Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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?

Just a concept from another municipality as part of the freehold, no-need-for-a-strata bull.

Again... it shouldn't be up to us or planners to decide what folks want / might do, as long as it meets code, setback rules, egress, etc. Someone might take it up!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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)

2629-2639 Duke is a strata. All those townhouses are strata, because so far in Vancouver nobody has come up with a workable legal solution to the 'party wall' problem, other than a more expensive double wall with a tiny gap (which was how the three freehold rowhouses on Cambie at 33rd were constructed in 2009).

Freehold rowhouse developments also can't share underground parking (so it's hard to get the 1.2 FSR that those other examples are built at). They're also more expensive to build than strata rowhouses; instead of a shared sewer and water connection between the row, there has to be one to each home, which also increases costs.

They have been built in Surrey and Langley, where they get called 'row-house' rather than townhouse, and they seem to sell at the same, or more psf as strata homes, (although presumably without the modest strata fees that strata townhouses pay). That suggests they aren't going to make any difference to 'affordability' one way or the other.

And their one big downside is that a strata corporation (usually) makes it clear who has to pay what to keep the property in good repair. Not necessarily so with a freehold rowhouse. (I've owned them, and they can have a whole other set of ownership/repair issues). Foxridge Homes make owners sign an agreement that says: “Purchaser(s) acknowledge the property shares a common wall with the adjacent property and the title is subject to a rowhome easement setting out the owner’s obligation to maintain and share in any costs relating to the maintenance and repair of any common elements of the building the lot shares with adjacent lots including common walls, perimeter drains, roof sheathing, exterior siding, gutters, and downspouts.”

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

2629-2639 Duke is a strata. All those townhouses are strata, because so far in Vancouver nobody has come up with a workable legal solution to the 'party wall' problem, other than a more expensive double wall with a tiny gap (which was how the three freehold rowhouses on Cambie at 33rd were constructed in 2009).

It seems you're right. However, I don't understand why it would be such a legal conundrum here when it seems to be very solved all across the Anglosphere (They're common all across the UK, New England, and Australia) and even here in Canada (Toronto is full of them).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It seems you're right. However, I don't understand why it would be such a legal conundrum here when it seems to be very solved all across the Anglosphere (They're common all across the UK, New England, and Australia) and even here in Canada (Toronto is full of them).

The associated problems aren't really solved, they're just downloaded to owners to sort out. Some municipalities are OK with that, others haven't been so far. It doesn't make the townhomes cheaper to build, (they cost more) but maybe they're cheaper to own, except a strata has to save for the rainy day when the roof has to be fixed, and freehold rowhouse owners face the 'oh shit, water's coming in, now what do we do?' problem. It's less disasterous in the UK where buildings are generally brick, or blockwork - the walls get damp and the wallpaper gets mouldy and peels off; here it can be worse because the frame can rot. (Although stratas face exactly the same problems, and still have to end up in court to solve those issues, sometimes.)

[SpongeG]

wrong thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

Dan Fumano: B.C.'s up-zoning plan could have unintended consequences: Metro Vancouver staff

Metro Vancouver planners are raising alarms about the province’s plan to up-zone low-density residential neighbourhoods, saying that could, “if not carefully considered,” hurt efforts to create walkable, transit-oriented zones...

... This week’s Metro Vancouver report says adding middle-income housing and infill development is generally aligned with regional goals, but adds: “Based on the limited information available to date, regional planning staff have noted some questions and possible concerns regarding the proposed legislation, its implementation, and potential unintended consequences that may result if not carefully considered.”

The report warns that if the provincial government tries to introduce “indiscriminate intensification too broadly” throughout the region, it could hurt Metro’s ability to achieve its own planning goals, such as focusing density in urban centres and along transit routes.

The provincial government should also “consider and communicate” how school and hospital capacity will be addressed, the report says...

... B.C. Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon welcomed the input.

“This is why we are doing the engagement, to hear from folks on the different perspectives. But one thing we’ve been clear about is that we are heading in this direction. We need to head in this direction.”

The province will consider opinions of local and regional governments over the coming months to influence the legislative changes expected to be introduced in the fall.

Kahlon said the B.C. NDP is spending heavily on infrastructure, which is crucial to supporting growth, “but it’s not an excuse not to build housing...”

Seems like kind of a nothingburger. It's not like the province is going to bulk-rezone Champlain Heights or Arbutus Ridge for midrises.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dan Fumano: B.C.'s up-zoning plan could have unintended consequences: Metro Vancouver staff



Seems like kind of a nothingburger. It's not like the province is going to bulk-rezone Champlain Heights or Arbutus Ridge for midrises.

