Developers Paint Bleak Picture of Vancouver's Future Under Status Quo

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I think that within Vancouver, and now Burnaby, the municipal authorities are doing pretty much anything they can within their financial limitations. The Province has spent more than the previous government, and the Feds have put some up, and talked about a lot more (but it has yet to show up in large amounts).

There are far more effective models at delivering enough affordable housing, but they're more socialist than would generally be accepted here. For example, Vienna is almost always 'the most liveable city in the world' these days. The City of Vienna municipality owns or controls over 400,000 dwellings - nearly half the city's stock, and leases it at between 20 and 25% of household income. Residents are never required to move out, even if household income levels increase in the following years. They build on average an additional 5,000 units a year, mostly with private sector partners who have to allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents. (The average building in Vienna is 3 storeys).

Berlin is taking even more direct control. 85 percent of its population rents, and rules limit rent increases and make it impossible for landlords to evict tenants who pay their rent on time. Rents are half of what they are in London and Paris, and the German capital is due to implement a five-year, across-the-board rent freeze in March. The downside is that is expected to deter development, so creating a greater housing shortage than already exists - so that's not going to come without new problems.

Are we really so averse to more socialist ideas? The Vienna example sounds great to me. We should be moving immediately in that direction, building previously unimaginable amounts of affordable housing for lower and middle class people. I prefer that to the Berlin model. Deterring development doesn’t work. Relying on the private sector to provide for the greater good doesn’t either.

Label something socialist, capitalist, or whatever. All that matters is that it gets the job done. The tools in your toolbox don’t need to all fit under the same stifling ideology.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are far more effective models at delivering enough affordable housing, but they're more socialist than would generally be accepted here. For example, Vienna is almost always 'the most liveable city in the world' these days. The City of Vienna municipality owns or controls over 400,000 dwellings - nearly half the city's stock, and leases it at between 20 and 25% of household income. Residents are never required to move out, even if household income levels increase in the following years. They build on average an additional 5,000 units a year, mostly with private sector partners who have to allow the city to rent half of the new apartments to lower-income residents. (The average building in Vienna is 3 storeys).

Sounds like Singapore - state housing with long-term leases. Could be a good idea if the city/province ever has enough budget for it.

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Absolutely, there's a lot of space in the middle. That's where we should be talking. The article that started this thread presents a great opportunity to start to hear what regulatory issues are causing the greatest harm in slowing development. We don't have to give developers everything they ask for, and we probably shouldn't. But we do ourselves and the city a disservice to dismiss what developers can provide in terms of insider knowledge. We can learn something here.

Right, but we've had this conversation repeatedly - many developers (and posters) almost immediately jump to completely removing all taxes/CACs/viewcones/etc, and obviously that's not going to happen. What we need is real estate execs sitting down and talking with the City about what's negotiable and what's necessary, not creating an echo chamber with other real estate execs like in the article.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Do you think we should be trying to support our city's growing population?

Not if their influx of cash further imbalances property values through land speculation and viewing a residence as an investment and not a roof over their head. Building more is not going to bring prices down when their regional populations eclipse the population of the entire province, if not the entire country. We can build until we got luxury condos in Spuzzum but it won't patch the hole that is the massive flow of foreigners we let in "because Canadians are nice people".

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Absolutely, there's a lot of space in the middle. That's where we should be talking. The article that started this thread presents a great opportunity to start to hear what regulatory issues are causing the greatest harm in slowing development. We don't have to give developers everything they ask for, and we probably shouldn't. But we do ourselves and the city a disservice to dismiss what developers can provide in terms of insider knowledge. We can learn something here.

I would think that we need less of a fine brush on development projects in general, along with more staffing of relevant regulatory offices. If they want to tweak the regulations (like going over the viewcones), then yeah, send them to rezoning.

