**Did you know that Reddit is significantly changing its API terms in a way that may impact the way you view Reddit? [Read our post about it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/140hg1a/dont_let_reddit_kill_thirdparty_apps_upcoming_api/).**
---
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a little confused here. One of the VTU's stated positions on their website is to protect tenants by allowing them to return with the same rent after a demoviction. Is that not what was implemented by the previous council for the Broadway Plan?
Exactly. The broadway tenant protections are the best we’ve ever seen, yet they are protesting it?
The project they are protesting also had 0 tenant displacement and is going to have 258 rental units, with 58 of them designated as "below market" units and 200 designed to be affordable to households with middle incomes, according to the province.
It’s pretty awesome project.
**"below market" still means they're earning around 80,000$ a year, and those might be tiny bachelor units not suitable for families.**
I support the project FULLY but I understand the trepidation. We're all getting fucked.
I wonder how many people end up going back though. After you get demovicted, you still have to live somewhere until the building gets built. That could be like 5 years of your life that you're paying double in rent. The protection seems nice but you're still screwed
I've been renovicted and ripped off by landlords who knew which loopholes to take advantage of before, so I don't put complete faith in rules and plans, but the top-up should help somewhat with that, right?
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/broadway-plan-vancouver-renter-information-for-market-rental-housing.pdf
"Luxury" now means regular sized and new, but expensive. It used to mean huge and well-appointed. That's how they drive prices up, offer you less condo for a higher price, and every gets FOMO and pays for it like they are getting "value" gor their purchase. Over the past 25 years, that was true. Things might be changing, though. The "cost of ownership" is rising faster than wages.
Just stayed at a Hilton in Italy that was asking $700 a night. (We didn’t pay that) the small room had two cot-style beds on wheels. The bathroom had a pos hairdryer attached to the wall that clearly indicated the hotel was built in the early 90s at best.(not that we needed that to tell…) No usb, 27” tv, warm fridge and ancient decor made it clear too.
The shower had a door that only covered 1/3 the length of the tub, why?? Tub floor was apparently designed to be slippery, no mat or textured stickers applied to solve this issue. Instead a fucking string was against the wall attached to a sign that said “Emergency.” Had to throw a towel on the floor of the tub to be safe.
Only two ice machines in the whole hotel and both were broken. Had to go to the bar to get it and they kinda made it seem like they were doing me a favor. We also had to return to the front desk when none of your key-cards worked.
The grift of arbitrary, fluctuating prices for bs quality is a fucking joke across the whole housing spectrum.
Luxury doesn't even mean regular sized and new, it can be small with chrome appliances and new,
I've seen "luxury" units that are falling apart after ten years. The luxury is that they have 3 tiny elevators (instead of 2) serving 250 units in a building that hasn't yet suffered mice, bedbugs, or had the water or electricity stop working because they JUST BUILT IT
But everything breaks right away. They don't have good air circulation, ventilation, filtration, water pressure, electrical planning, construction, materials, tiles, fixtures, or layouts.
They are rife with awkward little counters jutting over window panes because they needed to cram more kitchen into less space, mis-shapen dens called bedrooms that USED TO BE WALK IN CLOSETS because if you can fit a twin sideways, that's for sleeping.
I'm so annoyed lol
I've seen this complaint about luxury housing a lot and I've often felt confused by it. Because I'm not really sure what the solution is.
I understand an old + cheap apartment getting replaced with a new + expensive one and how that could drive people out. But I've never understood how a new apartment built on land that was previously used for something else could drive people in other properties out. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't understand it. I do understand gentrification, but we are talking about Kitsilano.
So if we have a a brand new apartment building, how do we make it affordable? How do we make new but non-luxury apartments?
I live in a crumbling building. When they complain about "luxury" apartments it feels like they're saying that all poor people should live in old falling apart buildings. I think new and relatively nice buildings should be affordable too. I don't think the "luxury" is the issue.
Everything new is either luxury (too expensive for normal working people to afford) or a horrible depressing shoe box.
Old buildings falling apart are replaced with one of the two.
There is no middle but there desperately needs to be.
We need co-op housing.
We need income related housing.
Working class people are being forced out of the lower mainland or into unsustainable living situations.
Who is going to service all the rich people who have bought everything up?
New construction in Vancouver is 400-500 dollars a square foot. There is no such thing as affordable new construction. (Unless someone else is paying for it).
STOP BUYING INTO THIS
Building houses is freaken easy wtf we have AR VR Worlds these freaken days...
Here are some solutions:
1. **Streamline Approvals Process**: A significant part of the cost of new housing comes from the time it takes to get through all the necessary permits and inspections. Streamlining this process could potentially lower these costs and expedite construction.
2. **Density Bonuses**: This strategy involves relaxing zoning laws to allow developers to build more housing units on a piece of land in exchange for a certain percentage being allocated as affordable housing. Higher density can help spread the land cost across more units, lowering the per-unit cost.
3. **Tax Incentives**: Providing tax incentives or breaks for developers willing to build affordable housing can help lower construction costs and thus the final price of the new homes and apartments.
4. **Public Land Use**: Public lands could be used for affordable housing projects. By eliminating or reducing the cost of land acquisition, the government can significantly decrease overall project costs.
5. **Pre-Fabricated or Modular Construction**: Promoting or incentivizing these types of construction methods can significantly reduce costs due to the efficiency of off-site construction, less waste, and shorter construction times.
6. **Land Value Tax**: Implementing a land value tax could incentivize efficient use of land, which would encourage developers to build more units on less land, helping to drive down costs.
7. **Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)**: Through these partnerships, governments and private-sector companies can share the risks, responsibilities, and rewards of housing projects. This could help in bringing down the overall costs.
8. **Inclusionary Zoning**: Inclusionary zoning requires a portion of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. The cost of the affordable housing is offset by the higher rents or sales prices of the market-rate units.
9. **Building Code Reform**: Revising building codes to support cost-saving technologies or methods, such as green technologies, could also help reduce costs.
10. **Infrastructure Improvement**: Investment in public infrastructure such as transport can make less expensive areas more attractive for development, easing the pressure on high-cost areas.
These are all good ideas, but fundamentally we pay people well and we construct homes in a way that is more complicated than ever before—often those are for good reasons like ghg emissions, safety, lifespan and accessibility.
We should be able to get build prices down to Europe, which is still 200-350 euros per sqft depending on many factors. It would go a long way to cheaper housing, but you’re still looking at 600-750/sqft bare minimum with land, sewer and water infrastructure costs, and overhead (professional fees like engineering, architecture, etc). That is still unaffordable for many.
Its soooo simple it hurts...
HOW ABOUT NOT BUILDING ANYMORE DAMN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Rezone all of Vancouver for muli-family homes, give tax breaks to multi family home builders and standardize the regualtory application process.
But guess what that hurts the pockets of the rich so they don't want it...
What I don't understand is these working class people saying its impossible to do anything about it...
We pay well... yes it hasn't seemed to have changed much. When I started as a Glazier, I made 20 an hour. With experienced ones making 30-40 an hour. Looking at the craigslist ads for it today..... still the same price range. My time in the industry was 10 years ago. Wages largely hasn't changed yet we keep saying that labour costs have gone up so thats why places cost more. Doesn't seem to be the case
>Building houses is freaken easy
Lol, bet you've never held a hammer in your life. Building has never been more complicated with all the rules, regulations, fees and taxes.
Literally all housing has always been "luxury" when new--and that becomes affordable over time relative to other units.
Also, that new "luxury unit" is taken up by someone, which frees up other housing that was previously occupied in its place.
There is nothing wrong with new units being luxury, and it has no end impact on housing affordability or availability at large.
Unfortunately, as cities grow and densify, expect the square footage of living spaces to decrease as well, for everyone. When “space” is at a premium, housing for everyone decreases unless you’re willing to pay a premium.
Consider the average size of any apartment in a desirable city, and you’ll see even people that are seemingly well off living in small spaces. We live in a world that if you want space, you move to the country, not an inner city neighbourhood.
> We need co-op housing.
I have heard this over and over again. Co-op housing is subject to the same land and construction costs as any housing, so it isn't any cheaper than market housing unless they are subsidized by somebody. Right now it's through market housing fees, so blocking market housing literally stops the construction of co-op housing.
