Vancouver Infill & Lowrise Updates Discussion

[misher]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That's rubbish on may levels.

First many units are left vacant, or lived in part time when mommy comes to visit the kids she dumped in a Canadian school.

The capital would be far better directed at purpose built rentals. There's absolutely nothing stopping offshore investors from buying Canadian REITs.

At current price points everything built in the CoV (which contains 3 of our biggest employment hubs) would be considered "luxury". Offshore money bidding up land prices has ensured that. I believe those Belpark units start at @ $1.5 million.

We have a foreign buyer tax and an empty home tax so isn’t most of what the last two messages mention old news? Let’s talk about the current market lol. Foreign buyers are less than 1% now and empty homes are around 3%. Likely 1-2% of that is people on vacation/travelling or empty due to estates/legal issues.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by misher

We have a foreign buyer tax and an empty home tax so isn’t most of what the last two messages mention old news? Let’s talk about the current market lol. Foreign buyers are less than 1% now and empty homes are around 3%. Likely 1-2% of that is people on vacation/travelling or empty due to estates/legal issues.

I was just going to post something similar.

Such a small percentage are left vacant nowadays

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by misher

We have a foreign buyer tax and an empty home tax so isn’t most of what the last two messages mention old news? Let’s talk about the current market lol. Foreign buyers are less than 1% now and empty homes are around 3%. Likely 1-2% of that is people on vacation/travelling or empty due to estates/legal issues.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I was just going to post something similar.

Such a small percentage are left vacant nowadays

that is only if;
1 - you assume it can be accurately counted (these are the same people who said foreign buyers only accounted for "3.3%" but was revealed to be about 10% as a whole. as high as 19% in Richmond, 18% Burnaby, 11% Vancouver, 9% Surrey)
2 - people actually care about the vacancy tax
3 - people don't have ways to get around it with their birth-tourism family/and people they paid off
4 - they aren't using other means of hiding it

lets not forget, only the CoV has a vacancy tax. Metro is much larger than the CoV.

look around at night, and tell me only a tiny amount is empty. there is no way it is "3%" since i can see all the units that never have lights on; ever.

[misher]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that is only if;
1 - you assume it can be accurately counted (these are the same people who said foreign buyers only accounted for "3.3%" but was revealed to be about 10% as a whole. as high as 19% in Richmond, 18% Burnaby, 11% Vancouver, 9% Surrey)
2 - people actually care about the vacancy tax
3 - people don't have ways to get around it with their birth-tourism family/and people they paid off
4 - they aren't using other means of hiding it

lets not forget, only the CoV has a vacancy tax. Metro is much larger than the CoV.

look around at night, and tell me only a tiny amount is empty. there is no way it is "3%" since i can see all the units that never have lights on; ever.

1. Lol well we’ve done what we can to stop foreign buyers and they appear to all be taking their money to Montreal (I even see less super cars in Richmond!). So let’s stop bringing it up.

2. It’s a lot of money so if they don’t care then let them were making a ton.

3. So be it you can’t stop it? I doubt it’s a high number.

4. You can only waist so much time and energy chasing this. We did the obvious stuff and it’s clear foreign buying is way down. Let’s focus on the other problems not instead of beating a dead horse.

5. Metro Vancouver doesn’t have housing problems like Vancouver. The COV is the one with high amounts of rentals, the highest costs to develop, and the longest time to get a development permit. Everywhere else is building to avoid COV’s issues.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by misher

1. Lol well we’ve done what we can to stop foreign buyers and they appear to all be taking their money to Montreal (I even see less super cars in Richmond!). So let’s stop bringing it up.

2. It’s a lot of money so if they don’t care then let them were making a ton.

3. So be it you can’t stop it? I doubt it’s a high number.

4. You can only waist so much time and energy chasing this. We did the obvious stuff and it’s clear foreign buying is way down. Let’s focus on the other problems not instead of beating a dead horse.

5. Metro Vancouver doesn’t have housing problems like Vancouver. The COV is the one with high amounts of rentals, the highest costs to develop, and the longest time to get a development permit. Everywhere else is building to avoid COV’s issues.

