HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 5:52 AM
bardak bardak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 356
Slowly the Vancouver Charter is being brought in line with the local government act
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 6:40 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by bardak View Post
Slowly the Vancouver Charter is being brought in line with the local government act
Does anyone have a good reason for the Vancouver Charter to even exist? It's not as though Burnaby or Richmond or North Vancouver are under the Vancouver Charter so it's a little silly to me for there to be a separate managing act for the area between the Inlet, River, and Boundary Road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 6:57 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,423
Same reason the Indian Act is still a thing: the pain of getting rid of it is greater than the pain of keeping it.

It's already a step up from its predecessor, with stuff like "no Chinaman or Indian shall be entitled to vote in any municipal election" and all that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 7:07 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Same reason the Indian Act is still a thing: the pain of getting rid of it is greater than the pain of keeping it.

It's already a step up from its predecessor, with stuff like "no Chinaman or Indian shall be entitled to vote in any municipal election" and all that.
The difference is that there are a lot of individual powers at be that aren't interested in reform for the Indian Act. Is there really a strong push from Vancouver to keep the Vancouver Act?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 8:03 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
The difference is that there are a lot of individual powers at be that aren't interested in reform for the Indian Act. Is there really a strong push from Vancouver to keep the Vancouver Act?
Is there a concentrated push to ditch it? AFAIK it only ever comes up when we're talking about the Parks Board, and that one might become past-tense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 8:05 AM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
Is there a concentrated push to ditch it? AFAIK it only ever comes up when we're talking about the Parks Board, and that one might become past-tense.
Yeah I guess there isn't much of a care either way. Status quo reigns supreme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 3:23 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,764
Vancouver "needs" special powers to do things like the empty homes tax and the short term rental rules. Now those examples are becoming Province-wide, but I'd argue Vancouver is ahead of the curve on stuff like this.

It would be nice if the Province was leading, but in many ways they aren't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 5:08 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Vancouver "needs" special powers to do things like the empty homes tax and the short term rental rules. Now those examples are becoming Province-wide, but I'd argue Vancouver is ahead of the curve on stuff like this.

It would be nice if the Province was leading, but in many ways they aren't.
Why does Vancouver need "need" special powers but Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Kelowna... don't?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2024, 5:44 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Why does Vancouver need "need" special powers but Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Kelowna... don't?
Yeah fair question. I don't know what all is in there, but the rest are governed by the Municipalities Act or whatever it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2024, 5:27 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou View Post
Why does Vancouver need "need" special powers but Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Kelowna... don't?
They don’t but it’s been used as a tool by civic politicians for generations to live in Their own little fiefdom with the ability to go against certain initiatives that they don’t much care for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2024, 3:38 PM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,669
Quote:
Enough is enough when it comes to the obstacles facing the Lower Mainland housing market, say a group of real estate and development leaders who have released a list of issues they say must be addressed immediately.

Despite the efforts of various levels of government to tackle the housing crisis, the situation continues to deteriorate, particularly impacting developers who are working to increase the housing supply, the group said in a release.

The group includes Rachel Lei, president of Keltic Canada Development; and Derek Lee, president at Prospero International Realty. They say they're voicing their concerns knowing that it could have consequences on the future approvals of their projects.

The high price of building, buying and renting a home in Metro Vancouver is well known to everyone who lives and works in the region, but most people don't understand the root causes of the price escalation and what needs to be done to disentangle layers of taxes, costs, bureaucratic delays and jurisdictional overlaps to make development (and finding a home) easier on everyone, Keltic's Lei said.

"I feel as one of the developers, it's our responsibility to reveal more facts to help people to find the solution to cure those issues," Lei told RENX in an interview last week.

"Of course, even the reasons and causes identified by us may not be 100 per cent (of the issues), but we are hoping that we contribute to this process to find a better solution, or quicker solution,” Lei said.

Lei said the region requires about 50,000 to 55,000 new homes annually to keep pace with population increases. Currently, the development community is only able to build between 26,000 and 30,000 units per year.

The developers' list of concerns
"We are significantly under-supplying, and compounded with huge issues, more and more projects are on hold, cancelled or sold because they are running into deficit and bankruptcy."