Originally Posted by MIPS

Not if their influx of cash further imbalances property values through land speculation and viewing a residence as an investment and not a roof over their head. Building more is not going to bring prices down when their regional populations eclipse the population of the entire province, if not the entire country. We can build until we got luxury condos in Spuzzum but it won't patch the hole that is the massive flow of foreigners we let in "because Canadians are nice people".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...arty_of_Canada

We found one.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yes and no. Inflammatory rhetoric aside, some countries may seriously test BC's commitments to free trade and multiculturalism for the next few decades.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sounds like Singapore - state housing with long-term leases. Could be a good idea if the city/province ever has enough budget for it.



Right, but we've had this conversation repeatedly - many developers (and posters) almost immediately jump to completely removing all taxes/CACs/viewcones/etc, and obviously that's not going to happen. What we need is real estate execs sitting down and talking with the City about what's negotiable and what's necessary, not creating an echo chamber with other real estate execs like in the article.

The city consults the UDI and the UDI provides feedback letters regarding city policy.

The Broadway one was the most interesting example: http://udi.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/...n-Broadway.pdf

They are here https://udi.bc.ca/udi-central/

[rofina]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Are we really so averse to more socialist ideas? The Vienna example sounds great to me. We should be moving immediately in that direction, building previously unimaginable amounts of affordable housing for lower and middle class people. I prefer that to the Berlin model. Deterring development doesn’t work. Relying on the private sector to provide for the greater good doesn’t either.

Label something socialist, capitalist, or whatever. All that matters is that it gets the job done. The tools in your toolbox don’t need to all fit under the same stifling ideology.

I think we do a lot of skirting around the issues here in North America. Were also very partisan in general.

Lets acknowledge a few points first;

- Private developers are for profit business'. Like any other business, if the numbers turn red, project does not go forward.

- Housing has become an institutional asset class. Pension funds, Insurance Co's, etc are primary financiers of the new mega projects that are becoming the norm. The success of these projects, and long term viability of the assumptions being made going into them is based around stability. Stability can be bought, like any other political viewpoint. Stability is status quo.

- The housing crisis that cities are experiencing is a direct result of regulation and a concerted effort to skirt around the issues, instead of addressing them head on.

- Zoning laws are archaic - we are artificially limiting housing during a time where its severely affecting the population, all in the name of one too many pieces of paper filed away somewhere. Whats more important? Adhering to a zoning law or providing housing for tens of thousands of people? This isn't hypothetical, we are prioritizing bureaucracy over human well being.

- Cities will never again have an adequately fast response to housing demand simply due to the building process slowing down even further due to complexity of projects. Simple fact is a concrete tower takes 36 months, or longer. Back in the day a Vancouver Special could be started and finished in 6 months.

- Demand continues to increase globally as the trend of migration from country side into Cities continues. Locally, immigration growth under the current Feds is only increasing. Its literally impossible to accommodate more people when our cities are generally all in low single digit vacancy situation. There simply is NOT and abundance of empty housing. Its infinitely frustrating that people are able to be pro-immigration while being NIMBY about development. You cant have both.

- The solution to this has always been the same. Its just not palatable to the everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too crowd.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by fredinno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People...arty_of_Canada

We found one.

The poster has a point. Canada does have a blind spot, I think its important to acknowledge so we can move on.

If were going to be accepting half a million plus immigrants a year, as the host country it would be incumbent on us to ensure that we have the infrastructure and housing necessary to first support our existing population, and then to support the amount of people we intend to onboard.

This shouldn't be controversial. When you have a City like Vancouver that has a .07% vacancy rate and you know that a good percent of new immigrants will continue to settle here don't be surprised when standards become eroded down to what was once considered unacceptable.

Were all complicit for the reality we choose for ourselves.

As I mentioned in post above, its asinine to be bringing forward new regulations on housing, and doing multi-year studies while we continue to admit tens of thousands of people into zero vacancy cities. This is the definition of being irresponsible.

EDIT: I'm going to post this edit even though I don't think it should be necessary. I'm a first generation immigrant to Canada. I understand what immigrating is like, it certainly doesn't make me an authority, or grant me any special powers. What I want to make clear is that I'm not saying we need shut or borders, or stop immigration, or whatever. I'm simply stating we are only completing half the job here. We need immigration. What we don't need is a perpetual housing crisis, putting more and more people on the street. That's not compassion, that's not logic, that's not a win for anyone.

