Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

... Once the SLS is built though, 176th and Fraser Highway is going to look a little bit silly. However, I'm pretty sure this is a political non-starter right now...

Yup, that's the one I had in mind. Obviously there's no pressure now with it being ecologically sensitive and flood-prone and all the suburbistan on either side, but in 2060 when Fleetwood looks like Metrotown and there's still a big gap between Surrey and Langley...

Originally Posted by djmk

- snip -

Already covered Pacific Highway above; development is controversial at the moment due to it being critical marshland and river watershed, as well as being so close to sea level. Same thing for the Garden City Lands in Richmond (which is planned to still be a park).

Southlands is a Musqueam reserve. The golf courses that aren't? Fairly out of the way of any bike or transit routes, and South Dunbar hates pedestrians, so you'd have thousands of new drivers clogging up SW Marine. Riverway is much the same.

South and east of Langley, Richmond or Coquitlam? Forget it.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Once the SLS is built though, 176th and Fraser Highway is going to look a little bit silly.

To add to the point, most of the ALR land in Surrey is in a flood risk area, such as 176th/Highway 15 and Fraser Hwy. We should be building climate change resistant development, not development in areas with a greater risk of flooding.

[seamusmcduff]

Only 5% of the province is within the ALR, there really isn't a lot of available agricultural land in BC, and the Ag land in the Lower mainland is some of the best in the Country. It should be protected at all costs. Even if it's currently not currently being used for the most productive uses in a lot of cases, the fact that it remains available is extremely important long term and adds to our countries resiliency. In the event of trade wars, droughts, and other global events, it is important for us to have the growing capacity for crops that really can't be grown anywhere else in the Country but here.

I understand that it would be more convenient to development the ALR for a lot of people, but there is plenty of underutilized land all across the lower mainland if there was the political will to touch it (which we are finally seeing).

[mcj]

Originally Posted by djmk

the new surrey skytrain goes through massive amounts of ALR.

2km of high flood risk ALR land isn't a massive amount

[Migrant_Coconut]

They could build a floodable district like Tokyo or Philly... but I suspect either option is too pricey for our local get-rich-quick developers.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by djmk

the new surrey skytrain goes through massive amounts of ALR.

Landsdown Station is like 800 meters from an ALR

Riverway Golf course (in the ALR) is very close to the River District and can be high density.

And who the heck is farming in Point Grey?

I'm not say lets do it. But, I think some urban parcels should be worth a discussion

map : https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr-maps/

I can't believe golf courses are part of the ALR. Do they predate the reserve or something?

[FarmerHaight]

What's the average FAR of a four- or six-plex in Montreal? I think those should be allowed on any lot in Vancouver proper.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I can't believe golf courses are part of the ALR. Do they predate the reserve or something?

They're growing grass, silly!

[seamusmcduff]

The reason they are there and remain the ALR is because they can be converted back to Agricultural land fairly easily if necessary. Same can't be said for the suburbs.

Even if they aren't farmland right now, they can still be considered available arable land.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

What's the average FAR of a four- or six-plex in Montreal? I think those should be allowed on any lot in Vancouver proper.

Randomly Google'd for a 6plex for sale in Montreal:

https://www.remax-du-cartier-montreal-qc...ont-la-petite-patrie-6325-av-de-lorimier

Looks like a 3 story x 25' x 45' building for 3375 square feet on a 2798 square feet for almost exactly 1.20 FSR.

Perhaps 1.20 FSR?

[CanSpice]

There is so much single family home land available for densification that we shouldn't even have to entertain the thought of developing ALR land. People talk about the future SkyTrain running through ALR land in Surrey when they completely ignore already existing SkyTrain stations like Lake City Way or Sperling-Burnaby Lake or 29th Avenue or 22nd Street or Scott Road or Production Way or Holdom or Nanaimo. There isn't even going to be a station anywhere near the ALR in Surrey and yet there are eight already existing stations that can and should be densified.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

There is so much single family home land available for densification that we shouldn't even have to entertain the thought of developing ALR land. People talk about the future SkyTrain running through ALR land in Surrey when they completely ignore already existing SkyTrain stations like Lake City Way or Sperling-Burnaby Lake or 29th Avenue or 22nd Street or Scott Road or Production Way or Holdom or Nanaimo. There isn't even going to be a station anywhere near the ALR in Surrey and yet there are eight already existing stations that can and should be densified.

of course it should be densified except land assembly is hard and expensive. And some would argue that industrial land is more important than farm land...

either way, the ALR is here to stay.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I can't believe golf courses are part of the ALR. Do they predate the reserve or something?

No!

Golf courses started in 1988 apparently

https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/assets/alc/ass...ry/alr_historical_roots_-_runka_2006.pdf

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Opinion polls aren't predicting future results. They're predicting current results. Yes, the situation can change in the next two years but as things stand right now the LPC is hurting and the CPC is capitalizing. Scheer ran a horrible campaign and managed to turn away both Quebec with his abysmal French, and all the progressive conservatives and blue liberals with his not-so-secret not-very-progressive conservative social views. You can't win in the Quebec suburbs without French and you certainly can't win in the BC suburbs without at least moderately socially liberal views.