Among the issues listed by Lei and her peers are:

Financial Burdens: They say developers face significant financial hurdles, with financing costs reaching nine to 12 per cent and city fees comprising 12-15 per cent (potentially up to 30-35 per cent) of total development costs. These expenses make it increasingly unfeasible to undertake development projects, ultimately leading to higher prices for homebuyers.
Delays and Red Tape: Rezoning and permitting processes are prolonged and unpredictable, adding further financial strain as delays inflate costs and reduce project feasibility.
Shortage of Professionals: Despite significant increases in government spending on salaries, there is a shortage of planning and development professionals, exacerbating delays and hindering progress in addressing the housing crisis.
Ineffective Policies: New charges like Amenity Cost Charges (ACC) have been introduced, with Development Cost Charges (DCC) increasing by up to 300 per cent in some cases, exacerbating the affordability problem.
Bureaucratic Hurdles: Bureaucratic requirements, such as those imposed by CMHC loans, hinder the development of rental units, making it even more challenging to address the housing shortage.
Developer Struggles: High interest rates, construction costs, and city fees have forced many developers to cancel or postpone projects, leading to a reduction in housing supply and pushing up home prices.
Rental Market Challenges: Rental projects become less viable as costs remain high, discouraging developers from building much-needed rental units.
"It’s across the whole Lower Mainland"
"I definitely do not think the issues (are) with only one particular city," Lei said. "It's across the whole Lower Mainland, every municipality."

However, Lei added there are jurisdictional overlaps that could add to the costs of a development. In particular, developers are worried about the province's implementation of Amenity Cost Charges and the implications for city-level Community Amenity Contributions (CACs).

ACCs will be adopted by cities on an optional basis and are meant to standardize development costs, replacing Community Amenity Contributions that are typically negotiated between cities and developers on a case-by-case basis. The City of Burnaby has been one of the first adopters of the new ACC program.

Lei said, however, there is a lack of clarity on how ACCs will be allocated and what amenities they will fund. This raises questions about overlapping charges. She said this underscores the importance of revisiting and potentially reducing development costs imposed by cities.

All of those costs eventually end up in the price of a home, she stressed.

Moving forward, it's crucial to assess whether the sum of new charges imposed by both provincial and municipal governments will surpass or fall below previous totals.

This assessment will provide insight into the overall impact of these policy changes on development costs and housing affordability in Vancouver, the group said in its release, adding: "This group believes it's essential to raise awareness of these issues and collaborate with policymakers and stakeholders to find sustainable solutions to Vancouver's housing crisis.”

High borrowing costs an ongoing challenge
Elevated interest rates are also an obvious part of the challenge in buying land and building new homes, and Lei and her peers hope rates will soon ease.

Lei said there are longstanding developers in the market pursuing developments that will produce only a five or six per cent profit. At that rate, the opportunity cost becomes too high for developers to launch projects and housing starts will fade.

Ultimately, what's at stake is people's sense of happiness and stability in the Lower Mainland, Lei said. "We're already starting to see signs of migration . . . from B.C. to Alberta, because it's more affordable there."

When people leave, jobs and investment leave, too, reducing livability and creating a feedback loop of more challenges in the region, Lei said.
https://renx.ca/metro-vancouver-deve...lays-high-fees
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2024, 9:06 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 577
The next batch are up for prescribed housing targets:

Quote:
The next 20 priority municipalities identified to receive housing targets are:
  • Central Saanich;
  • Chilliwack;
  • Colwood;
  • Esquimalt;
  • Kelowna;
  • City of Langley;
  • Maple Ridge;
  • Mission;
  • Nanaimo;
  • New Westminster;
  • North Cowichan;
  • North Saanich;
  • City of North Vancouver;
  • Port Coquitlam;
  • Prince George;
  • Sidney;
  • Surrey;
  • View Royal;
  • West Kelowna; and
  • White Rock.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2024, 7:04 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,357
This should call into question whether the province's policies will matter at all.
Nobody's going to build without buyers.

Homebuyers shun new real estate in Vancouver, hurting builders
Rise in condo developers cancelling projects due to lack of interest and a law particular to B.C.
Bloomberg News
Thomas Seal
Published Apr 26, 2024

Politicians are desperate for developers in Vancouver to build more homes to alleviate pressure in one of the continent’s most expensive real estate markets. There’s just one problem — not enough buyers are showing up.

With mortgage rates still near their highest levels in more than a decade, some condo developers are struggling to generate enough early interest in projects to get them built. Homebuilders in the province of British Columbia are constantly against the clock: it has a law that gives them just 12 months to market their projects, collect enough deposits and secure the financing to build.