[misher]

https://go.altusgroup.com/e/575253/n...08XTQg1jeElfYQ

New Altus group development cost guide for 2020 is out.
Notice page 3 where price to build is the highest in Vancouver.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by rofina

The poster has a point. Canada does have a blind spot, I think its important to acknowledge so we can move on.

If were going to be accepting half a million plus immigrants a year, as the host country it would be incumbent on us to ensure that we have the infrastructure and housing necessary to first support our existing population, and then to support the amount of people we intend to onboard.

This shouldn't be controversial. When you have a City like Vancouver that has a .07% vacancy rate and you know that a good percent of new immigrants will continue to settle here don't be surprised when standards become eroded down to what was once considered unacceptable.

Were all complicit for the reality we choose for ourselves.

As I mentioned in post above, its asinine to be bringing forward new regulations on housing, and doing multi-year studies while we continue to admit tens of thousands of people into zero vacancy cities. This is the definition of being irresponsible.

EDIT: I'm going to post this edit even though I don't think it should be necessary. I'm a first generation immigrant to Canada. I understand what immigrating is like, it certainly doesn't make me an authority, or grant me any special powers. What I want to make clear is that I'm not saying we need shut or borders, or stop immigration, or whatever. I'm simply stating we are only completing half the job here. We need immigration. What we don't need is a perpetual housing crisis, putting more and more people on the street. That's not compassion, that's not logic, that's not a win for anyone.

This is an excellent post that encapsulates my feelings as well. I am pro-immigration but the current situation in Canada is a ticking time bomb which has the potential to unleash massive resentment amongst Canadians. Canadians are culturally polite and generally like to see themselves as tolerant but that is being pushed to its limits by this housing crisis and the lack of appropriate response from all levels of government.

[misher]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This is an excellent post that encapsulates my feelings as well. I am pro-immigration but the current situation in Canada is a ticking time bomb which has the potential to unleash massive resentment amongst Canadians. Canadians are culturally polite and generally like to see themselves as tolerant but that is being pushed to its limits by this housing crisis and the lack of appropriate response from all levels of government.

And unfortunately rather than blame our government for poor planning we blame immigrants for accepting the offer to come here.

Its like blaming customers for buying after reading a store flyer rather than the store that issued the flyer.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Developers, like most businesses, are fundamentally interested in maintaining positive cash flow. So they don't go out of business. They absolutely are interested in building rental when it's economically feasible; much of what they build does end up as rental. That's true whether under a city prescribed program or through other means.

There are things we can do to encourage the transfer of more of our current and future housing stock from owner-occupied to rental if we prefer that model of housing.

But vilifying developers and dismissing their insight into what factors limit their ability to provide new housing and office space works against the goal of supporting our city's growing population.

Do you think we should be trying to support our city's growing population?

Agreed. This is a jealous city with a low self-esteem problem. The successes achieved by others are often seen as a threat to their own survival. Of course housing investors and developers are often getting the most amount of flak: by being the ones that keep the economy of this province moving, they also deal with the most amount of cash flow that often breeds jealousy and vilification of the locals.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Agreed. This is a jealous city with a low self-esteem problem. The successes achieved by others are often seen as a threat to their own survival. Of course housing investors and developers are often getting the most amount of flak: by being the ones that keep the economy of this province moving, they also deal with the most amount of cash flow that often breeds jealousy and vilification of the locals.

Inflated land and development costs affect everyone (individuals and businesses in the whole Metro. So threat to survival might be accurate.

[giallo]

I also agree. I love the fact that Canada's population is growing, but the housing crisis is called a crisis for a reason. I have yet to see the regional, provincial or federal government flip the script on how we are currently addressing the problem. Sure, Vancouver wants to ease the approval process to build more housing quicker, but so far, that's all lip service. I want a provincial and federal commitment to build a TON of rentals. We needed them six years ago. We need them even more now. It's going to get really bad as Metro Vancouver continues to add somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000 people per year.

