Posted by: Fast-Orange
I agree but I think public housing as a term sounds better. And yeah there's a huge shortage so now would be the best time to start getting on it.
You missed the important parts of that post.
Who's going to build it? Where's it going to go? And of course how are we going to pay for it? We're broke as it is.
Posted by: switch
Housing prices dropping 40% would screw a lot of people.
For sure. But housing prices not dropping 40% have probably hurt more people.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: switch
Housing prices dropping 40% would screw a lot of people.
For sure. But housing prices not dropping 40% have probably hurt more people.
A comprehensive plan to densify would not be that bad as far as reducing housing prices without killing equity.
The increase in supply would hurt some people who already own in high density areas but seems the best compromise.
My neighborhood in North Van is a prime example.
Build in the 50s, no sidewalks, 70 foot wide lots, basically just a huge waste of space. If you look at new York or London or any other large international city, no fucking way there's neighborhoods with 70' wide single dwelling lots so close to the city core. They should be at least 6 plexes.
Guess how much the city permitting alone is to build a 6 Plex? 150k per unit.
So you have 800k worth of fees to the government just for approval. How will it be affordable at that point?
With 6 units, the government could charge 1/4 of what my property taxes are to each unit, so therefore make 50% more property tax from the same lot.
If you started converting these crappy 1950s neighborhoods into 6 plexes, prices would come down fast.
I'd happily do it, if I had one unit for myself and 2 units for my kids, and the other 3 were sold just so I break even, I'd do it, personally.
Posted by: Kenny
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: switch
Housing prices dropping 40% would screw a lot of people.
For sure. But housing prices not dropping 40% have probably hurt more people.
A comprehensive plan to densify would not be that bad as far as reducing housing prices without killing equity.
The increase in supply would hurt some people who already own in high density areas but seems the best compromise.
My neighborhood in North Van is a prime example.
Build in the 50s, no sidewalks, 70 foot wide lots, basically just a huge waste of space. If you look at new York or London or any other large international city, no fucking way there's neighborhoods with 70' wide single dwelling lots so close to the city core. They should be at least 6 plexes.
Guess how much the city permitting alone is to build a 6 Plex? 150k per unit.
So you have 800k worth of fees to the government just for approval. How will it be affordable at that point?
With 6 units, the government could charge 1/4 of what my property taxes are to each unit, so therefore make 50% more property tax from the same lot.
If you started converting these crappy 1950s neighborhoods into 6 plexes, prices would come down fast.
I'd happily do it, if I had one unit for myself and 2 units for my kids, and the other 3 were sold just so I break even, I'd do it, personally.
I honestly don't see this as plausible nor having enough of an effect to drop prices enough across the board to make things affordable for the avg working stiff. It raises lots of questions too.
Where are you going to live over the two year or so period while your current house gets knocked down and then rebuilt.? Second, how many people will actually want to do this and/or will be okay with rezoning in their neighbourhoods to make this happen? If your property overall is now worth more because it has 6 units, do you not think that is going to increase the value of similar properties? The values here are not in the buildings, they're in the land under the buildings. This is why a lot of East Van always used to be affordable, plenty of 33ft wide lots. This gives you two single family homes for every one on your 70ft lot. to try and suddenly do that en masse where you knock down and then rebuild? It's not going to happen.
Developers develop to make money, so unless they can make more money out of building a 6-plex than just building a duplex or another SFH they are not going to do it. I don't see the number of mom and pop people who are willing to go through the process of making this happen just to end up with the same equity being anywhere close to high enough to have a significant effect on the market as a whole.
I think the only way the cost of housing gets better is if the economy collapses or there is a mass exodus from the region. I honestly don't think we can build our way out of this anymore, or at least not for a couple decades. In the mean time there are a lot of people hurting.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
At the risk of repeating myself, the government should free up land for development,
What land?
Crown land
The province has transferred crown land to First Nations and developers, why not to people that want to build houses?
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
At the risk of repeating myself, the government should free up land for development,
What land?
Crown land
The province has transferred crown land to First Nations and developers, why not to people that want to build houses?
Yeah, but where is that land? Like I posted in a previous link, there is not a lot of developable crown land available for housing in Metro Van. There might be a ton up land available up narth, but that's not where most people are living. I think that guy in your link out to lunch. A lot of what he suggests to build on is either not practical or expensive to develop due to geography. If you look at his maps, what's not mountainous, or parkland, is agricultural land.