The Numbers
----- 2001 -----
2001 population --------------- = 545,670 residents
2001 private dwellings -------- = 248,981 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.46

----- 2011 -----
2011 population --------------- = 603,500 residents
2011 private dwellings -------- = 286,742 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.48

----- 2016 -----
2016 population --------------- = 631,486 residents
2016 private dwellings -------- = 309,418 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.49

so everyone says there is a supply issue yet when looking at the ratio from residents to dwellings it seems to show a different picture. that is because the # of households per resident has increased. if it were a supply issue, the opposite would happen. (per-capita increases are a good thing). also, since the average wage has not gone up all that much, yet the price of housing has skyrocketed, how are people affording these places? clearly someone is buying. but who? since very few can afford it, and there is more than enough supply.

and yes, those are just CoV numbers.
StatsCan
CoV Housing Fact Sheet
MetroVan Population & Dwelling Counts(shows City breakdowns)

the numbers just don't scream to me that is a supply issue... maybe they do to you... but they don't to me.



but this is the end of the argument for me.

[misher]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

The Numbers
----- 2001 -----
2001 population --------------- = 545,670 residents
2001 private dwellings -------- = 248,981 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.46

----- 2011 -----
2011 population --------------- = 603,500 residents
2011 private dwellings -------- = 286,742 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.48

----- 2016 -----
2016 population --------------- = 631,486 residents
2016 private dwellings -------- = 309,418 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.49

so everyone says there is a supply issue yet when looking at the ratio from residents to dwellings it seems to show a different picture. that is because the # of households per resident has increased. if it were a supply issue, the opposite would happen. (per-capita increases are a good thing). also, since the average wage has not gone up all that much, yet the price of housing has skyrocketed, how are people affording these places? clearly someone is buying. but who? since very few can afford it, and there is more than enough supply.

and yes, those are just CoV numbers.
StatsCan
CoV Housing Fact Sheet
MetroVan Population & Dwelling Counts(shows City breakdowns)

the numbers just don't scream to me that is a supply issue... maybe they do to you... but they don't to me.



but this is the end of the argument for me.

While number of dwellings has gone up your not looking at the type of housing. Most of the new housing has been condos that are much smaller than the old ones. While the housing from 2001 was houses and larger condos. Also families have been moving out while single workers moving in.

[Changing City]

The population numbers aren't the right ones to use. You need the population living in private dwellings, not total population. Household size has fallen over 15 years. Families with children have fewer children, and there are more single person households.

I could post the correct numbers, and continue the discussion, but this is way off topic, and not the right thread.

[red-paladin]

This is definitely way off topic.

[cov]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

The Numbers
----- 2001 -----
2001 population --------------- = 545,670 residents
2001 private dwellings -------- = 248,981 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.46

----- 2011 -----
2011 population --------------- = 603,500 residents
2011 private dwellings -------- = 286,742 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.48

----- 2016 -----
2016 population --------------- = 631,486 residents
2016 private dwellings -------- = 309,418 private dwellings
# of households per resident - = 0.49

so everyone says there is a supply issue yet when looking at the ratio from residents to dwellings it seems to show a different picture. that is because the # of households per resident has increased. if it were a supply issue, the opposite would happen. (per-capita increases are a good thing). also, since the average wage has not gone up all that much, yet the price of housing has skyrocketed, how are people affording these places? clearly someone is buying. but who? since very few can afford it, and there is more than enough supply.

and yes, those are just CoV numbers.
StatsCan
CoV Housing Fact Sheet
MetroVan Population & Dwelling Counts(shows City breakdowns)

the numbers just don't scream to me that is a supply issue... maybe they do to you... but they don't to me.



but this is the end of the argument for me.

This reads like a slow reduction in household size than condos being left empty. the portion of single bedroom dwellings has greatly increased compared to 3+ bedroom dwellings, which is the result of land scarcity produced by outdated zoning regulations.

[Feathered Friend]

New Dunbar Development Excludes One Bedroom Homes to Gain Community Acceptance

4464 Dunbar Street
While we have friends who’s parents live in Dunbar and who support greater density, and have recently witnessed support in the community for the Make Room Duplex Policy, we were still expecting a high level of opposition to this proposal when we went down to Dunbar for this open house. Though we were not as involved with our community in the past, we still remember the news coverage of the extreme backlash to a 6 story building which was proposed for the former site of Stong’s Market. Ultimately, that led to city staff rejecting it before it had a chance to be heard at a public hearing.