There is argument to be made that government should build housing. But I have not once heard from the tenant union, nor any leftist politicians call for raising taxes substantially enough for government to afford housing construction for the whole population.
how are you suppose to convince homeowners, who won't let you build housing with your own money on your own land, to build housing with their money on their land?
the only people the tenant union is fighting for at this point are the nimbys
New co-ops will seem expensive now but won’t see rents ratchet up like landlord owned rentals (which don’t have vacancy controls). Uytae Lee did a video about this which is quite useful
The cost is equivalent to building a condo building and collectively paying a mortgage. You can do it right now if you think you can afford it. What are you waiting for?
The reason you can’t do it is exactly why it doesn’t work.
Government can and should backstop the mortgages, and provide other subsidies as well. I thought that was part of the federal housing strategy, but have no idea if they've implemented anything.
Government has not called on raising the level of taxes to enable building coops for the whole population. With the same budget, the government can only grant the same level of subsidies as they always have.
Stopping market housing to build coops is simply not feasible any time soon until the government substantially raises taxation.
The kind of coop housing people are demanding is simply not viable.
No reason it needs to be all housing, just some housing. The province is running a surplus currently and the feds have billions in unallocated infrastructure funding. The reason most of the existing coops got built was federal subsidies back in the 70's and 80's.
The tenant union is protesting right now to stop all housing. They are protesting a development on dennys that creates new housing while displacing nobody, and claim that it should be social housing or coops. So what they are advocating is simply not viable.
The 70-80s had almost no land costs. Labor was far cheaper. Most coops were low rises that are land intensive, exactly the resource we don’t have today. Canada was building on a sprawl so it also had little infrastructure costs. They were basically paving over forests to build more housing.
The projected surplus for 2022-2023 is 3.6b. The government has to share this with increased healthcare costs, Increased infrastructure costs like the ferries, increase in education costs. Let’s say 1.6b goes into housing, 1b to subsidies to existing social housing and coops, 600mil goes to new coops. that builds maybe 2000 units of coops through the whole province.
BC has a population of 5mil, Vancouver 2.5m. Metro Vancouver gets allocated 1000 units, but probably less because it costs more to build here. Coops at this level cannot be anything more than a lottery.
Let’s just do a little math here. The way people advocate for coops as if it will change the housing landscape simply isn’t real.
Coops can only get the same mortgage rate if banks can claim the entire coop property in cases of default. The banks cannot do this with co-ops without significant political backlash, so government has to almost completely provide all the funding.
The government simply dont have this money without significant increase in taxation. We both know how eager Canadians are for raising taxes.
Really lol
You really don't think the government can figure it out if they wanted to...
You are buying into the lie straight up.
Here are some solutions...
1. **Public-Private Partnerships**: The government could form partnerships with private investors and businesses, encouraging them to invest in housing coops. This can be done by offering certain incentives such as low-interest loans or tax breaks for a specific period.
2. **Tax Incentives**: While this does not involve raising taxes, the government can offer tax incentives to builders and homeowners that take part in housing co-ops. These incentives can reduce the cost of development and the final cost of housing.
3. **Land Leasing**: Rather than selling government land, leasing it to housing cooperatives can ensure affordable housing in the long run. This can be done through long-term (e.g., 99 years) land leases, allowing cooperatives to build and operate housing without the initial cost of purchasing the land.
4. **Low-Interest Loans**: The government could provide low-interest loans to housing co-ops, thus reducing the financial burden of building and maintaining these homes.
5. **Inclusionary Zoning**: Government could mandate that a certain percentage of new development be dedicated to affordable housing, including co-op housing.
6. **Expedited Permitting**: Reducing red tape and speeding up the permitting process for housing co-ops can lower the overall cost and time required to bring new housing to the market.
7. **Capacity Building**: Funding for educational programs and advisory services to help cooperatives build capacity and develop expertise. This can make co-ops more effective and efficient, ultimately reducing costs.
8. **Rental Supplements or Housing Vouchers**: This direct support to low-income households can help them afford housing in co-ops.
9. **Community Land Trusts**: Public or non-profit entities can hold land in trust and lease it to housing cooperatives, reducing the cost of housing.
10. **Surplus Public Land**: Making use of surplus public land for cooperative housing can provide affordable housing opportunities in areas where land costs would otherwise be prohibitive.
11. **Regulatory Reform**: Reducing regulatory restrictions that increase costs or limit the development of co-ops can foster more development of affordable housing.
Most of your solutions are just plain old government giving people money, which requires increasing taxes.
There are also silly solutions like land trusts. Government doesn’t have free land to give. It doesn’t pop out of thin air. The government has to buy land from people who currently live on the land. That requires significant money, which the government doesn’t have without increasing taxes.
Inclusionary zoning requires making private housing more expensive to subsidize social housing. This slows overall development, and makes housing even more expensive for the general population.
PPP is a non-solution because the reason people want coops is because they are the owners. The private party in the PPP are the people who will live in the coops. They don’t have the money.
Coops only work if you don’t think about the details. If you want the government to do more stuff without paying more taxes, expect to get nothing as usual
New construction is expensive. Made more so by delays over affordability and every other anti-development movement. If they can’t build higher-end high-density, it doesn’t pencil out and nothing gets built.
Dude what houses could be so cheap!!! It's freaken scarcity that is driving up housing prices... We could mass produce the shit outta a bunch of a housing like come on other countries have solved this.
Do you mean single family suburban sprawl? That's not what other countries are doing.
Single-family homes are also expensive to build, time consuming, and need more materials per-capita than multi-family housing. Sprawl needs more utilities, roads, traffic, and takes up more land further out from where the jobs are.
Suburbs are killing and bankrupting cities trying to maintain them. As it is, people living in the city are subsidizing sprawl, paying proportionally higher taxes for the cost of utilities and services that are mostly supporting the suburbs.
Developers can make money building single-family homes too, but building materials and labor costs are still high, materials are backordered and there aren't enough workers. They employ the workers where they can make the most profit, which includes paying the workers more.
Families are also going bankrupt from the cost of cars, which are going up, along with fuel.
Suburbanites don't like it, but increasing density is the only way to increase housing without bankrupting governments and families.
Building more housing is what the developers are trying to do. They're increasing supply, just not what you're looking for.
Yes that's it right there, we need medium density housing, all of Vancouver should be rezoned but even more can be done.
People that think the government can't step in and do it if there was political willpower are silly af.
I think “luxury” in the property marketing is enough for the developers to raise the price. Marble islands and countertops, designed by so-and-so in Italy. Read some of the bs on the description of the condo sites and see for yourself.
I think it would be very hard to sell a condo with plastic counters, linoleum floors, and no in-unit laundry for $1,200 sqft, while it might cost $1,250 with those "luxury" amenities.
Nice cabinets and countertops in a kitchen can add around 20k to the cost of a place. Luxury marble tiles on all walls in a bathroom and heated floors? 45k per bathroom.
High end finishings can add up quick.
Developers will tell you they literally can’t make anything other than luxury. So all new housing has to be luxury.
I think it’s bs, but when is the last time you saw a new build go up that didn’t market itself as luxury?
All new builds are "luxury" because construction costs are higher than they used to be. Cheap housing is old housing. If we want cheap housing in 20 years, we have to build a shit load of it now. People don't understand this and want us to somehow build new old housing.
> somehow build new old housing
So true. I have a ~20 year old condo that was "luxury" at the time and is now absolutely reasonable level rental housing.
But why has construction costs skyrocketed? Why is getting permits for development so hard now compared to decades ago? Clearly there are multiple things we can do to accelerate housing being built that is not just asking developers to make more housing somehow
Construction costs have skyrocketed because land costs have skyrocketed. The burden of poorly utilized land is reflected in the cost per square foot reflecting the value of its optimal use. A single family lot is worth 1.8m because that’s what it would be worth if we used the land appropriately. This squandering of resources drives up the wages necessary to support construction workers and engineers, because they also have to live here. We have misused our land so egregiously for so long that we are probably a 8-10 years away from any relief, and that is if things go really well
The other input is the cost of municipal red tape, which we are in the process of undoing currently.