Posted by: Kenny
Guess how much the city permitting alone is to build a 6 Plex? 150k per unit.
So you have 800k worth of fees to the government just for approval. How will it be affordable at that point?
So everybody's getting a 2,400 square foot unit in that 6-plex? Pretty baller.
Posted by: syncro
is agricultural land.
People have been trying to mess with the ALR for decades. It got messed about pretty badly in the early 2000s. Maybe we'll get a new government that'll mess with it again.
Posted by: switch
Posted by: XXX_er
Posted by: Fast-Orange
Posted by: XXX_er
you mean we should/ shouldn't let the people who caused the problem fix it ?
Do you have a better idea? Or are we just screwed?
Possibly you are screwed but I am fine cuz I moved narth eh ... but apparently vangroovy is in decline anyhow
It's not - it's the "narth" that is.
Judging by social media, there are at least 2 dozen families/individuals moving up here for work and looking for rentals in a town with less than 1% rental availability.
Posted by: syncro
I honestly don't see this as plausible nor having enough of an effect to drop prices enough across the board to make things affordable for the avg working stiff. It raises lots of questions too.
Where are you going to live over the two year or so period while your current house gets knocked down and then rebuilt.? Second, how many people will actually want to do this and/or will be okay with rezoning in their neighbourhoods to make this happen? If your property overall is now worth more because it has 6 units, do you not think that is going to increase the value of similar properties? The values here are not in the buildings, they're in the land under the buildings. This is why a lot of East Van always used to be affordable, plenty of 33ft wide lots. This gives you two single family homes for every one on your 70ft lot. to try and suddenly do that en masse where you knock down and then rebuild? It's not going to happen.
Developers develop to make money, so unless they can make more money out of building a 6-plex than just building a duplex or another SFH they are not going to do it. I don't see the number of mom and pop people who are willing to go through the process of making this happen just to end up with the same equity being anywhere close to high enough to have a significant effect on the market as a whole.
I think the only way the cost of housing gets better is if the economy collapses or there is a mass exodus from the region. I honestly don't think we can build our way out of this anymore, or at least not for a couple decades. In the mean time there are a lot of people hurting.
Well sure, I'm not saying there are no issues to sort out or that it's simple, but if economy collapse or mass exodus are the alternatives, all of the more reason to work on creative solutions as opposed to just waiting (hoping?) for some type of societal collapse or otherwise dystopian solution, that is not a solution at all in my opinion.
People are lazy, selfish, short-sighted, and uncreative, but I still hold out hope that we'll find some better solutions.
The federal government has already mandated the zoning changes and there a lot of programs being rolled out related to gentle densification, employing technologies to reduce build costs, etc (my wife works for a social housing NGO incidentally).
Will be interesting to revisit this thread in 10 years. My bet/hope is you'll be surprised, I genuinely think there are options other than some dark end.
Not sure where you are in the age/family/homeownership spectrum of life, but my particular demographic, basically the youngest of those who were able to get into the Vancouver market by "Natural" means, have kids that will need housing in the next 10-15 years, and see how broken things are.
There can be other motivations more nuanced than the played-out uber capitalist, "I'm gonna subdivide and milk this house flip for all it's worth" mindset that has resigned supreme the last 20 or 30 years, but it takes time, and if you aren't part of the demographic I wouldn't expect you to believe me as it's early days (that's not meant as a slight, just that it's a mindset that would be tricky to visualize), so all good, we'll just have to see.
I'm also not saying people do it for free or at their cost, for example your "where do you live for two years" comment - obviously the net result would need to keep a person whole while renting, but if renting for two years mean I have means/assets to help my kids have housing? That's meaningful. Same for developers. They're businesses. Obviously it doesn't happen for free, but the level of capitalism has been insane and that can be curbed with government assistance instead of being allowed to spiral out of control and even encouraged, which is really my point. Did you know permit fees for high density housing in Vancouver are approximately $150,000 per unit? How does that compute? Single family permitting is "only" half that much. Not only is that backwards but obviously they are both complete robbery. Just one example.
yeah I meet a lot of people moving here usually at the bar
just for clarification it was 3 sheets who moved here and forgot how to pronounce the word " north "
but it is a pretty accurate pronunciation of the local PNW male
people may be a whole lotta things but they do things for money
so follow the money
Posted by: Kenny
Well sure, I'm not saying there are no issues to sort out or that it's simple, but if economy collapse or mass exodus are the alternatives, all of the more reason to work on creative solutions as opposed to just waiting (hoping?) for some type of societal collapse or otherwise dystopian solution, that is not a solution at all in my opinion.
