Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
Come now, surely you agree that a big increase in rental stock will stabilize rents? Supply and demand. The condo bubble, fuelled by foreign speculation, has driven up prices for land, reduced rental stock and driven up construction costs.
That's funny when I discussed that building with a friend who is a developer, the first thing out of his mouth was "How did Westbank get away with that, and how do I get one?!" Gillespie's shrewd use of art and culture in marketing appeals to municipal politicians, especially of Vision's ilk. In truth that box was just a square footage giveaway to Westbank with nothing in return for residents. It's an ugly and dangerous precedent.
To flip your argument, why should people be denied the opportunity to own a SFH in Vancouver merely to satisfy the property lust of foreign buyers? Your solution is just condo-ize everything. I'd like to see a complete block on foreign buyers of residential real estate. If you can't produce a Canadian tax return, you can't buy. Then we can make determinations about how much multi-unit is really needed. Low interest rates have been present in the Western world for a decade now, yet only a handful of cities have seen such a runaway inflation in housing prices as Vancouver, follow the money.
I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why you would defend the rights of Non-Canadians to buy property here?
|
1) An increase in rental units will lower rents to a degree, due to a more competitive market. Our rental units are at the price they are due to land cost, construction cost, trades, City policy (Rental 100 program). Even if land prices stabilized, hard costs would still be high and the City programs and zoning would still reflect where we can build (mostly along arterials and replacing older C-zoned sites (taking away older small businesses), or replacing older rental buildings that are already zoned for rental.
Constructions costs have been going up between 1-2% a month. Meaning that a 6-storey rental building on a "small lot" that requires lots assembly, to a degree (which is another part of the issue), due to City guidelines/zoning requires construction of a 2-level concrete parkade.
If the many lots on the peninsula in Vancouver were forced to be rental, you could see a decrease in land value in that area, but an escalation in speculation in areas in Burnaby or Surrey. If you determine rental can only be built, you're still limited to the small area of land that economically makes sense for rents you are tying to achieve as "affordable", possibly without a program or policy of some kind to aid in that affordability (not talking about subsidies), and are still restricted to small areas to allow (zoned for) a decent increase in rental units, or units that can be not so expensive.
2) How did Westbank "get away with it"? Like anyone pitching an idea to planners or council. You present, market, sell an idea and concept. If a council or planning staff team decides to reverse the - I believe bylaw - created after that was passed declaring this will never happen again, then that is the way government organizations work. Change, adapt. There is nothing illegal, evil, or nefarious about that decision. We "sell" ideas all the time. You sell it's "worth". Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
3) It would not be a denial of ownership of single family homes, but an acceptance of changing many of the City's transit heavy corridors and station areas to better reflect land uses for the issues we are facing today. If a piece of land is allowed to be built to something other than a single family home, but is for generations continuously occupied, rebuilt or renovated as a single family homes, then that is a choice of the owners and of the market. We are currently denying single lots of RS and even RT zoned areas, or even the assembly of 2 narrow lots to built modest rental buildings, co-housing, or strata buildings. Think of Heaccity's winning design in the Urbanarium's "Missing Middle" Competition. By allow more flexible zoning and design/occupancy guidelines in RS and RT areas, you can allow more ownership, rental, or co-housing options to more people without massing lot assemblies, expensive construction costs, and without expensive area plans.
An RS zoned lot (1 primary occupant, door facing the street, and 2 secondary suites) has the potential, within a slight increase in density, to become multiple rental units, co-housing, or... yes, strata. Currently, the large RS homes cannot be rental, but if zoning and policy was changed could easily become and accommodate potentially multiple rental units.
I'm not defending non-Canadians to buy property. I'm recognizing we have tools that are being unused while living within the system we have. The City of Vancouver only has so many powers at its disposal. One must differentiate between the powers Vancouver has, and other municipalities (which have much less power), and that of the Province, and the Feds.
Prev
Linear Mode
