Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[WALKIEBRO]

Originally Posted by logan5

We've been building hundreds of towers for decades now, and I don't see this affordability materializing.

The vast majority of the market can't bear 1500/sq foot. There is a huge untapped market out there that simply cannot afford a condo, but could afford a lower cost (to build) ground oriented unit, we just need a land use policy that favours the majority and not the top 5%.

Every industry that I can think of that sells something has a high end product, but their bread and butter is the lower cost product that is affordable to the masses - ie Honda Civic, or a lower end TV. In Vancouver real estate, it's almost exclusively the luxury product that is available.

The reason affordability hasn't materialized is for two reasons. You might've been able to guess them, supply and demand. The price of anything literally anything in the world in a free market is a function of supply and demand.

First demand is very high. Vancouver is a very desirable place to live for people from across Canada and around the world. This will likely never change as it shouldn't. We've tried measured to reduce demand but in the end that hasn't worked and never will. That's just a reality of being a great city. We shouldn't be trying to reduce the attractiveness of our city and turn down investment in it anyways.

Next is supply, something we can control much more easily. You say we've been building hundreds of towers but we don't build very much supply at all actually. Just compare Vancouver to cities around the world. All our towers our concentrated in very small geographical areas and are tiny. Go to any major city and Vancouver looks like someone took a shrink ray to it. We should be building towers much taller and in more areas. Just looking at Vancouver proper for a second, we need to expand downtown both south and east. When you build truly tall towers it brings tons of supply online. Many condo projects in Toronto for example consist of over 1000 units each.

I completely agree that we also need more ground oriented development and development of every type. Townhouses, low rise, mid rise, high rise. But the notion that tall towers don't increase affordability is just completely false.

Just remember supply and demand. People like to add complexity, but that distracts from what truly drives prices. This must fundamental principle of economics always applies.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jlousa

We wouldn't even need a population decrease. We've been building more units then the population growth for over 2 decades now. (units starts*average occupants per dwelling) > population growth. It's not even close, even when accounting for less people per unit now.

I would like to see some statistics to back this up.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

I would like to see some statistics to back this up.

Readily available online.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Readily available online.

Then link them.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

MIRHPPs? Social housing? Mass timber? Removing parking mandates?

Of course, most of these are band-aid solutions, but the CoV's at least trying to create cheaper options while prices go down... given that Burnaby's got practically nothing in the pipeline except spot-zoned condo towers, their affordable housing plan is apparently "tough it out until Brentwood gets cheaper."

Any statistics or studies? Not doubting you, just wondering why the hell that's been the case for 20+ years and the main argument is still about supply.

That's part of my point though, building a lot of new supply will help, but it's not a short term solution. Those buildings *will* age, and *will* become more affordable rentals over time. But if you put your head in the sand and refuse to build anything that isn't "affordable", you'll just make the problem worse.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

We've been building hundreds of towers for decades now, and I don't see this affordability materializing.

The vast majority of the market can't bear 1500/sq foot. There is a huge untapped market out there that simply cannot afford a condo, but could afford a lower cost (to build) ground oriented unit, we just need a land use policy that favours the majority and not the top 5%.

We are building to barely meet demand, or less.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WALKIEBRO

Just remember supply and demand. People like to add complexity, but that distracts from what truly drives prices. This must fundamental principle of economics always applies.

Yep. There's a huge emotional component to homes that muddies the waters, but the biggest issue by far is regional zoning, approvals, and various delays and red tape.

I'm not advocating removing all laws and zones, but if we're in a "housing emergency", some more drastic actions need to be taken.

[GenWhy?]

So are getting rid of viewcones simply to increase a specific supply downtown to hopefully produce a trickle down (these condos would be in the top floors and most expensive, "luxury"), or is it to make housing in Van more affordable somehow in general.

[GenWhy?]

Getting rid of viewcones would also increase land values in the areas affected...

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

So are getting rid of viewcones simply to increase a specific supply downtown to hopefully produce a trickle down (these condos would be in the top floors and most expensive, "luxury"), or is it to make housing in Van more affordable somehow in general.

Not saying that it would work, but I guess you could make a case that development could lead towards changes to how developers approach projects on land outside that area. Though single family homes probably have a larger chokehold than anything that will be solved by towers.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I'd build at a lower cost and charge the same $psf. My Clients and marketing folks would demand nothing less from us. Not sure what this has to do with viewcones that are mainly in the DT peninsula

That's you if you want maximum profit for anything you do. However, throughout the world, this hasn't always been the case.