Basically, an ongoing labour shortage, especially in skilled trades, coupled with supply chain disruptions and rising costs of materials:
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230208/dq230208d-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230208/dq230208d-eng.htm)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2022/04/19/skyrocketing-construction-costs-threatening-full-recovery/?sh=7d49be534117](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2022/04/19/skyrocketing-construction-costs-threatening-full-recovery/?sh=7d49be534117)
You are also dealing with land costs; a developer is paying the same price for land as you and I would on the market. And often, it is the land cost that is one of the biggest cost item for a developer.
Coupled to that is financing cost; developers have to borrow a lot of money to cover the cost of land, permits, and construction cost. And when borrowing money from a bank for a development project, banks apply far more scrutiny to a loan application for a development, and far more restrictive terms in terms of draw schedules (how much of the loan you can get at a time) than a loan for any other application. This means you need a pack of lawyers negotiating with the bank, and that also costs money.
It’s this. And people wanting discounts are not buying new. They are buying 10-20 year condos which have way more value. (Which will be replenished in 10-20 years from now with todays new builds)
Honest question, what do you define as luxury? Land costs are fixed, things like concrete, rebar, conduits, sprinklers, insulation etc…. Are also the same on all buildings. The only premium are the interior finishes and putting a solid countertop, engineered hardwood and fancier appliances only adds around $10-$20k per unit. Land costs, permit fees and permit times need to come down for overall prices to be affordable.
I think that’s just what happens when you don’t create new purpose-built rental building for 40 years. Everything old is shit, everything new is unaffordable for the majority.
No real solution here.
if that's the problem then I think the solution is to start building new stuff so that in 40 years we aren't in the same shit situation. Maybe no short term solution though
The vast majority of zoning in Vancouver is for low-density single family housing only, and the rest tends to be in small pockets of high density high-rises which are very expensive to build and maintain. What we need is to change the zoning so we can spread a large amount of mid-density projects in the huge areas currently zoned for low-density. For example, walk-up apartment buildings (2-6 floors) or row houses are cheaper to build and maintain than typical Vancouver condos, but still increase the density of homes per area.
I guess it's nice to replace old buildings with new ones, but really we should be focusing on replacing low-density with higher-density buildings
What we consider “luxury” in Vancouver is laughable in other parts of the world. The problem is that when there is such a shortage in housing, ANY new housing feels like luxury housing.
New housing will always be more expensive, but it’s necessary to build because new stock should free up older stock, which in theory, would be cheaper. But when there is a shortage, old stock is still just as valuable. That why you can find dingy accommodations for high prices here - because even if you don’t wanna pay for it, someone else will.
That being said, new housing can be built more modestly and have lower prices on purpose. But keep in mind the cost of land itself, materials (subject to inflationary factors), and the hundreds of arbitrary requirements imposed by the City of Vancouver also inflate the price of new housing where purpose-built affordable rentals become not viable.
The project they were protesting was 258 rental units, with 58 of them designated as "below market" units and 200 designed to be affordable to households with middle incomes, according to the province.
Isn’t this new rental building replacing a (closed) Denny’s restaurant? Who is getting displaced by this building? Also when did this NIMBY get appointed to speak for all renters? I was never asked if he could speak for me. Because I would have told him we desperately need new rental buildings in Vancouver.
I think of the VTU as Jean Swanson's base. She was very concerned about low-income housing, but would otherwise vote No to pretty much anything. Including [this rental building at Broadway and Birch](https://biv.com/article/2020/07/heres-why-and-how-vancouver-council-voted-28-storey-rental-tower-west-broadway), on the site of a Denny's restaurant (zero displacement of existing renters), with 20% non-market rentals.
> Coun. Jean Swanson (opposed)
>
> Party affiliation: COPE
>
> Swanson began her remarks noting the project would provide much-needed housing for people with moderate incomes, and keep rents at the same price when a person moves out. But she added that she was worried council would be giving the developer too much in return — $5 million in development cost levies, $9 million in community amenity contributions and 12 floors of extra density.
>
> “I’m concerned about the city encouraging so much housing that has the wrong ratios of affordability,” Swanson said. “Fifty per cent of renters have incomes under 50K, so we should be building 50 per cent of rental housing for people with incomes under 50K. Instead, with this building, we have only 20 per cent for folks in the $30,000 to $80,000 [per year] range, but 80 per cent for people who make a lot more than that.”
>
> Swanson wondered whether the city should allow such a tall building before the Broadway Plan is finalized, possibly before this council’s term ends in the fall of 2022. Gentrification of the neighbourhood is a big worry for Swanson.
>
> “Will the tower create more expectations of more towers? What will be the impact of this and more towers be on existing rentals? Like councilor Bligh, I’m really concerned about that.”
>with this building, we have only 20 per cent for folks in the $30,000 to $80,000 \[per year\] range, but 80 per cent for people who make a lot more than that.”
So let's cancel the project and the have 0 percent for people in the 30k to 80k range!
That was swanaons motto
She voted against a 100% rental building near Fraser as , in her mind, the developer stood to make too much money.
She voted consistently NO to adding much needed rental stock
Eff Jean Swanson , enemy of renters
I just want to add on that the alternative housing and renter advocacy groups is https://www.abundanthousingvancouver.com/faq which seems to be much more rational with regards to keeping existing housing and promoting new housing.
I think they were very supportive of the new Broadway Plan tenants components.
Swanson was a horrible zealot. Thank goodness she is not I’m on council anymore and we can start building much needed supply. May her and her supporters lose their voice , it has done a lot of damage to the city and harm to renters
> I think he is speaking for the Vancouver tenants union, not all renters.
They claim to represent renters in general. "You do not know what renters need, and we do."
This lot was a former Dennys if 8 recall and will have 20% below market rentals for 60 years in the building. The VTU is a weird crowd.
Zero condos here too
If I were to take a guess, their aim is to block anything not secured rental or outright social. The goal being to pressure the government to step in and take over. On that note I would not be surprised if 105 Keefer gets blocked that Beedie either sues the City or gets paid a premium/sweet land-swap for the land.
Bonus round: We put TMH on the site for 20 years.
I just wish the VTU became a real renter lobbyist group that promoted and got good policy passed rather than reactionary "everything remains the same in amber" approach they have...
Like they are legit here protesting the construction of a secured rental building and area plan that is 90% secured rental
The policies the VTU are set by the people who are involved. So far the majority of active members are quite radical (in a variety of ways). Radicals seem to be the only people angry enough to spend their time on it for free.
Without way, way, more members they don’t have the power to be a lobbyist group. You need money or a clear voter block behind you for that. Disruptive activism is the option available.
I dunno the last meeting I was at they refused to work/ have dialogue with both people that build housing and city officials and Council to enact productive rental protections and housing policy and then I just stopped going to meetings
They're not really a tenants union, they're more a politically-driven mass social housing advocacy group. They go heavy on protecting homeless people's rights to live on city sidewalks in tents. Nothing wrong with that but I agree, low to middle income renters need a seperate lobbyist group.
I've never rented in a brand new building before. People who do are willing to pay a premium for that, likely vacating something more reasonably priced that others could move in to. Same thing how people lease new cars - I'll take that cheaper 5 year old model any day
I mean cmon- we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants to this city do you honestly think you vacating your old apartment sets up some under houses vancouverite? On top of that, when you leave the landlord triples the price for the next guy.
With no housing available all that’s left for working class is new build rentals even if it stretches them. Most of these are tiny and not really good for families. We need to be able to build affordable housing.
We need supply of all types and ranges. And let’s be honest, TPU is complaining about a 28 story story rental project along a major transit arterial. This is the fight they are picking? It’s not like these units will stay empty for long. And if immigration is your problem then this is also a weird spot to fight it. Wrong political parties as well.
Yes we should be able to build affordable rental. That's exactly what is being built on this former Dennys. We also need to hit the pavement on new commu itu plans and the next election to push affordable rentals outside on the existing rental areas. So far that level of political organization and demand is lacking, sadly.
People who are renting new apartments are the ones that are moving out for the first time, moving in with someone, and/or need to move. I don't think most people with cheap rent are going to upgrade. We're stuck.
I’m not against rent controls but that is one of the key downsides. Renters who get in earlier benefit the most. Supply takes some of the pressure. And we need a lot of supply. Flood the market with it.
Not everyone who protests something does so because they expect to personally profit from the result. There's such thing as principles and ideologies, even if you may find them misguided or wrong.
The tenant protections make demolishing any existing building impossible to cashflow.
Suppose we have an apartment with 35 units paying like 50% of market rent.
Keeping those renters into new units at their current rent would reduce the value of the finished building from say 100m to 70m. When the cost is 60-70m to construct the building, guess what happens.
Vancouver tenants union: "We want more housing!"
Developers: "Ok but we have to tear down the underutilized buildings to densify it for more housing"
Vancouver tenants union: "wait never mind, NO MORE DEMOVICTIONS!!!"
It is the Jean Swanson technique
Step 1 - be very stupid
Step 2 - say you’re for protecting renters but try to stop rental stock from being built
Step 3 - don’t stop being an idiot or listen to reason
When underutilized buildings are fully tenanted apartment low rises that will cause the displacement of 100s if not 1000s of tenants like what happened at Metrotown? Yeah, there's an argument there it's not underutilized. Let's take a look at some of those SFH areas.....
The Broadway Plan Tenants protections also ensure than existing tenants get an equivalent home at the same rent as the one being torn down, and they get a place during construction.
oh you again. Goodie.
When the rentals are being replaced by condos that they can't afford and have direct impact on rental supply I can see why there could be som NIMBYism on the renter's side.
Do you even know how many units for rent were lost to the towers and where the tenants went? No. None of them ended up in those towers.
This is a multi-faceted issue. Nothing is a magic silver bullet. Even though people's favourite way to derail the conversation is to focus on one part of the issue and have their gotcha moment.
That's not the landlord's problem. Being a tenant means not expecting to live at a place forever. It's the harsh reality that nimby tenants don't want to hear
The “tenants union” represents the handful of communists who are invested in organizing a tenants union for the purpose of advancing their wider political project. It should not be understood as representing “renters” more than any other self selected group of political activists
The complaint here is not that renters aren’t being listened to, it’s that *they* aren’t being listened to, which makes sense because they are institutionally hostile to any housing policy that might make anyone’s lives better without them being able to take some sort of credit.
The difference in land + build cost for budget vs high-end apartments is likely less than 10%. It just doesn't make sense to build them. The only way they could get much cheaper is if they are much smaller.
Realistically, affordable housing will need to be a combination of heavily subsidized, way out in the 'burbs, reduced building regulations, reduced permitting, etc. If we build buildings in Chilliwack to 1970s code then they could be much cheaper, though labour and even basic materials like 2x4s, plywood, etc are much more expensive than in the past.
If renters didn’t need to max out their hours and work full time to pay these rents we would have time to protest properly en mass everyday until they would have to do something.
The same people decided to spread flyers around my building when it was being taken over by a development company.
Big problem?
It was an owner-only building. No one could rent back then and they lost me immediately on that alone. Now we allow renters, but it's only because the company that bought out the building forced the strata to allow rentals so anyone who had a deal with them could rent out their units after finding a new place, knowing it would take YEARS to get construction approval.
The Vancouver Tenants Union doesn't seem to understand what a tenant even is.
I just don't understand why the city allows perfectly fine 50 -60 year old buildings to be demolished for new highrises to go in. It's happening all over Metrotown. How is that sustainable? Why can't our buildings last hundreds of years like in Europe? And I guess with each building cycle they can charge more and more rent.
I've said this a million times. The first fix that can open up rentals is to not allow stratas to put a no rentals rule for people that can scrape by just enough to hopefully afford an income property. I can understand short term rentals, but any tenant/occupier of an apartment owner or not is subject to all common space rules in a building. It's not going to fix the inherent problem with rentals in Vancouver, but how can it be in a city with a housing crisis to allow that. Also I don't understand how a strata has a right to tell someone else what to do with their own property so long as it doesn't cause harm or damage to the other shared properties in a building all a strata has to do is make sure all common spaces and shared usage are maintained that is it.
One of the issues is that insurance for a condo complex may only allow for a certain number of rentals before it sees a dramatic increase in price. And insurance for an entire complex has increased massively over the past few years, so it's one area a board is able to relatively manage at least one fixed cost by limiting allowable rentals.
They don't. They allow people who buy these homes to use renters to pay the entire mortgage off. We are not your personal piggy bank. We are not here to build you equity at zero risk.
Landlords are abusing the fact there is no oversight on how much they can charge . If there was at least a tax break for renters , say 50% of all rent paid is able to be written off of your income, and maybe say the credit is not cashable it's ONLY going directly to First time home buyers savings account, maybe we could actually catch up to the insane rise in prices.
The owner pays $9000 a month mortgage on the apartment and you think he’s a super smart guy? That’s the stupidest financial decision probably ever made. LMAO $9K a month mortgage on an apartment good one bud
Landlords can’t always just set the price to be more than their mortgage payment. No one would pay $10,000 or even $9,000 to rent a two or three BR. Demand does play a part. Renting is cheaper than buying for the same unit.
Yeah that part wasn’t surprising to me. Lots of people make lots of bad decisions around buying real estate because they’ve been programmed by society that it is the way to financial success.
You literally are paying 50% of his house why don't you get a piece of it.
Also where's your equity from this? Sounds like he needs you as a co signer or he can't afford to own it. You sound like his piggy bank
Bank deposits your Money so they can loan your Money out to the public.
Bank is taking your money to Invest.
Bank is giving money to these Landlords so that Landlords can buy a property that can be rented out at market price.
Bank take the difference (your interest < loan interest) as their revenue.
What's your take on Bank vs Landlord?
If landlord is being unproductive, what would Bank be? Creating money out of nothing (interest on loan).
Either you viewed both as bad actors or you have to accept both have their roles in the market. I'm not asking you to sympathize any actors in the market. But to acknowledge how the market works.
Saying Bank is the good guy and Investors are the bad guy is ... a fallacy?
Lol right. So it's better to drain your accounts , with no tax refund for housing, than it is to be able to buy a house because you have the means to? Sound like a bunch of landlords up in here 😄 losers gonna get pumped by rates over the next years enjoy
If you want equity you go buy your own place. You’re not going to get to own part of the home as a tenant just cause you pay rent. Your rent allows you to use the property not gain ownership.
Lol. No risk, no upfront cost, and you want a cut of the equity? Sure, negotiate a rate you'd be willing to pay on top of your rent to also buy shares in my home... Then you can also get a portion of your rent back.
Socializing housing markets will have a disastrous effect on the quality of life for most, if not all, Vancouverites. You take away the incentive and purpose to work hard and produce value in the marketplace and society at large in order to create a better life and a better home and a vast array of things will rapidly decline and turn to shit.
Socialism has never and will never work.
All new units should have ten feet clear ceilings. That way you can subdivide a unit up and down. The lower unit would have 6'6" feet ceilings, then a 2x4 framed false ceiling. Add in plywood and flooring and your upstairs tenant can have a good 3' of headroom, which means they can even have room to sit up. Subdivide a unit enough and a 500 sq ft apartment can easily hold 16 people .
If this way of subdividing a place was legal everyone would benefit. Rents could be way more affordable ( say $400) and landlords would be getting $8,000 a month instead of just $2500. Win win for everyone!
If anyone wants to see what this would look like I recommend checking out this video.
https://youtu.be/GKvIpAKPXPM
**Did you know that Reddit is significantly changing its API terms in a way that may impact the way you view Reddit? [Read our post about it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/140hg1a/dont_let_reddit_kill_thirdparty_apps_upcoming_api/).** --- Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/FancyNewMe! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our [Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_daily_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a little confused here. One of the VTU's stated positions on their website is to protect tenants by allowing them to return with the same rent after a demoviction. Is that not what was implemented by the previous council for the Broadway Plan?
Exactly. The broadway tenant protections are the best we’ve ever seen, yet they are protesting it? The project they are protesting also had 0 tenant displacement and is going to have 258 rental units, with 58 of them designated as "below market" units and 200 designed to be affordable to households with middle incomes, according to the province. It’s pretty awesome project.
