Fee simple row housing-where's the problem?

Fee simple row housing is being developed in Langley (Fort Langley area), Surrey and New Westminster (Queensborough). What is the obstacle in Vancouver?

Is there a limit to # of housing units?

Is Vancouver able to house everyone?

Is there a maximum number of people that have housing?

What impact would doing away with private property have on housing prices (less so with multii-unity housing)?

Can everyone be housed in single family residential?

What is the social, evironmental, economic optimum mix of housing?

Should people have a job lined up before they move, or are only provided short-term shleter (if needed) and must line up a job, or other solution; or they must seek shleter eleswhere (with support)?

How sad is it when the director of a planning department can not afford to live in the city he/she is helping plan!

Revelstoke was a recent example of the above.

More Like Little Supply and Increased Demand

And a whole lot of speculation and add in boat loads of immigrants and you got a land developers dream and a housing bubble. And don't forget boat loads to help build that dream and clean the hospitals as they come to the promised land and take over low paying jobs. I guess its standards as these worker do as little as possible because they get paid as little as possible. Funny how that works and its why your hospitals are so filthy because local residents would have know this is just wrong.
And how is that all going to work out? Well this is what I believe is about to happen here in BC, because of the lack of affordable housing and no social safety as sick and dying given token amounts to live on as many hit the pavement. This province is going to be hit the hardest across Canada as its has the poorest of the poor where young children are left to fend for themselves. And because of this very treatment of a people its going to come back and haunt its originators as people will be REAL RELUCTANT to spend when they know it could be them on that sidewalk? And so it could as January was a record month for unemployment in BC as many lose(males/liberal supporters)their jobs and its going to continue as not British Colombians deal with recessionary blues with inflation biting at their heals.

Density

A major issue in Vancouver is density and zoning. There are really only two areas with reasonable density, Fariview and Joyce. Another issue is existing single family dwellers resisting density in their neighbourhoods. The basic fact will always remain that there isn't going to be much density west of Arbutus.

As for zoning, some areas need to be designated as rental and the owners of the building can receive tax incentives to build rental units. This can be done locally, federally or provincially. The MURB programme of the 1970s comes to mind.

The real irony is at the moment, condo builders are going bust all over the place but apartment owners are still seeing healthy revenue streams. That said, the market is deciding a lot right now; there are plenty of vacancy signs at rentals now and a year ago there were none.

And Wilfred

Prices have already come down a great deal its just that property taxes are coming out and it would cause an out cry for sure especially given an election is forth coming and its the kinda stuff that really hurts. Did you know residents in Calgary were hit with a 25% property tax increase despite recession as city says operating costs have increased? Well then with the carbon tax its even going to be extra scary in the new ERRIE. I would have to say property has dropped significantly and will continue to do so and many developers will crumble and fall. Its food prices and other such necessities that are going to cause the consumer much concern.

Well

Increased density also increases tax revenue. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people living in houses they have recently bought for $1m+ complaining about property tax hikes. More is the better in my opinion.

That said, Vancouver will probably see a 3-4% property tax increase. On said $1m house, it amounts to about $150 a year.

The carbon tax has been more that offset by income tax cuts combined with the reduction in gasoline prices as a whole. Your point is politically partisan in that the NDP opposes any carbon tax as it things that it will affect smokestack industries and union members. I have always found this quite odd since a carbon tax was official NDP policy for a very long time. But voters will decide on May 12. Campbell will easily win a third majority. It is only matter of how many seats he picks up in the new boundries.

Parking Requirements

"But there's one idea Toderian does not believe in, and that's the drumbeat most likely to emerge from today's UDI meeting. For several years now, Vancouver developers have argued that they could provide more affordable housing if only they were released from city requirements for social housing, parking and other expensive amenities."

Monte, please don't leave people with the impression that the only lobbying organizations that have asked for reduced parking requirements are those explicitly connected to construction or real estate businesses.

SmartGrowth BC has federal charitable status and claims to be an advocacy organization interested in promoting that type of growth that is "fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible and recognizes the connections between development and quality of life". It states that it came out of environmental law projects at UVic and the West Coast Environmental Law Assn. However, its board and advisorty board have several members representing real estate and development interests. It's annual awards dinner is very corporate in nature and is financed by sponsors.

SmartGrowth BC claims that auto-dependence can be reduced by lowering the parking requirements in new apartment buildings so that people will be encouraged to take transit, presumably because they either don't have a car, or won't have one once they move into an apartment with no available parking.

SmartGrowth BC goes onto claim that housing costs can be lowered into the bargain. SmartGrowth BC offers no explanation that I know of as to how project developers can be required to pass the construction cost savings along to the apartment purchaser.

For more, see their housing and transport policy statements.

Affordable Housing Policy
http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/Affordable_Housing_Policy.pdf

Transport Policy
http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/SGBC%20Transportation%20Policy.pdf

Unused Density

Walk up and down any major street in Vancouver and count all the single storey retail spaces on land zoned for 3-4 storey mixed use.

Then hire an architect or two who can design-in low building costs. These can be built for $50/sq.ft. Building costs need to be related to incomes.

Stock Plans for Homes

asp
Then hire an architect or two who can design-in low building costs. These can be built for $50/sq.ft. Building costs need to be related to incomes.

There are stock plans for single family homes and duplexes. You can see books of them at any drug store newstand.

Maybe the BC Govt should commission a panel of architects do design stock plans for apartment buildings. There would be the Model 1 to Model 5 plan for four storey buidlings, the Model 11 to Model 15 for eight stories, the Model 20 to 24 series for ten stories, etc. Any developer who used one of these plans would not need local government design approval or public hearings if the zoning called for apartments. That would reduce costs of getting approvals, and costs of construction as plans were made more modular and more replicable.

Hi Monte, thanks for our

Hi Monte, thanks for our discussion, and this great series. Just wanted to clarify one point, though. You wrote:

"The city is considering new zoning that would allow a more integrated mix of row houses, duplexes and apartments.

"We've already built that idea into the zoning for the East Fraser Lands project. It's our intent to take that idea citywide," Toderian said. "When applied over a whole city, that kind of pattern can have significant power."

There are several quotes there that dont quite fit together. The idea that I referenced that has been built into the EFL lands rezoning, that we're considering taking city-wide, is the idea of secondary suites, also called lock-off suites, within apartment condos. Its a clever idea pioneered in Simon Fraser's "UniverCity" development, that we've built into the EFL zoning (up to 25% of units within a condo building could have such separately rentable suites), and we're working on considering the idea city-wide in all apartment zones. It would change the basic affordability of the initial condo purchace, plus provide additional rental opportunites (or just be a choice for a caregiver, aging kids, etc).

Your reference quote to an integrated mix of zoning for housing types, is another powerful thought, but would not necessarily be considered "city-wide". It likely would be driven by opportunities such as locations next to transit, near shopping streets, etc, and would be strongly influenced by existing policy including the various community visions approved over the years.

I hope this helps.

Brent

Thank you for the clarification

Thanks for the clarification, Brent. We've edited the story and moved that quote where it belongs. I apologize for any confusion caused by my misunderstanding.

Another point that didn't make it into this article, but perhaps should have, was your observation about how Vancouver is a city of distinct neighbourhoods -- and how each neighbourhood has its own ideas about density and housing form. In that context, it only makes sense that no mix of forms would be applied "city-wide."

And thanks, also, for raising the potential of lock-off suites. This series will take a closer look at that idea next week.

Monte