They can ask for more time — but at that point, consumers may also be able to ask for their money back. Developers have begun lobbying the provincial government to relax the rules to allow them more time to sell. And it’s become common for Vancouver builders to apply for extensions to the city’s deadlines on approved projects....

....A planned 24-storey project in Burnaby, a Vancouver suburb, was seemingly abandoned last July, with the developer citing “market conditions.” A 400-unit condo project in Richmond was paused, and deposits returned, in May, according to local publication Richmond News.

The B.C. Financial Services Authority (BCFSA), which enforces the Real Estate Development Marketing Act, or REDMA, said it’s aware that the condo-marketing rules are an issue for the homebuilding industry.....


https://vancouversun.com/real-estate...6-af590922cd04
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2024, 12:48 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 5,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
This should call into question whether the province's policies will matter at all.
Nobody's going to build without buyers.

https://vancouversun.com/real-estate...6-af590922cd04
Obviously your happy place is where there's bad news, but your assumption is wrong, and the Sun is just republishing bad Bloomberg reporting. 6677 Silver, the 24-storey tower - was never put on sale - it's a project by a developer who had build mid-rise buildings up to now, and still has another tower site that they haven't put up for sale (yet). The Richmond project was by Thind, who hadn't started construction, returned the deposits, and are looking to “make changes to the design, residential and commercial make-up of the development.” They're currently developing several other condo tower projects in other municipalities.

There are always development projects that fail to sell, or stall, or even stop part-way through construction, but the plural of anecdote is not data. In Greater Vancouver CMHC data shows more housing starts in Q1 2024 (7,627) than in Q1 last year, or in any of the previous 20 years.

Some developers are switching from condo to rental - for example Bosa have recently started two West End towers, and we've just seen GWL buy Vivagrand's failed condo project on Robson to build a rental tower instead (and another next to it). 2,517 of the Q1 housing starts were rentals - also the most in the first quarter of the year in over 20 years.
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2024, 4:46 AM
NetMapel's Avatar
NetMapel NetMapel is offline
Hello World
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,526
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...-rules-8661993

Quote:
A group of concerned residents living in Burnaby’s Brentwood Park neighbourhood have filed a petition to be exempted from the province’s new legislation on transit-oriented development.

The rules will require cities, including Burnaby, to allow buildings with minimum heights of eight to 12 storeys within a ring 400 to 800 metres circling transit hubs like SkyTrain stations.

But Save Brentwood Park petition leader Edward Pereira said the law exposes his neighbourhood of single-family homes “to its inevitable decimation.”


Y’all live within those highly desirable and walkable distances from a busy skytrain station. I have no sympathy for single family houses in those zones. The main thing that’s jarring for me is the huge contrast of the tall buildings in amazing Brentwood plot when compared to the sea of single family houses that surround them. Ideally, they should all be moving towards low rises of town houses to increase density. But since they’re not under development, we have this weird contrast in order to create homes for people to live in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2024, 5:02 AM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 8,423
What's there to "decimate?" There really isn't anything in the suburbistan around Brentwood Park worth preserving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2024, 5:45 PM
ecbin ecbin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 101
Quote:
The rules will require cities, including Burnaby, to allow buildings with minimum heights of eight to 12 storeys within a ring 400 to 800 metres circling transit hubs like SkyTrain stations.
While technically accurate this is highly unlikely to happen as the rule is to allow no less than 3 FSR on these lots which, at 50% lot coverage, is a 6 story unit. You might see a few 8 story building or higher but it'll be the exception for cost reasons.

Meanwhile city planners have laid out their plans to meet the provinces SSMUH regulations and, while they don't state specific FSR, the requirements loosely allow for a 4 story building (40') with FSR of around 2.2.

This might all be moot though as the ACC/DCC fees being proposed by the city are adding $40-50/sf to the build cost which may make it much harder to profitably build these denser homes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2024, 3:58 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,764
Brentwood needs a direct pedestrian overpass to Costco for those condo dwellers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2024, 6:09 PM
chowhou's Avatar
chowhou chowhou is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: East Vancouver (No longer across the ocean!)
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Brentwood needs a direct pedestrian overpass to Costco for those condo dwellers.
Not sure if you saw this already but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Map in a Burnaby Now article shows pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks.


https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...ntwood-8637619
A TAB resident will still save more time just walking along Willingdon though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2024, 6:28 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,764
Missed that, thanks!

That looks to be at the end of Beta? That should still be better and definitely more pleasant for anyone around Brentwood including TAB.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.