Poilievre is a native French speaker and doesn't have the socially conservative baggage Scheer had. I wouldn't count him out just yet.

This is all coming from an ABC (federal ABC) voter.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I've been talking about the actual election this entire time, and "current results" are somewhat useless in that regard.

Francophone or not, Polly Oliver's already thrown in support for the convoys and WEF conspiracies (I'll make it fair and give him the benefit of the doubt on the anti-abortion, Straight Pride and MGTOW crap); that's plenty of social conservative baggage just in the first ten months. Will the Libs who hate JT pick him over Singh just for a "develop or else" platform? Probably not.

Just to be clear, Pierre Poilievre's French is pretty good but he's not a native speaker and not a francophone.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by logan5

But then FSR 1.5 makes the land even more pricey.

I am skeptical of what gets said because a lot of what gets said is developer propaganda. They always want more than what is given. I’d love to see some actual numbers.

Did you even click on the links I shared and read them? That pro-forma is from Russil Wvong, a housing advocate by night, and a software developer by day. There's nothing in his work that shows he's in the pocket of developers. Perhaps it's unbelievable to you but it's possible for someone to advocate for housing without being in the pocket of developers because they just want people to have housing. His analysis is shared by others including the very people who came up with proposed plan (City of Vancouver planners) who have said that the policy will only result in 150 builds a year with financial viability being a key reason.

We also have Victoria's failed (and similar) plan to look at - not a single development has been submitted all year and the internal analysis they released answered why: The expected profit margin was between 0-10% when developers expect at least 10% to make the project viable, the city naively thought developers would build housing that makes little to no money.

re: But then FSR 1.5 makes the land even more pricey.

Land value doesn't rise in a linear fashion as density increases and the fixed costs of construction can be spread across more of the units result in more affordability and more profit.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Randomly Google'd for a 6plex for sale in Montreal:

https://www.remax-du-cartier-montreal-qc...ont-la-petite-patrie-6325-av-de-lorimier

Looks like a 3 story x 25' x 45' building for 3375 square feet on a 2798 square feet for almost exactly 1.20 FSR.

Perhaps 1.20 FSR?

Despite what plenty of politicians and pontificators say, I think plenty of young families in Vancouver and Toronto would happily trade in a detached home in Abbotsford or Guelph for a slightly smaller multi-family unit with access to a shared yard and a patio in the city.

I know my wife and I with one kid plan to not ditch apartment living until we can afford a townhouse in the city, but that is far out of reach for us currently, and most families ever, because there are so few of them.

If Vancouver were to allow four- and six-plexes, rowhouses, townhouses, etc. anywhere in the city, and not make them infeasible with parking minimums, unreasonably low FAR, silly height restrictions, or "neighbourhood character" concerns, I think we could actually make progress on the unaffordability issue. And lets not pretend that this will bring carmageddon or overwhelm schools and other amenities in every neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods that would see the biggest density increase have had falling or stagnant populations for years, and many neighbourhoods are already full of homes with two or three units. The problem is one unit is a small basement suite, one unit is a cramped carriage house, and the other unit is a massive SFH. Only one of those units is appropriate for families, and it is far too expensive for most.

Continue to build tall along rapid transit lines, and increase density by 2x or 3x across the rest of the city; that should be the city's plan.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Hence I'm surprised the CPC has not gotten onto the GST cut for rental construction bandwagon

Absolutely. But then I'm surprised the Liberals haven't examined what they did in the 1960's and '70s to spur so much rental construction and updated it for today. They've had eight years.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Absolutely. But then I'm surprised the Liberals haven't examined what they did in the 1960's and '70s to spur so much rental construction and updated it for today. They've had eight years.

Pre-COVID I think it would have been seen as a corporate tax break during a boom time for all those "big city folks".

During and post COVID probably seen as a tax break during a time of ballooning expenses.

I think it's only possible to execute when the whole country wakes up and realizes there is a crisis (including those comfortably housed) that action takes place, unfortunately it's both right now and too late.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just to be clear, Pierre Poilievre's French is pretty good but he's not a native speaker and not a francophone.

I was under the impression that he grew up speaking French at home with his French Canadian parents making him both a Francophone and a native speaker, but from what I read his French fluency is a little bit worse than Trudeau's (who apparently doesn't come across as fully fluent either).

In retrospect, based off of friends of mine who grew up speaking their family language at home but nowhere else, yeah they probably don't come across as native speakers either.

As long as it's enough to get him through the door in Quebec though, what more does he need?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I was under the impression that he grew up speaking French at home with his French Canadian parents making him both a Francophone and a native speaker, but from what I read his French fluency is a little bit worse than Trudeau's (who apparently doesn't come across as fully fluent either).

In retrospect, based off of friends of mine who grew up speaking their family language at home but nowhere else, yeah they probably don't come across as native speakers either.

As long as it's enough to get him through the door in Quebec though, what more does he need?

Trudeau is fully fluent but he doesn’t sound native. There is something slightly artificial or stilted when he speaks French that is hard to pinpoint. But that’s also his personality in general.