Government projects for affordable housing or affordable rental places can benefit from the change of Viewcones and other tall-building busting policies. These policies do not just apply to the downtown peninsula, but they set a damn lousy standard for anywhere else in this city.

Even with the for-profit private developers, the GVRD suburbs with their more liberal policies towards taller buildings are excellent examples how more affordable housing is provided to the masses, despite you believing that "clients and marketing folks would demand nothing less from us".

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Getting rid of viewcones would also increase land values in the areas affected...

It may for a bit, but the large number of air space created above this land will definitely lower the cost per unit in a tower, unless it is built by an unscrupulous developer hell-bent to make insane profits. But then if you have more developers building taller buildings, competition will ensure they don't overcharge. Demand is only very high when few in supply is available. Again you don't have to look anywhere else: the suburb municipalities provide the best of examples.

[GenWhy?]

Do new 1 beds in towers go for under $600k in Burnaby?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Do new 1 beds in towers go for under $600k in Burnaby?

Yes. In a quick search there's a 1-bedroom in one of the new towers at Brentwood for $500k.

[Migrant_Coconut]

If a developer is rich enough to build 60+ floors, they're almost always in the business of maximizing profit; it's the smaller developers that're more likely to respond to affordable housing incentives or rent/sell for cheaper.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's part of my point though, building a lot of new supply will help, but it's not a short term solution. Those buildings *will* age, and *will* become more affordable rentals over time. But if you put your head in the sand and refuse to build anything that isn't "affordable", you'll just make the problem worse.

Well, that's part of my point: if Burnaby wants to be affordable, they need a much more diverse selection of housing starts than they have right now. I see very few townhomes and zero rowhouses/duplexes/laneways in their foreseeable future, nor any densification outside of Lougheed or Kingsway.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yes. In a quick search there's a 1-bedroom in one of the new towers at Brentwood for $500k.

True, but only 531 sq. ft., so does that mean the new definition of 'affordable' should be anything selling for under $1,000 a square foot?

As this is a rather bizarre Vin suggestion that if towers were all 50 to 80 storeys they would be more affordable, can you find a 1-bed above the 40th floor going for under $600,000?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Vin

Wouldn't it make sense for willing developers to build at a lower cost before they can even make it cheaper for buyers to own?

That's a nice thought, but there is no cause-and-effect relationship between construction costs and sale price. Developers are focused on their margins, and they will happily take lower expenses without compromising on higher prices. Do you think a developer looks at their profit margin and says "Wow, we hit 7% when our budget was 5%. I guess we should lower our sales prices."

[Vin]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

That's a nice thought, but there is no cause-and-effect relationship between construction costs and sale price. Developers are focused on their margins, and they will happily take lower expenses without compromising on higher prices. Do you think a developer looks at their profit margin and says "Wow, we hit 7% when our budget was 5%. I guess we should lower our sales prices."

They will when there are governmental directives, as well as the right municipal policies that enable higher construction economies of scale for builders to get their profits via larger-scale developments. That's how cities in other countries OUTSIDE the Lower Mainland can provide affordable housing for their masses. For instance, affordable housing prices are capped, so developers simply can't screw the system. They need to work with it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Do new 1 beds in towers go for under $600k in Burnaby?

I'm not familiar with the market rate now, but as far as I can tell, the prices are still a lot lower than the average Vancouver 1-bedroom condo in a good urban neighbourhood. Even lower when you venture further to Coquitlam and Surrey. That, I'm confident. Only places that may be comparable with Vancouver's prices are traditionally the prime municipalities that refuse to densify, such as West Van.

[jlousa]

Since people have asked for the numbers and can't google them (hint they have been posted on this forums many times over the years as well).

Housing starts
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...ommunities.pdf

Population growth (been stable at ~1%yr)
https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/2...ver/population

Note the average household size is 2.2 people per dwelling.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

They will when there are governmental directives, as well as the right municipal policies that enable higher construction economies of scale for builders to get their profits via larger-scale developments. That's how cities in other countries OUTSIDE the Lower Mainland can provide affordable housing for their masses. For instance, affordable housing prices are capped, so developers simply can't screw the system. They need to work with it.

I agree cities can and have changed their zoning to allow taller buildings in select areas. I'm not sure this has translated to an increase in affordability.

Gilmore and Brentwood $psf are going up and I see Metrotown is at $1,300psf.

I still don't see how getting rid of viewcones makes condos cheaper in Vancouver.