And don't get me started on our infrastructure. Hwy 1 should be priority number one, but instead we are getting a six kilometer HOV lane that won't be done until 2026*. It should be four lanes each way all the way to Chilliwack.

The short-sightedness of this province is bewildering at times.


*And why is it taking seven years to add a six kilometer lane on land that has been set aside for expansion since the 60s? It's not like they are blasting through rock. It's tree clearance and ground leveling.

[misher]

Originally Posted by giallo

I also agree. I love the fact that Canada's population is growing, but the housing crisis is called a crisis for a reason. I have yet to see the regional, provincial or federal government flip the script on how we are currently addressing the problem. Sure, Vancouver wants to ease the approval process to build more housing quicker, but so far, that's all lip service. I want a provincial and federal commitment to build a TON of rentals. We needed them six years ago. We need them even more now. It's going to get really bad as Metro Vancouver continues to add somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000 people per year.

And don't get me started on our infrastructure. Hwy 1 should be priority number one, but instead we are getting a six kilometer HOV lane that won't be done until 2026. It should four lanes each way all the way to Chilliwack.

Broadway skytrain was almost cancelled after approval a few months back because Transit and the Province requires Vancouver to densify around skytrains in return for the funding. Certain Councillors still voted or expressed support for cancelling the Broadway plan.

PS: 3 years to figure out what we're going to build down Broadway is ridiculous.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hmoob

Developers, like most businesses, are fundamentally interested in maintaining positive cash flow. So they don't go out of business. They absolutely are interested in building rental when it's economically feasible; much of what they build does end up as rental. That's true whether under a city prescribed program or through other means.

There are things we can do to encourage the transfer of more of our current and future housing stock from owner-occupied to rental if we prefer that model of housing.

But vilifying developers and dismissing their insight into what factors limit their ability to provide new housing and office space works against the goal of supporting our city's growing population.

Do you think we should be trying to support our city's growing population?

This article is just the standard developer/UDI piece, setting their hair on fire and trying to blame the city or neighbourhoods for standing in their way. Land prices are the problem and there's really just one reason why land prices spiralled out of control. If you want an interesting but lengthy read of the type of scenario that drove up land prices, you'll find it here:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/2...20BCSC0093.htm

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by misher

And unfortunately rather than blame our government for poor planning we blame immigrants for accepting the offer to come here.

Its like blaming customers for buying after reading a store flyer rather than the store that issued the flyer.

Well no country is full of enlightened people who will always respond appropriately to any given issue. That’s just human nature.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Vin

Agreed. This is a jealous city with a low self-esteem problem. The successes achieved by others are often seen as a threat to their own survival. Of course housing investors and developers are often getting the most amount of flak: by being the ones that keep the economy of this province moving, they also deal with the most amount of cash flow that often breeds jealousy and vilification of the locals.

Yes, the housing crisis is really just all based in jealousy and nothing more...

[misher]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Well no country is full of enlightened people who will always respond appropriately to any given issue. That’s just human nature.

Yes, and its sad that conflicting voices have gone silent. Back in 2012 people would protest against blaming foreigners, now no one bothers.

History shows racism has always been a part of Vancouver real estate
From Vancouver's founding in the 1850s to the arrival of Hong Kong immigrants in the 1980s and debates around foreign money in 2016, race has never been far from the centre of the city's real-estate industry

But by 1884, Roy continued, the arrival of thousands of Chinese workers building the Canadian Pacific Railway led to a growing anti-Chinese sentiment among the white ruling class. In turn, the provincial government enacted legislation denying Chinese people the right to buy, lease, or preempt Crown lands.

“White people could acquire land from the government at little or no cost,” Roy said. “Chinese people could not acquire land directly from the government…However, they could buy land from private owners.”

A two-tier system was set in law, and those rules remained in effect until after the Second World War.

“The Chinese were discriminated at every turn,” Roy concluded.