I agree in that I'd rather not see the world turn to shit either, but I'm only speaking to the reality of the situation. Not only is the cost of housing here exorbitant, it's in short supply. Metro Van has had a vacancy rate hovering around 1% or under for a long time. Hence my question of where are you going to live. Chances are renting a house for 4 people is going to cost you more than your current mortgage - if you can find something suitable. I've been following this issue for a long time and it's much worse than the avg person who has stable housing seems to understand. There are working working people who are homeless because they can't find affordable housing. We're living in a world where 1bed condos as far out as Poco are going for around a half-million dollars. Let that reality sink in.
everyone expects a detached house like back in the 70's for affordability in Vancouver. Never ever going to happen again.
Posted by: syncro
Yeah, but where is that land? Like I posted in a previous link, there is not a lot of developable crown land available for housing in Metro Van. There might be a ton up land available up narth, but that's not where most people are living. I think that guy in your link out to lunch. A lot of what he suggests to build on is either not practical or expensive to develop due to geography. If you look at his maps, what's not mountainous, or parkland, is agricultural land.
Isn't this just a chicken and the egg argument? "People don't want to live where people don't live". I think they do, but it is difficult without infrastructure.
It doesn't need to be in Metro Van to ease prices. Van is mostly built out, but that isn't the case elsewhere in the province where crown land is much more accessible. A new 1400 SF townhouse in Squamish is over a million dollars because people leaving Metro Van keep moving here and we have limited space and can only build so fast. All of south west BC is expensive for this reason, but the smaller towns can't absorb more people because they lack infrastructure and don't have the money to grow any faster. In Squamish our OCP limits all growth within the current town limits even though developers outside of those limits have been lobbying for years to expand. It is for good reason since expanding those limits will mean building and maintaining new expensive infrastructure and Squamish only has 25K people for a tax base.
Most communities in the province lack decent transportation options to Vancouver or other parts of the Province which makes them less attractive to people that might want to ditch traffic for trails. In 2024 a lot more people can work remotely or in a hybrid setup, so it only makes sense to spread out our economy and our people into more of our basically empty province. Why couldn't we expand our economic footprint and focus on building up a Vancouver/Kelowna/Kamloops corridor for example? Or finally build a fixed link to the Island? Or build in the mountains? Or up the coast? Why not? It already costs a ridiculous amount to build near Vancouver.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Yeah, but where is that land? Like I posted in a previous link, there is not a lot of developable crown land available for housing in Metro Van. There might be a ton up land available up narth, but that's not where most people are living. I think that guy in your link out to lunch. A lot of what he suggests to build on is either not practical or expensive to develop due to geography. If you look at his maps, what's not mountainous, or parkland, is agricultural land.
Isn't this just a chicken and the egg argument? "People don't want to live where people don't live". I think they do, but it is difficult without infrastructure.
It doesn't need to be in Metro Van to ease prices. Van is mostly built out, but that isn't the case elsewhere in the province where crown land is much more accessible. A new 1400 SF townhouse in Squamish is over a million dollars because people leaving Metro Van keep moving here and we have limited space and can only build so fast. All of south west BC is expensive for this reason, but the smaller towns can't absorb more people because they lack infrastructure and don't have the money to grow any faster. In Squamish our OCP limits all growth within the current town limits even though developers outside of those limits have been lobbying for years to expand. It is for good reason since expanding those limits will mean building and maintaining new expensive infrastructure and Squamish only has 25K people for a tax base.
Most communities in the province lack decent transportation options to Vancouver or other parts of the Province which makes them less attractive to people that might want to ditch traffic for trails. In 2024 a lot more people can work remotely or in a hybrid setup, so it only makes sense to spread out our economy and our people into more of our basically empty province. Why couldn't we expand our economic footprint and focus on building up a Vancouver/Kelowna/Kamloops corridor for example? Or finally build a fixed link to the Island? Or build in the mountains? Or up the coast? Why not? It already costs a ridiculous amount to build near Vancouver.
I think you answered your own question. Geography hampers the cost of infrastructure and development.
ps - we need Pedro2005 back in here.
https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/nbr-not-biking-related-9/topic/real-estate-market-picking-up-36975/
Forum jump:
