B.C. to spend $500-million on rental housing

[logan5]

I'm hoping this spurs a decent number of projects in the complicated DTES Oppenheimer district (Main and Hastings). The zoning is already in place for what the Province is looking for.

British Columbia’s premier announced half a billion dollars Monday to build thousands of rental units, acknowledging that owning, or even renting, a home is quickly becoming out of reach for many in the province.

Premier Christy Clark unveiled the rental housing plan on the same day her government appointed a new watchdog for the real estate industry. They were the latest in a series of announcements targeting affordability and regulation ahead of next year’s provincial election, when housing is expected to be a significant issues.

Investigation: Vancouver real estate speculators taking advantage of loopholes and lax oversight

Explainer: Everything you need to know about real estate reform in B.C.

Ms. Clark said her government would set aside $500-million to build 2,900 rental units in a partnership with non-profit groups, local governments, community agencies and the private sector. The province said the announcement marked the largest single housing investment in a single year by any province in Canada.

The money will fund a mix of housing for low-to moderate-income earners, seniors, students, adults with developmental disabilities, aboriginals and single parents, said Ms. Clark, though the announcement included few specific details about where those units would be built or who would live in them.

the rest...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-...ticle31953006/

[Sheba]

They were the latest in a series of announcements targeting affordability and regulation ahead of next year’s provincial election, when housing is expected to be a significant issues.

That's likely the only reason she cares...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Sheba

That's likely the only reason she cares...

Bingo.

On the surface this sounds great, but think about it: they're not dealing with the root problem, just trying to relieve the symptoms. The problem is housing costs have been driven out of sight by allowing foreign money unimpeded access to the market.

[jlousa]

Yeah rental housing is what the dtes needs more of... we've seen developers lining up to build since the city changed the zoning. Oh nope that's not what happened. What the dtes needs is cheap market housing allowing people that can't afford to buy in more desirable areas to taste home ownership. Rentals are needed for sure but the dtes is not the place for more. Let's see Burnaby and the tri cities get some family friendly rentals.

[logan5]

The vast majority of the DTES is market condo ownership. Most young people can't afford even the most inexpensive condo's available DT, so rentals are crucial if you want the right mix. The best neighbourhoods in Vancouver have strong rental stock.

You're comparing run down SRO's and other shelter rate housing with the new builds that will be coming? That's a little ridiculous. 80% of the new units in Oppenheimer will be geared towards working people. The same demographic that makes makes Mt' Pleasant, Kits, Commercial Dr, so vibrant.

Almost certainly a good portion of this Provincial money will go to the DTES. I would think that would be good news to anybody. But maybe not.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by logan5

The vast majority of the DTES is market condo ownership. Most young people can't afford even the most inexpensive condo's available DT, so rentals are crucial if you want the right mix. The best neighbourhoods in Vancouver have strong rental stock.

You're comparing run down SRO's and other shelter rate housing with the new builds that will be coming? That's a little ridiculous. 80% of the new units in Oppenheimer will be geared towards working people. The same demographic that makes makes Mt' Pleasant, Kits, Commercial Dr, so vibrant.

Almost certainly a good portion of this Provincial money will go to the DTES. I would think that would be good news to anybody. But maybe not.

Sorry but I have to quote this. Do you honestly believe what you just wrote? I am fairly confident that there isn't another area in Vancouver with a lower percentage of market ownership as the dtes.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Sorry but I have to quote this. Do you honestly believe what you just wrote? I am fairly confident that there isn't another area in Vancouver with a lower percentage of market ownership as the dtes.

You brought up the new zoning or rezoning rules. My response was that the Oppenheimer District was the only sub district designated rental only. You got me, I forgot to write designated. As in the majority of the new xzoning is designated for condo ownership.

[jlousa]

You might want to reread that new zoning. It's the very reason no new market development has occurred in the dtes since it was implemented nor is there any scheduled to, and we aren't just talking about OD, but the DTES as a whole. The only area seeing development is Chinatown which received favourable zoning and was not included in the disastrous plan the city approved.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by jlousa

You might want to reread that new zoning. It's the very reason no new market development has occurred in the dtes since it was implemented nor is there any scheduled to, and we aren't just talking about OD, but the DTES as a whole. The only area seeing development is Chinatown which received favourable zoning and was not included in the disastrous plan the city approved.

Disastrous plan?

[logan5]

Oh boy. I think you need to re-read it. It's mostly the same as before except for oppenheimer. Blaming the new plan for the dtes's lack of development is ridiculous. I presume based on political allegiances.

[jlousa]

We went over this before when the plan was voted on reference those posts. You even went to other blogs asking others to try and understand the extent of what the new zoning meant and they told you the same thing. No one is blaming the new zoning on having created the dtes... I am blaming the new zoning on the lack of any new and planed market development in the dtes. This is not political, I think Vision got it right in Chinatown, they just chickened out on doing the proper thing in the dtes. I've offered my professional opinion on this matter, feel free to continue believing whatever you believe. There is a reason developable properties in the DTES have not increased in price anywhere near what the rest of the city has.

[logan5]

It's not a matter of believing or disbelieving. Read the documents. Most of the neighbourhoods have little to no change in zoning. Any changes would be favourable to developers ie there are new density bonuses available.

[jlousa]

Guess every single developer is misreading those documents. I can pick up commercial properties in the dtes for much less then a sfh and even then no one is biting as the zoning is autorius.

[a very long weekend]

that's about 175k per unit, not too shabby. but it's surely spread across the entire province and not just down in the lower mainland.

jlo and many other older people are fanatics for condos and home ownership, but rental is a much more normal way to live, at least for the first 10-20 years of adulthood. a big problem in vancouver is that there's so little rental housing relative to demand that young people are facing steep costs to living near where they work, so electing to commute, not to save or straight up to move down south or east. and sure, lots of people buy condos as investments and rent them out, but nothing replaces an amenity-free purpose-built apartment building. you need only look across the border in seattle to see what a normal real estate market looks like. similar demand (though based on real economic conditions and not foreign investment) but they've been building purpose rental year in-year out for some time. if the developers won't do it because they want the condo speculators' money, why not zone for it or have the government step in out of economic necessity?

that said, it's not clear what your government is proposing, maybe they can get the cost down to ~175/unit because they're building all units at 315 square feet, or maybe it's because that's just their contribution to a developer, or maybe it's because they're all built in maple ridge.

[casper]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

that's about 175k per unit, not too shabby. but it's surely spread across the entire province and not just down in the lower mainland.

jlo and many other older people are fanatics for condos and home ownership, but rental is a much more normal way to live, at least for the first 10-20 years of adulthood. a big problem in vancouver is that there's so little rental housing relative to demand that young people are facing steep costs to living near where they work, so electing to commute, not to save or straight up to move down south or east. and sure, lots of people buy condos as investments and rent them out, but nothing replaces an amenity-free purpose-built apartment building. you need only look across the border in seattle to see what a normal real estate market looks like. similar demand (though based on real economic conditions and not foreign investment) but they've been building purpose rental year in-year out for some time. if the developers won't do it because they want the condo speculators' money, why not zone for it or have the government step in out of economic necessity?

that said, it's not clear what your government is proposing, maybe they can get the cost down to ~175/unit because they're building all units at 315 square feet, or maybe it's because that's just their contribution to a developer, or maybe it's because they're all built in maple ridge.

I hope it is either 100 year leases or market rental owned and operated an arms length housing non-profit. The point is you don't want a one time fix by just subsidizing a bunch of condos. You want to create a long-term pool of rental housing that does not suffer the same pressure as free market housing and helps moderate the system.

If it is 100 year leases, in the units revert back and can be refurbished and then leased again. Stager some every year and you have a pipeline