Yeah, most of the 'single elderly dwelling' exclusion zones are losing people. Rezoning them all en masse to allow fourplexes with an FSR of at least 1.5 would probably just stabilize the population in these areas - might even prevent a few school closures

[WarrenC12]

I agree the article is a bit of a nothingburger, but this did stand out:

The provincial government should also “consider and communicate” how school and hospital capacity will be addressed

They've done a poor job on both of these in the past.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dan Fumano: B.C.'s up-zoning plan could have unintended consequences: Metro Vancouver staff



Seems like kind of a nothingburger. It's not like the province is going to bulk-rezone Champlain Heights or Arbutus Ridge for midrises.

It's a straight up attempt to lionize the intentional failed housing policy of municipalities. Oh no, housing might be built away from extremely loud and polluted stroads think about the consequences. You're actually anti density and anti urbanism if your dislike the failed and poorly planned stroad urbanism and vertical segregation along skytrain stops

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

It's a straight up attempt to lionize the intentional failed housing policy of municipalities. Oh no, housing might be built away from extremely loud and polluted stroads think about the consequences. You're actually anti density and anti urbanism if your dislike the failed and poorly planned stroad urbanism and vertical segregation along skytrain stops

True, although I thought the article itself was fair, although it could have pointed out that many of these areas where an influx of 4-plexes could supposedly strain the infrastructure are currently losing people and have been for some time.

It is always funny to me that Andy Yan is in charge of something called a 'City Program'. Doesn't some institution have a 'Village Program' somewhere that could take him on - seems like it would be a win for everyone.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

... Oh no, housing might be built away from extremely loud and polluted stroads think about the consequences. You're actually anti density and anti urbanism if your dislike the failed and poorly planned stroad urbanism and vertical segregation along skytrain stops

Yes, how could putting all the density as far away as possible from the transit infrastructure (which allows said density to begin with) somehow blow up in the province's face?

Thankfully, that's not a thing, and the stroads are starting to be pedestrianized one by one.

[Greetingsfromcanada]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yes, how could putting all the density as far away as possible from the transit infrastructure (which allows said density to begin with) somehow blow up in the province's face?

Thankfully, that's not a thing, and the stroads are starting to be pedestrianized one by one.

Yes, of course. Because failed housing policies always have some benign excuse that doesn't ever hold up. If we upzoned just a 2 mile bubble around skytrain lines, people would say the same thing. It's not like 54% of trips in Vancouver walked, cycled, or took transit I'm 2018. It's not like a huge % of people work from home now. It's not like there's extremely frequent bus service or local amenities across the entire city. Those are fantasies. Unlike the realist viewpoint of less housing now, which is totally reasonable and not unhinged position to hold given the circumstances young or otherwise non property owning people face

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Yes, of course. Because failed housing policies always have some benign excuse that doesn't ever hold up. If we upzoned just a 2 mile bubble around skytrain lines, people would say the same thing. It's not like 54% of trips in Vancouver walked, cycled, or took transit I'm 2018. It's not like a huge % of people work from home now. It's not like there's extremely frequent bus service or local amenities across the entire city. Those are fantasies. Unlike the realist viewpoint of less housing now, which is totally reasonable and not unhinged position to hold given the circumstances young or otherwise non property owning people face

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of those pedestrians, bikers and transit users do indeed originate from the inner city and the major transit corridors.

Should we still densify the City's suburbs anyway? Yes.
Should we have the necessary infrastructure in place as well, lest all the new residents drive and we end up with a lot more gridlock? Yes.
Should we concentrate the densest growth along places that already have the majority of non-driving commuters? Especially yes.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of those pedestrians, bikers and transit users do indeed originate from the inner city and the major transit corridors.

Should we still densify the City's suburbs anyway? Yes.
Should we have the necessary infrastructure in place as well, lest all the new residents drive and we end up with a lot more gridlock? Yes.
Should we concentrate the densest growth along places that already have the majority of non-driving commuters? Especially yes.

Thank you. This is a realistic, all-encompassing response that, I hope, will be taken seriously and remain in people's minds as a blueprint for the future, starting now.
I appreciate how you have cut through the pedantic 'fluff' that planners and citizens alike have come up with. We're in a crisis, and dithering and quibbling over it all serves nothing.
You got down to the nitty-gritty and I hope people internalize your statement, and get on with the necessary measures ASAP. Again, thank you.

