstone (and brownstone didn't disintegrate in an earthquake).

Personally I love the area, there are of course some unmitigated disasters like 4711 Slocan, but there's also a beautiful mix of quality housing you don't see anywhere else like 5653-5689 Killarney St (Courtyard townhouses), 2629-2639 Duke St (Freehold rowhouses), 5055-5069 Earles St (stacked townhouses), 2741-2745 Duke St and 2775 Ward St (stacked triplex), 5189-5197 Clarendon St (side-by-side triplex), 5391 Slocan St (Duplex + laneway house)

EDIT: Does Van allow "porkchop" lots? I think Edmonton does and it's pretty rad for laneways. Allows access for garbage / service from the lane to the house at the front, or on wider lots a full parking stall.

Besides the Southlands and Shaughnessy I think the largest lots you're going to find are 50'x120'. Subdivision doesn't make much sense to me; on the contrary the land is probably better off assembled to build more functional housing.