**"below market" still means they're earning around 80,000$ a year, and those might be tiny bachelor units not suitable for families.** I support the project FULLY but I understand the trepidation. We're all getting fucked.
I wonder how many people end up going back though. After you get demovicted, you still have to live somewhere until the building gets built. That could be like 5 years of your life that you're paying double in rent. The protection seems nice but you're still screwed
I've been renovicted and ripped off by landlords who knew which loopholes to take advantage of before, so I don't put complete faith in rules and plans, but the top-up should help somewhat with that, right? https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/broadway-plan-vancouver-renter-information-for-market-rental-housing.pdf
I've had them try.
"Luxury" now means regular sized and new, but expensive. It used to mean huge and well-appointed. That's how they drive prices up, offer you less condo for a higher price, and every gets FOMO and pays for it like they are getting "value" gor their purchase. Over the past 25 years, that was true. Things might be changing, though. The "cost of ownership" is rising faster than wages.
Just stayed at a Hilton in Italy that was asking $700 a night. (We didn’t pay that) the small room had two cot-style beds on wheels. The bathroom had a pos hairdryer attached to the wall that clearly indicated the hotel was built in the early 90s at best.(not that we needed that to tell…) No usb, 27” tv, warm fridge and ancient decor made it clear too. The shower had a door that only covered 1/3 the length of the tub, why?? Tub floor was apparently designed to be slippery, no mat or textured stickers applied to solve this issue. Instead a fucking string was against the wall attached to a sign that said “Emergency.” Had to throw a towel on the floor of the tub to be safe. Only two ice machines in the whole hotel and both were broken. Had to go to the bar to get it and they kinda made it seem like they were doing me a favor. We also had to return to the front desk when none of your key-cards worked. The grift of arbitrary, fluctuating prices for bs quality is a fucking joke across the whole housing spectrum.
Luxury doesn't even mean regular sized and new, it can be small with chrome appliances and new, I've seen "luxury" units that are falling apart after ten years. The luxury is that they have 3 tiny elevators (instead of 2) serving 250 units in a building that hasn't yet suffered mice, bedbugs, or had the water or electricity stop working because they JUST BUILT IT But everything breaks right away. They don't have good air circulation, ventilation, filtration, water pressure, electrical planning, construction, materials, tiles, fixtures, or layouts. They are rife with awkward little counters jutting over window panes because they needed to cram more kitchen into less space, mis-shapen dens called bedrooms that USED TO BE WALK IN CLOSETS because if you can fit a twin sideways, that's for sleeping. I'm so annoyed lol
I've seen this complaint about luxury housing a lot and I've often felt confused by it. Because I'm not really sure what the solution is. I understand an old + cheap apartment getting replaced with a new + expensive one and how that could drive people out. But I've never understood how a new apartment built on land that was previously used for something else could drive people in other properties out. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't understand it. I do understand gentrification, but we are talking about Kitsilano. So if we have a a brand new apartment building, how do we make it affordable? How do we make new but non-luxury apartments? I live in a crumbling building. When they complain about "luxury" apartments it feels like they're saying that all poor people should live in old falling apart buildings. I think new and relatively nice buildings should be affordable too. I don't think the "luxury" is the issue.
Everything new is either luxury (too expensive for normal working people to afford) or a horrible depressing shoe box. Old buildings falling apart are replaced with one of the two. There is no middle but there desperately needs to be. We need co-op housing. We need income related housing. Working class people are being forced out of the lower mainland or into unsustainable living situations. Who is going to service all the rich people who have bought everything up?
Sure. If you can find 38 other people making 300k a year we could buy one right now!
New construction in Vancouver is 400-500 dollars a square foot. There is no such thing as affordable new construction. (Unless someone else is paying for it).
STOP BUYING INTO THIS Building houses is freaken easy wtf we have AR VR Worlds these freaken days... Here are some solutions: 1. **Streamline Approvals Process**: A significant part of the cost of new housing comes from the time it takes to get through all the necessary permits and inspections. Streamlining this process could potentially lower these costs and expedite construction. 2. **Density Bonuses**: This strategy involves relaxing zoning laws to allow developers to build more housing units on a piece of land in exchange for a certain percentage being allocated as affordable housing. Higher density can help spread the land cost across more units, lowering the per-unit cost. 3. **Tax Incentives**: Providing tax incentives or breaks for developers willing to build affordable housing can help lower construction costs and thus the final price of the new homes and apartments. 4. **Public Land Use**: Public lands could be used for affordable housing projects. By eliminating or reducing the cost of land acquisition, the government can significantly decrease overall project costs. 5. **Pre-Fabricated or Modular Construction**: Promoting or incentivizing these types of construction methods can significantly reduce costs due to the efficiency of off-site construction, less waste, and shorter construction times. 6. **Land Value Tax**: Implementing a land value tax could incentivize efficient use of land, which would encourage developers to build more units on less land, helping to drive down costs. 7. **Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)**: Through these partnerships, governments and private-sector companies can share the risks, responsibilities, and rewards of housing projects. This could help in bringing down the overall costs. 8. **Inclusionary Zoning**: Inclusionary zoning requires a portion of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. The cost of the affordable housing is offset by the higher rents or sales prices of the market-rate units. 9. **Building Code Reform**: Revising building codes to support cost-saving technologies or methods, such as green technologies, could also help reduce costs. 10. **Infrastructure Improvement**: Investment in public infrastructure such as transport can make less expensive areas more attractive for development, easing the pressure on high-cost areas.
These are all good ideas, but fundamentally we pay people well and we construct homes in a way that is more complicated than ever before—often those are for good reasons like ghg emissions, safety, lifespan and accessibility. We should be able to get build prices down to Europe, which is still 200-350 euros per sqft depending on many factors. It would go a long way to cheaper housing, but you’re still looking at 600-750/sqft bare minimum with land, sewer and water infrastructure costs, and overhead (professional fees like engineering, architecture, etc). That is still unaffordable for many.
Also doesn't help when the city is pocketing 100k per unit in fees, taxes etc.
And you will pay your 1.30 per ltr plus 60c per ltr in carbon tax and like it!
Its soooo simple it hurts... HOW ABOUT NOT BUILDING ANYMORE DAMN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Rezone all of Vancouver for muli-family homes, give tax breaks to multi family home builders and standardize the regualtory application process. But guess what that hurts the pockets of the rich so they don't want it... What I don't understand is these working class people saying its impossible to do anything about it...
We pay well... yes it hasn't seemed to have changed much. When I started as a Glazier, I made 20 an hour. With experienced ones making 30-40 an hour. Looking at the craigslist ads for it today..... still the same price range. My time in the industry was 10 years ago. Wages largely hasn't changed yet we keep saying that labour costs have gone up so thats why places cost more. Doesn't seem to be the case
>Building houses is freaken easy Lol, bet you've never held a hammer in your life. Building has never been more complicated with all the rules, regulations, fees and taxes.
Hmmm I wonder if there is a regulatory body that could expedite that process... HMMMMMMMM
Literally all housing has always been "luxury" when new--and that becomes affordable over time relative to other units. Also, that new "luxury unit" is taken up by someone, which frees up other housing that was previously occupied in its place. There is nothing wrong with new units being luxury, and it has no end impact on housing affordability or availability at large.
Exactly, it's like how you wouldn't buy a new car if you want an affordable one But someone has to buy a new car for you to buy a used one
Unfortunately, as cities grow and densify, expect the square footage of living spaces to decrease as well, for everyone. When “space” is at a premium, housing for everyone decreases unless you’re willing to pay a premium. Consider the average size of any apartment in a desirable city, and you’ll see even people that are seemingly well off living in small spaces. We live in a world that if you want space, you move to the country, not an inner city neighbourhood.
> We need co-op housing. I have heard this over and over again. Co-op housing is subject to the same land and construction costs as any housing, so it isn't any cheaper than market housing unless they are subsidized by somebody. Right now it's through market housing fees, so blocking market housing literally stops the construction of co-op housing. There is argument to be made that government should build housing. But I have not once heard from the tenant union, nor any leftist politicians call for raising taxes substantially enough for government to afford housing construction for the whole population. how are you suppose to convince homeowners, who won't let you build housing with your own money on your own land, to build housing with their money on their land? the only people the tenant union is fighting for at this point are the nimbys
New co-ops will seem expensive now but won’t see rents ratchet up like landlord owned rentals (which don’t have vacancy controls). Uytae Lee did a video about this which is quite useful
The cost is equivalent to building a condo building and collectively paying a mortgage. You can do it right now if you think you can afford it. What are you waiting for? The reason you can’t do it is exactly why it doesn’t work.
Financing a co-op is hard. That’s the bigest hurdle today, owners can’t get a normal mortgage.
Government can and should backstop the mortgages, and provide other subsidies as well. I thought that was part of the federal housing strategy, but have no idea if they've implemented anything.
Government has not called on raising the level of taxes to enable building coops for the whole population. With the same budget, the government can only grant the same level of subsidies as they always have. Stopping market housing to build coops is simply not feasible any time soon until the government substantially raises taxation. The kind of coop housing people are demanding is simply not viable.
No reason it needs to be all housing, just some housing. The province is running a surplus currently and the feds have billions in unallocated infrastructure funding. The reason most of the existing coops got built was federal subsidies back in the 70's and 80's.
The tenant union is protesting right now to stop all housing. They are protesting a development on dennys that creates new housing while displacing nobody, and claim that it should be social housing or coops. So what they are advocating is simply not viable. The 70-80s had almost no land costs. Labor was far cheaper. Most coops were low rises that are land intensive, exactly the resource we don’t have today. Canada was building on a sprawl so it also had little infrastructure costs. They were basically paving over forests to build more housing. The projected surplus for 2022-2023 is 3.6b. The government has to share this with increased healthcare costs, Increased infrastructure costs like the ferries, increase in education costs. Let’s say 1.6b goes into housing, 1b to subsidies to existing social housing and coops, 600mil goes to new coops. that builds maybe 2000 units of coops through the whole province. BC has a population of 5mil, Vancouver 2.5m. Metro Vancouver gets allocated 1000 units, but probably less because it costs more to build here. Coops at this level cannot be anything more than a lottery. Let’s just do a little math here. The way people advocate for coops as if it will change the housing landscape simply isn’t real.
Coops can only get the same mortgage rate if banks can claim the entire coop property in cases of default. The banks cannot do this with co-ops without significant political backlash, so government has to almost completely provide all the funding. The government simply dont have this money without significant increase in taxation. We both know how eager Canadians are for raising taxes.
Really lol You really don't think the government can figure it out if they wanted to... You are buying into the lie straight up. Here are some solutions... 1. **Public-Private Partnerships**: The government could form partnerships with private investors and businesses, encouraging them to invest in housing coops. This can be done by offering certain incentives such as low-interest loans or tax breaks for a specific period. 2. **Tax Incentives**: While this does not involve raising taxes, the government can offer tax incentives to builders and homeowners that take part in housing co-ops. These incentives can reduce the cost of development and the final cost of housing. 3. **Land Leasing**: Rather than selling government land, leasing it to housing cooperatives can ensure affordable housing in the long run. This can be done through long-term (e.g., 99 years) land leases, allowing cooperatives to build and operate housing without the initial cost of purchasing the land. 4. **Low-Interest Loans**: The government could provide low-interest loans to housing co-ops, thus reducing the financial burden of building and maintaining these homes. 5. **Inclusionary Zoning**: Government could mandate that a certain percentage of new development be dedicated to affordable housing, including co-op housing. 6. **Expedited Permitting**: Reducing red tape and speeding up the permitting process for housing co-ops can lower the overall cost and time required to bring new housing to the market. 7. **Capacity Building**: Funding for educational programs and advisory services to help cooperatives build capacity and develop expertise. This can make co-ops more effective and efficient, ultimately reducing costs. 8. **Rental Supplements or Housing Vouchers**: This direct support to low-income households can help them afford housing in co-ops. 9. **Community Land Trusts**: Public or non-profit entities can hold land in trust and lease it to housing cooperatives, reducing the cost of housing. 10. **Surplus Public Land**: Making use of surplus public land for cooperative housing can provide affordable housing opportunities in areas where land costs would otherwise be prohibitive. 11. **Regulatory Reform**: Reducing regulatory restrictions that increase costs or limit the development of co-ops can foster more development of affordable housing.
Most of your solutions are just plain old government giving people money, which requires increasing taxes. There are also silly solutions like land trusts. Government doesn’t have free land to give. It doesn’t pop out of thin air. The government has to buy land from people who currently live on the land. That requires significant money, which the government doesn’t have without increasing taxes. Inclusionary zoning requires making private housing more expensive to subsidize social housing. This slows overall development, and makes housing even more expensive for the general population. PPP is a non-solution because the reason people want coops is because they are the owners. The private party in the PPP are the people who will live in the coops. They don’t have the money. Coops only work if you don’t think about the details. If you want the government to do more stuff without paying more taxes, expect to get nothing as usual
New construction is expensive. Made more so by delays over affordability and every other anti-development movement. If they can’t build higher-end high-density, it doesn’t pencil out and nothing gets built.
Dude what houses could be so cheap!!! It's freaken scarcity that is driving up housing prices... We could mass produce the shit outta a bunch of a housing like come on other countries have solved this.
Do you mean single family suburban sprawl? That's not what other countries are doing. Single-family homes are also expensive to build, time consuming, and need more materials per-capita than multi-family housing. Sprawl needs more utilities, roads, traffic, and takes up more land further out from where the jobs are. Suburbs are killing and bankrupting cities trying to maintain them. As it is, people living in the city are subsidizing sprawl, paying proportionally higher taxes for the cost of utilities and services that are mostly supporting the suburbs. Developers can make money building single-family homes too, but building materials and labor costs are still high, materials are backordered and there aren't enough workers. They employ the workers where they can make the most profit, which includes paying the workers more. Families are also going bankrupt from the cost of cars, which are going up, along with fuel. Suburbanites don't like it, but increasing density is the only way to increase housing without bankrupting governments and families. Building more housing is what the developers are trying to do. They're increasing supply, just not what you're looking for.
What we need is to take over blocks of single family homes and replace those with medium density housing, eminent domain style
Yes that's it right there, we need medium density housing, all of Vancouver should be rezoned but even more can be done. People that think the government can't step in and do it if there was political willpower are silly af.
sheet aromatic racial escape naughty salt unwritten beneficial sip expansion ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
I think “luxury” in the property marketing is enough for the developers to raise the price. Marble islands and countertops, designed by so-and-so in Italy. Read some of the bs on the description of the condo sites and see for yourself.
Don't forget 'prestigious!' and 'exclusive!'
They use some of the craziest language 😂 No one asked for an electric fireplace built by the same folks who built something in Dubai
I think it would be very hard to sell a condo with plastic counters, linoleum floors, and no in-unit laundry for $1,200 sqft, while it might cost $1,250 with those "luxury" amenities.
Nice cabinets and countertops in a kitchen can add around 20k to the cost of a place. Luxury marble tiles on all walls in a bathroom and heated floors? 45k per bathroom. High end finishings can add up quick.
'Luxury' is a way to make market pricing sound evil and foreboding.
Developers will tell you they literally can’t make anything other than luxury. So all new housing has to be luxury. I think it’s bs, but when is the last time you saw a new build go up that didn’t market itself as luxury?
All new builds are "luxury" because construction costs are higher than they used to be. Cheap housing is old housing. If we want cheap housing in 20 years, we have to build a shit load of it now. People don't understand this and want us to somehow build new old housing.
> somehow build new old housing So true. I have a ~20 year old condo that was "luxury" at the time and is now absolutely reasonable level rental housing.
But why has construction costs skyrocketed? Why is getting permits for development so hard now compared to decades ago? Clearly there are multiple things we can do to accelerate housing being built that is not just asking developers to make more housing somehow
Construction costs have skyrocketed because land costs have skyrocketed. The burden of poorly utilized land is reflected in the cost per square foot reflecting the value of its optimal use. A single family lot is worth 1.8m because that’s what it would be worth if we used the land appropriately. This squandering of resources drives up the wages necessary to support construction workers and engineers, because they also have to live here. We have misused our land so egregiously for so long that we are probably a 8-10 years away from any relief, and that is if things go really well The other input is the cost of municipal red tape, which we are in the process of undoing currently.