[whatnext]

This isn't really Housing Supply Act but rather than have multiple threads on gov't initiatives....

B.C. launches $500M rental building buy fund
-Katie Maslechko, CEO, will stick handle controversial B.C. government program that aims to help non-profits buy and preserve older rental apartment buildings
By Frank O'Brien, Western Investor | June 28, 2023, 2:15pm

B.C.’s new and controversial Rental Protection Fund, officially launched Wednesday, has named former Beedie executive Katie Maslechko as CEO.

The $500 million fund, backed by the B.C. government, aims to help First Nations and other non-profit groups buy older “affordable” rental buildings to preserve them as low-cost rental housing.

Maslechko is the former director of development for Vancouver-based real estate developer Beedie, and has street cred in working with non-profits.

The Housing Central partners – the Aboriginal Housing Management Association (AHMA), BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA) and the Co-operative Housing Federation of BC (CHF BC) – have advocated for a rental housing acquisition fund for several years to help stem the net loss of affordable homes.

For every new affordable rental home that is built, three more are lost to conversions, demolition and rent increases, the partners noted.

The Rental Protection Fund will enable non-profit housing providers to purchase existing residential rental buildings “and protect their affordability for current and future residents.”

The fund is overseen by a board of directors drawn from the non-profit partners and will be operated by Maslechko and her staff.

“I am truly excited by the ripple effect this investment will create by putting it in the hands of the community housing sector,” Maslechko said. “Not only will it permanently protect affordable homes, it will also create more equitable access to capital.”..

.....The plan is not without critics, however, including non-profit housing providers.

Ken Fraser, executive director of the non-profit Vancouver Resource Society, which purchases apartment units designated as below-market rentals from developers, sees the $500 million fund as a money loser.

“I wouldn’t waste taxpayers’ money buying old dilapidated 50-year-old apartment buildings,” he said, noting that it is difficult to even get insurance on aging stock that needs expensive wiring, plumbing and HVAC upgrades.

“It makes common sense to allow a developer to buy an old 20-unit property on a large lot and build 60 to 70 units of modern rentals that would last another 50 years," Fraser said.

There is also some doubt the fund would save many rentals, at least in Metro Vancouver. Of the older apartment building sales in the region sold so far this year, the average price per door has been $400,000. This means that the $500 million rental fund, if fully subscribed, would salvage no more than 1,250 rental units in the area most in need of affordable rentals.....

https://biv.com/article/2023/06/bc-l...lding-buy-fund

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by officedweller

39-storey rental housing towers proposed for Moody Centre SkyTrain
Kenneth Chan|Jul 11 2023, 3:17 pm
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/60-w...rental-housing

A blurb that caught my attention:

The process to amend the OCP was sluggish with the previous makeup of City Council, and when the municipality’s previous elected officials suggested the idea of lowering the allowable density next to the transit hub, the provincial government essentially fired a warning shot to the municipal government.

The provincial government is also one of the landowners within the master plan area. Earlier this year, it also named the City of Port Moody as one of the first jurisdictions under the new provincial Housing Supply Act, which mandates the municipal government to meet new housing supply quotas established by the Ministry of Housing.


Conceptual form depiction of Moody Centre Transit-Oriented Development in Port Moody. (Moody Centre TOD)

[Sheba]

As it's related...

Ottawa considering a cap on international students to ease housing pressure, says Fraser

The federal government is considering a cap on the number of international students to ease the pressure on the housing market, says the man now tasked with tackling Canada's housing crisis.

"I think that's one of the options that we ought to consider," federal Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Minister Sean Fraser told reporters as the Liberal cabinet gathered in Charlottetown on Monday.

"I think we need to do some serious thinking here."

Canada hosted more than 800,000 international students last year, according to the government's figures.

...

"If they're going to continue to bring in record numbers of students, that they are being part of the solution as well by making sure that they have a place to live," he said.

...

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Sheba

As it's related...

Ottawa considering a cap on international students to ease housing pressure, says Fraser

“I think we need to do some serious thinking here”

The time for that was years ago. Of course we need less competition in the housing market… Just do something about it.

The Libs are going to lose power next election due to this issue. You’d think they’d want to put more effort into saving themselves. The Cons will dupe voters into thinking they are the alternative, but they aren’t offering anything better.

[WarrenC12]

I'll put this in the "better late than never" file. Their re-election ship may have already sailed, but this is a move in the right direction.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'll put this in the "better late than never" file. Their re-election ship may have already sailed, but this is a move in the right direction.

Yes, but they literally said they’re only considering it, at this point, so late in the game…