Housing Supply Act Discussion - Implementation & Outcomes

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Kinda been over this a few times: those Urban Villages effectively only densify the walkup apartment zones which were already "dense" to begin with; the SFHs are almost 100% untouched, which is the problem.

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by scryer

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

City of Burnaby - Housing Choices Program

[jollyburger]

I guess from Burnaby's perspective if you densify the town cores enough then it gives them more flexibility to redevelop those SFH areas. No one is going to convert into duplex/multiplexes until they have some financial incentive to sell out.

But even if you want different housing types it's hard to see even with relaxed zoning in terms of density comparing it with the speed of development around Brentwood/Lougheed/Metrotown.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by scryer

Exactly.

Burnaby isn't exactly what I would call the greatest model for Metro Vancouver tbh. If Burnaby rezoned their SFH zones to allow Duplexes/Multiplexes, then that would put them on par with the COV on paper at least. But as far as I am aware, that's not the case?

Honestly, Burnaby would have to first rezone their SFH lands and then aggressively develop for missing middle forms to bring anything truly different to the metro region.

But at this point, it just looks like political lip-service - lip-service that we have received for the last 15 years or so .

Burnaby's plan for housing is a joke - their planning department is worse than Vancouvers in terms of how conservative they are. In a city that's 40% as dense as Vancouver (it's the same density as Point Grey) with a major highway and two major transit lines in place it's done nothing but densify what's already dense.

Their housing start rates are modest at best considering their starting point and advantages: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...ommunities.pdf

Folks see the towers going up and assume that Burnaby is doing tonnes of construction but they don't allow densification anywhere outside of existing density. Their "biggest" move in the last 15 years has been to allow laneways which, at best, will result in 500 more homes and these are homes that can't be bought. Their plans to allow multiplexes are still years away (maybe 2030?) and all signs are they'll be very conservative in what they allow despite lots sizes that are significantly bigger than Vancouver's (6000-8000sf lots are common).

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by ecbin

Folks see the towers going up and assume that Burnaby is doing tonnes of construction but they don't allow densification anywhere outside of existing density. Their "biggest" move in the last 15 years has been to allow laneways which, at best, will result in 500 more homes and these are homes that can't be bought. Their plans to allow multiplexes are still years away (maybe 2030?) and all signs are they'll be very conservative in what they allow despite lots sizes that are significantly bigger than Vancouver's (6000-8000sf lots are common).

Burnaby "DID" tonnes of construction, just those towers are mostly or completely empty. The prices of the condos do not reflect the reality of peoples wages. Likewise the rents being asked do not reflect the reality of peoples wages. The living wage is 24.04/hr, which means any cost of housing over $1100/mo is beyond their means.


You know what was really funny-sad? So one of the unions moved into one of those towers. The office space is entirely vacant. Everyone is working from home.

I'm Okay with the fact that there is office space being built in mixed-use towers. What I'm not okay with is this bizarre assumption that renters are deadbeats by the city. This same tower, has "poor doors".

That should NEVER have been approved. Likewise, buildings where the "Luxury Condo" tower is built of concrete, and the "Rental" part is made of cheap combustible materials. At what point do we stop treating renters with this antagonistic disrespect? There is no reason why the entire podium space covering the parking could not be a clone of the proposed tower except rental. No the developers just simply don't want to build rentals as long as they can sell the pathetic sized condos as "luxury" to foreigners who have no idea that 2 bedroom unit you can't fit a queen size bed into any bedroom is a joke.

No, the prevailing attitude seems to be that "renters" aren't expected to live in their units very long, and don't want to mingle with the condo owners.

More people would just own their unit if they could afford it, and opportunistic people bought these under-sized over-hyped condos thinking they can just rent them out, and are now getting burned by the increases in interest rates.

In all seriousness, I hope the interest rates just skyrocket to where they were in the 80's (22.75%) and banks have to foreclose on all these bad idea mortgages.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Kisai

That should NEVER have been approved. Likewise, buildings where the "Luxury Condo" tower is built of concrete, and the "Rental" part is made of cheap combustible materials.

You do realize we can all just look at the buildings going up, and can see that most projects with separate condo and rental towers use concrete for both? Please provide an example of a 30-story wood frame rental building, because I haven't seen any

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Kisai

In all seriousness, I hope the interest rates just skyrocket to where they were in the 80's (22.75%) and banks have to foreclose on all these bad idea mortgages.

In this scenario, it's the rich that get richer. Be careful with what you wish for.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by djmk

In this scenario, it's the rich that get richer. Be careful with what you wish for.

Everyone seems to think that when interest rates hit 22.75%, they'll still have a job.

(Unemployment)

[djmk]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Everyone seems to think that when interest rates hit 22.75%, they'll still have a job.

while those with excess cash were earning 22%+ on just a simple GIC or picking up properties on the cheap.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Burnaby "DID" tonnes of construction, just those towers are mostly or completely empty.

But they DIDN'T and I listed the evidence: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/da...ommunities.pdf

Too many people see the towers going up and assume Burnaby is a leader in housing starts which is simply not true. Empty or not, they're not building enough of it. There are plenty of problems with the housing market but they all start from a lack of supply - homes didn't become investments for no reason, they became investments because there's not enough of them. Rents didn't increase for no reason, they increased because there aren't enough homes.

[Sheba]

I don't know if anyone here saw this little gem... Amid housing targets, Oak Bay greenlights condo complex after decade of rejection