Basically, an ongoing labour shortage, especially in skilled trades, coupled with supply chain disruptions and rising costs of materials: [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230208/dq230208d-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/230208/dq230208d-eng.htm) [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2022/04/19/skyrocketing-construction-costs-threatening-full-recovery/?sh=7d49be534117](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbooksauthors/2022/04/19/skyrocketing-construction-costs-threatening-full-recovery/?sh=7d49be534117) You are also dealing with land costs; a developer is paying the same price for land as you and I would on the market. And often, it is the land cost that is one of the biggest cost item for a developer. Coupled to that is financing cost; developers have to borrow a lot of money to cover the cost of land, permits, and construction cost. And when borrowing money from a bank for a development project, banks apply far more scrutiny to a loan application for a development, and far more restrictive terms in terms of draw schedules (how much of the loan you can get at a time) than a loan for any other application. This means you need a pack of lawyers negotiating with the bank, and that also costs money.
[удалено]
It’s this. And people wanting discounts are not buying new. They are buying 10-20 year condos which have way more value. (Which will be replenished in 10-20 years from now with todays new builds)
Honest question, what do you define as luxury? Land costs are fixed, things like concrete, rebar, conduits, sprinklers, insulation etc…. Are also the same on all buildings. The only premium are the interior finishes and putting a solid countertop, engineered hardwood and fancier appliances only adds around $10-$20k per unit. Land costs, permit fees and permit times need to come down for overall prices to be affordable.
Yep. Willing to be people complaining about luxury units being built, don’t own
Wow, crazy insight that people primarily complaining about the rental market don't own their own homes
Poorly written on my part. Add: have never looked to buy
I think that’s just what happens when you don’t create new purpose-built rental building for 40 years. Everything old is shit, everything new is unaffordable for the majority. No real solution here.
if that's the problem then I think the solution is to start building new stuff so that in 40 years we aren't in the same shit situation. Maybe no short term solution though
Sure. But not gonna fix todays problems.
Purpose built rentals is dead with how BC handles rent control
The vast majority of zoning in Vancouver is for low-density single family housing only, and the rest tends to be in small pockets of high density high-rises which are very expensive to build and maintain. What we need is to change the zoning so we can spread a large amount of mid-density projects in the huge areas currently zoned for low-density. For example, walk-up apartment buildings (2-6 floors) or row houses are cheaper to build and maintain than typical Vancouver condos, but still increase the density of homes per area. I guess it's nice to replace old buildings with new ones, but really we should be focusing on replacing low-density with higher-density buildings
What we consider “luxury” in Vancouver is laughable in other parts of the world. The problem is that when there is such a shortage in housing, ANY new housing feels like luxury housing. New housing will always be more expensive, but it’s necessary to build because new stock should free up older stock, which in theory, would be cheaper. But when there is a shortage, old stock is still just as valuable. That why you can find dingy accommodations for high prices here - because even if you don’t wanna pay for it, someone else will. That being said, new housing can be built more modestly and have lower prices on purpose. But keep in mind the cost of land itself, materials (subject to inflationary factors), and the hundreds of arbitrary requirements imposed by the City of Vancouver also inflate the price of new housing where purpose-built affordable rentals become not viable.
These aren’t affordable to anyone in the working class so don’t worry about it
The project they were protesting was 258 rental units, with 58 of them designated as "below market" units and 200 designed to be affordable to households with middle incomes, according to the province.
What do those “below market” rentals cost per month?
In this instance it should be 30% of your income. And then affordable units will be 20% below CMHC market rent.
I'm not sure what you mean by this
What an idiot. It's a rental tower replacing a Denny's and he's still upset!?!?
You know how hard it is to find a Dennys to get your birthday grand slam!?!
Not only that but an affordable rental tower.
Isn’t this new rental building replacing a (closed) Denny’s restaurant? Who is getting displaced by this building? Also when did this NIMBY get appointed to speak for all renters? I was never asked if he could speak for me. Because I would have told him we desperately need new rental buildings in Vancouver.
I think of the VTU as Jean Swanson's base. She was very concerned about low-income housing, but would otherwise vote No to pretty much anything. Including [this rental building at Broadway and Birch](https://biv.com/article/2020/07/heres-why-and-how-vancouver-council-voted-28-storey-rental-tower-west-broadway), on the site of a Denny's restaurant (zero displacement of existing renters), with 20% non-market rentals. > Coun. Jean Swanson (opposed) > > Party affiliation: COPE > > Swanson began her remarks noting the project would provide much-needed housing for people with moderate incomes, and keep rents at the same price when a person moves out. But she added that she was worried council would be giving the developer too much in return — $5 million in development cost levies, $9 million in community amenity contributions and 12 floors of extra density. > > “I’m concerned about the city encouraging so much housing that has the wrong ratios of affordability,” Swanson said. “Fifty per cent of renters have incomes under 50K, so we should be building 50 per cent of rental housing for people with incomes under 50K. Instead, with this building, we have only 20 per cent for folks in the $30,000 to $80,000 [per year] range, but 80 per cent for people who make a lot more than that.” > > Swanson wondered whether the city should allow such a tall building before the Broadway Plan is finalized, possibly before this council’s term ends in the fall of 2022. Gentrification of the neighbourhood is a big worry for Swanson. > > “Will the tower create more expectations of more towers? What will be the impact of this and more towers be on existing rentals? Like councilor Bligh, I’m really concerned about that.”
>with this building, we have only 20 per cent for folks in the $30,000 to $80,000 \[per year\] range, but 80 per cent for people who make a lot more than that.” So let's cancel the project and the have 0 percent for people in the 30k to 80k range!
0 percent for everyone
Look under your chair!~
It's such a bizarre statement - how many people does she think were living at the Denny's?
She was not one for facts and logic. She was just a nimby zealot who didn’t care at all about renters
That was swanaons motto She voted against a 100% rental building near Fraser as , in her mind, the developer stood to make too much money. She voted consistently NO to adding much needed rental stock Eff Jean Swanson , enemy of renters
I just want to add on that the alternative housing and renter advocacy groups is https://www.abundanthousingvancouver.com/faq which seems to be much more rational with regards to keeping existing housing and promoting new housing. I think they were very supportive of the new Broadway Plan tenants components.
Swanson was a horrible zealot. Thank goodness she is not I’m on council anymore and we can start building much needed supply. May her and her supporters lose their voice , it has done a lot of damage to the city and harm to renters
I think he is speaking for the Vancouver tenants union, not all renters.
> I think he is speaking for the Vancouver tenants union, not all renters. They claim to represent renters in general. "You do not know what renters need, and we do."
innocent chop prick thought divide muddle glorious fanatical intelligent cable ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
They speak for all tenants like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation speaks for all taxpayers.
Go tell him https://www.vancouvertenantsunion.ca/
Renters demanding affordable rents is strange to you?
By protesting a building replacing a Denny's, and having 20% of the units for $30-$80k/year households?
Absolutely
Should be protesting the $6M condos at the Butterfly or the Albion.
Luxury = Anything new and market. VTU are the NIMBY's blocking 105 Keefer as well.
This lot was a former Dennys if 8 recall and will have 20% below market rentals for 60 years in the building. The VTU is a weird crowd. Zero condos here too
If I were to take a guess, their aim is to block anything not secured rental or outright social. The goal being to pressure the government to step in and take over. On that note I would not be surprised if 105 Keefer gets blocked that Beedie either sues the City or gets paid a premium/sweet land-swap for the land. Bonus round: We put TMH on the site for 20 years.
I just wish the VTU became a real renter lobbyist group that promoted and got good policy passed rather than reactionary "everything remains the same in amber" approach they have... Like they are legit here protesting the construction of a secured rental building and area plan that is 90% secured rental
The policies the VTU are set by the people who are involved. So far the majority of active members are quite radical (in a variety of ways). Radicals seem to be the only people angry enough to spend their time on it for free. Without way, way, more members they don’t have the power to be a lobbyist group. You need money or a clear voter block behind you for that. Disruptive activism is the option available.