However, much like the open house about the Make Room Policy, we were completely wrong about the mood of this proposal’s reception. While it seems we missed the early rush by the time we arrived at roughly 6pm, we still had a chance to converse with many of the roughly 50 people that came through. By far the largest complaint we heard was a concern that the retail stores were too large to survive, and should be broken down into small store fronts. This is something that actually seems possible, given the jagged design of the storefronts along Dunbar.

Apparently that element was initially opposed by city staff, but the applicant managed to successfully convince them of its benefits. Unfortunately, they were unable to repeat this feat when it came to the location of the amenity room, which was originally planned to overlook the plaza space at the southwest corner of the building. As staff felt this concept would negatively impact the privacy of those using the square, the applicant was forced to relocate the amenity. However, we feel the new location, along with a policy that requires the indoor amenity area be paired with an outdoor space, has created new problems. Now located in the northeast corner along the laneway, the outdoor space neighbours the building’s loading bay area, so neither Darren nor I think it will see much use.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/09/26...room-homes-to-gain-community-acceptance/

[red-paladin]

The direction this design has gone saddens me.

[Smooth]

That same piece of art used to be outside the Olympic Village Canada Line Station... until it was destroyed by skateboarders.

You can see it here on Google Street View circa 2011:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2664311,-...Xa0z631dXRDL3_yoq0Qgg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Smooth

That same piece of art used to be outside the Olympic Village Canada Line Station... until it was destroyed by skateboarders.

I was just going to say... didn't they learn from the OV Station piece?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

The direction this design has gone saddens me.

What was the previous on this one? I'd drawing a blank.

[misher]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I was just going to say... didn't they learn from the OV Station piece?

You got to admit things at knee level that can be tripped over and sat on are not exactly the best thing to install in a walking area.

[officedweller]

The one at OV station became a skateboard ramp.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sculpture-gouged-by-skateboarders-1.819013

[GenWhy?]

Changes made to proposal on the edge of the DTES. One of the 1st projects in the Kiwassa neighbourhood under its new design guidelines.


https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/1102-1138egeorgia/index.htm

[Feathered Friend]

Above -Previous Version - https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/elevs.pdf/ Below -Current Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/landscape.pdf


Above -Previous Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/elevations.pdf / Below -Current Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/landscapeplans.pdf

Fears of Tree Sap and UDP Recommendations Lead to Pruning Down of Kitsilano Rental Housing

2715 West 12th Avenue
Darren and I have noticed that many people who speak at public hearings seem to think the item in front of them is the first and only iteration of the developer’s vision. In reality, these proposals are usually trimmed down versions of what the applicant had originally put forward. Often the design has been significantly altered by previous public engagement, the city’s advisory panels, staff teams with years of training, and numerous, often conflicting, guidelines before it even gets near city council.

This is the case with this simple Kitsilano rental project that, despite resembling 7 row homes, actually provides a total of 14 homes. As it is proposed under a previous version of the Affordable Housing Choices Interim Rezoning Policy, half of those homes will be partially sunken into the ground. That said, they will still provide far more affordability, livability, and stability than the basement suite mortgage-helpers found in the area.

https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/10/05...runing-down-of-kitsilano-rental-housing/

[GenWhy?]

This was pretty much the original design for the row homes with the City playing around with having it as one building, splitting into tow, constantly recommending new locations for the playground... the friend and their colleagues had a hell of a time hearing one thing.. changing the design just to hear what they had originally be recommended in another phase by the City.

The reason the playground was moved to the back was because, even though there is more light, they City didn't want it near a "busy road". Ultimately, I was told it came down the City demanding less FSR through design. Hence why I work in Burnaby mostly. Hate to be the team on this little project. This project was on the brink due to the City cuts and shaves that it almost became 2 SF homes.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

Above -Previous Version - https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/elevs.pdf/ Below -Current Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/landscape.pdf


Above -Previous Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/elevations.pdf / Below -Current Version https://rezoning.vancouver.ca/applications/2715w12th/documents/landscapeplans.pdf




https://cityduo.wordpress.com/2018/10/05...runing-down-of-kitsilano-rental-housing/

Fears of tree sap? Is that for real?