In the early 1900s, real estate was already a booming industry for Vancouver. According to a paper by UBC professor David Ley, in 1911 there was one real-estate agent for every 150 residents. “It was difficult to avoid the realtors,” reads a passage of that paper that might remind today’s homeowners of mailboxes stuffed with pamphlets inquiring if they’re ready to sell.

A white-dominated press was already making an issue of Chinese-immigrant spending on real estate. But in a twist of irony, the complaint was that they were not investing enough in housing, as a 1907 cartoon published in the Saturday Sunset depicts...
“From a historian’s point of view, this goes right back to the founding of Vancouver and to the founding of British Columbia,” he said. “Who could preempt Crown land? Who could take this free land? Only people from Europe. And so, right away, began this idea that only migrants coming from certain places are reaping the benefits of colonial land acquisition.

“That was one of the privileges of white supremacy,” Yu added. “That was the first moment where Chinese were unwanted.”

“No Asiatic, Negro or Indian”
From Vancouver’s founding in the late 1800s, legacies of racist land policies remained with the city, and debates tinged by xenophobia have been repeated.

In 2014, the National Post unearthed a collection of documents that illustrate how land titles were used to exclude minorities from specific properties and areas of the city.

“No Asiatic, Negro or Indian shall have the right or be allowed to own, become tenant of or occupy any part of [the property],” reads the title for a piece of residential land in South Vancouver.

A 1988 letter that a Shaughnessy resident sent to city council offers a sample of the public’s reaction to that wave of immigration and investment from Hong Kong.

“We—fairly reasonable people—fear the power that the Hong Kong money wields,” it reads. “We resent the fact that because they come here with pots of money they are able to mutilate the areas they choose to settle in.

“These people come—with no concern for our past—they have not been a part of the growth and development of our beautiful city—they have not been paying taxes for years,” it continues. “They have no right to devastate the residential areas.”

A 1992 letter from another resident of the same neighbourhood complains of properties used as vehicles for investment. “Now many of the people who own homes in the area don’t live here,” it reads. “The homes are empty. These homes are investments, perhaps one of many.”

In a telephone interview, Michael Goldberg, a professor emeritus at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, recalled that the interest in foreign ownership that ballooned those years prompted him to study who, exactly, was buying Vancouver real estate in the 1980s.

Newcomers to Canada from Hong Kong were active in the market, he found. But so were buyers from the United States, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Interprovincial migration was also a “dominating” factor, he said. But, Goldberg added, all anybody wanted to talk about was money from Asia.

https://www.straight.com/news/734491...er-real-estate

If you believe that house prices are being driven up in Vancouver because realtors are catering to wealthy offshore Chinese you are living in a fictional world. It is happening in our city's housing market, but it's statistically insignificant.

Vancouver Real Estate Board president Eugen Klein will tell you that off-shore buyers make up about three per cent of house sales. It has been at that level for years. The number comes from a monthly internal poll of his members and cross checks with land title transfer records.

If you really want to see a jump in home prices, Klein says, check out Maple Ridge. In the past year, single detached homes have gone up 30 per cent, more than anywhere else in the region. And it has zip to do with off-shore buyers. It is "real estate 101" says Klein: Infrastructure. Build it and they will come. It's the Golden Ears Bridge, which has set that market on fire.

https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/b...acist-1.385478

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by misher

Yes, and its sad that conflicting voices have gone silent. Back in 2012 people would protest against blaming foreigners, now no one bothers.



https://www.straight.com/news/734491...er-real-estate



https://www.vancourier.com/opinion/b...acist-1.385478

People had their head in the sand then. Foreign speculation did drive up prices. Nor is this a question of blaming foreigners or not blaming foreigners. Current immigration levels are not sustainable based on housing costs. Foreigners are not to blame for that but continuing with the status quo will lead to further strain. People will emotionally react and lash out at what they perceive to be the cause because that is human nature. The truth is more nuanced and like you said, you cannot blame people for following their aspirations. That being said, realtors and developers disingenuously used your anti-racist argument to support no intervention in these matters, thereby increasing the strain and therefore the frustration.