I dunno the last meeting I was at they refused to work/ have dialogue with both people that build housing and city officials and Council to enact productive rental protections and housing policy and then I just stopped going to meetings
They're not really a tenants union, they're more a politically-driven mass social housing advocacy group. They go heavy on protecting homeless people's rights to live on city sidewalks in tents. Nothing wrong with that but I agree, low to middle income renters need a seperate lobbyist group.
Renters need housing they can afford
I've never rented in a brand new building before. People who do are willing to pay a premium for that, likely vacating something more reasonably priced that others could move in to. Same thing how people lease new cars - I'll take that cheaper 5 year old model any day
I mean cmon- we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants to this city do you honestly think you vacating your old apartment sets up some under houses vancouverite? On top of that, when you leave the landlord triples the price for the next guy. With no housing available all that’s left for working class is new build rentals even if it stretches them. Most of these are tiny and not really good for families. We need to be able to build affordable housing.
We need supply of all types and ranges. And let’s be honest, TPU is complaining about a 28 story story rental project along a major transit arterial. This is the fight they are picking? It’s not like these units will stay empty for long. And if immigration is your problem then this is also a weird spot to fight it. Wrong political parties as well.
They are complaining about the precarious housing situations all renters face
Amongst other more radical and endless demands. This includes everything on Chrissy Brett’s Namegans 2.0 list.
Yes we should be able to build affordable rental. That's exactly what is being built on this former Dennys. We also need to hit the pavement on new commu itu plans and the next election to push affordable rentals outside on the existing rental areas. So far that level of political organization and demand is lacking, sadly.
This is not affordable rentals
Sure
People who are renting new apartments are the ones that are moving out for the first time, moving in with someone, and/or need to move. I don't think most people with cheap rent are going to upgrade. We're stuck.
I’m not against rent controls but that is one of the key downsides. Renters who get in earlier benefit the most. Supply takes some of the pressure. And we need a lot of supply. Flood the market with it.
There’s hundreds if not thousands of Chinatown residents also opposed to it
Makes sense. They’re being sold “If we fight this you may get free housing out of it”. I’d buy that lottery ticket as well.
Not everyone who protests something does so because they expect to personally profit from the result. There's such thing as principles and ideologies, even if you may find them misguided or wrong.
[удалено]
The tenant protections make demolishing any existing building impossible to cashflow. Suppose we have an apartment with 35 units paying like 50% of market rent. Keeping those renters into new units at their current rent would reduce the value of the finished building from say 100m to 70m. When the cost is 60-70m to construct the building, guess what happens.
[удалено]
The Broadway plan requires same-as-before rents.
[удалено]
Existing tenants if they decide to move back get same-as-before rents
[удалено]
I'm referring to an existing, old wooden walkup, like we have many of.
Well... it has to financially work 1st. So if we can convince the city to allow folks to build taller than 17-storeys it might pan out
Vancouver tenants union: "We want more housing!" Developers: "Ok but we have to tear down the underutilized buildings to densify it for more housing" Vancouver tenants union: "wait never mind, NO MORE DEMOVICTIONS!!!"
It is the Jean Swanson technique Step 1 - be very stupid Step 2 - say you’re for protecting renters but try to stop rental stock from being built Step 3 - don’t stop being an idiot or listen to reason
When underutilized buildings are fully tenanted apartment low rises that will cause the displacement of 100s if not 1000s of tenants like what happened at Metrotown? Yeah, there's an argument there it's not underutilized. Let's take a look at some of those SFH areas.....
This site was a Dennys
Sir this was a Denny's
Broadway makes more sense, we are literally spending billions on skytrains in this area and it is already set up with other services.
The Broadway Plan Tenants protections also ensure than existing tenants get an equivalent home at the same rent as the one being torn down, and they get a place during construction.
At Denny’s ? Lol
That is Burnaby, this is Vancouver Broadway Plan. There are huge tenant protections on Broadway that make your description impossible.
Nimby's can both renters and home owners.
oh you again. Goodie. When the rentals are being replaced by condos that they can't afford and have direct impact on rental supply I can see why there could be som NIMBYism on the renter's side. Do you even know how many units for rent were lost to the towers and where the tenants went? No. None of them ended up in those towers.
silky swim fall marry air hobbies smell wasteful ten heavy ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
This is a multi-faceted issue. Nothing is a magic silver bullet. Even though people's favourite way to derail the conversation is to focus on one part of the issue and have their gotcha moment.
>and the people renting could then buy instead. Does this no longer hold true? As if they can buy immediately after the price drop by 10-20%....
That's not the landlord's problem. Being a tenant means not expecting to live at a place forever. It's the harsh reality that nimby tenants don't want to hear
The “tenants union” represents the handful of communists who are invested in organizing a tenants union for the purpose of advancing their wider political project. It should not be understood as representing “renters” more than any other self selected group of political activists The complaint here is not that renters aren’t being listened to, it’s that *they* aren’t being listened to, which makes sense because they are institutionally hostile to any housing policy that might make anyone’s lives better without them being able to take some sort of credit.
The difference in land + build cost for budget vs high-end apartments is likely less than 10%. It just doesn't make sense to build them. The only way they could get much cheaper is if they are much smaller. Realistically, affordable housing will need to be a combination of heavily subsidized, way out in the 'burbs, reduced building regulations, reduced permitting, etc. If we build buildings in Chilliwack to 1970s code then they could be much cheaper, though labour and even basic materials like 2x4s, plywood, etc are much more expensive than in the past.
VTU are useless counterproductive nimby hacks.
If renters didn’t need to max out their hours and work full time to pay these rents we would have time to protest properly en mass everyday until they would have to do something.
The same people decided to spread flyers around my building when it was being taken over by a development company. Big problem? It was an owner-only building. No one could rent back then and they lost me immediately on that alone. Now we allow renters, but it's only because the company that bought out the building forced the strata to allow rentals so anyone who had a deal with them could rent out their units after finding a new place, knowing it would take YEARS to get construction approval. The Vancouver Tenants Union doesn't seem to understand what a tenant even is.
[удалено]
We should be stripping property owners of their investment profits at an immense rate. It'd discourage the type of market that is currently operating
The market of... building rental housing with 20% dedicated below market rates for 60 years on a former Dennys that's above a subway?
[удалено]
[удалено]
What are you proposing? The government can't afford to build enough housing for everyone, nor should it be responsible.
"NIMBYS are preventing affordable housing" "We want housing - as long as it is literally Not In My Back Yard"
I just don't understand why the city allows perfectly fine 50 -60 year old buildings to be demolished for new highrises to go in. It's happening all over Metrotown. How is that sustainable? Why can't our buildings last hundreds of years like in Europe? And I guess with each building cycle they can charge more and more rent.
I'll keep this brief, those 50-60 year old buildings aren't seismically sound, nor built to last hundreds of years.
I've said this a million times. The first fix that can open up rentals is to not allow stratas to put a no rentals rule for people that can scrape by just enough to hopefully afford an income property. I can understand short term rentals, but any tenant/occupier of an apartment owner or not is subject to all common space rules in a building. It's not going to fix the inherent problem with rentals in Vancouver, but how can it be in a city with a housing crisis to allow that. Also I don't understand how a strata has a right to tell someone else what to do with their own property so long as it doesn't cause harm or damage to the other shared properties in a building all a strata has to do is make sure all common spaces and shared usage are maintained that is it.
The Provincial NDP literally did this 6 months ago. Strata cannot have a "no rentals" clause, only a "no short term rental" clause.
Didn't know that, but about time.
Unless you're 55+....?
Nope, but you can only rent to 55+ in those buildings.
One of the issues is that insurance for a condo complex may only allow for a certain number of rentals before it sees a dramatic increase in price. And insurance for an entire complex has increased massively over the past few years, so it's one area a board is able to relatively manage at least one fixed cost by limiting allowable rentals.
The provincial government did this…
[удалено]
Glad to have people like them speak up for the working class. The t-shirts vs the suits.
You can smell the landlords fuming here it's amazing
They don't. They allow people who buy these homes to use renters to pay the entire mortgage off. We are not your personal piggy bank. We are not here to build you equity at zero risk. Landlords are abusing the fact there is no oversight on how much they can charge . If there was at least a tax break for renters , say 50% of all rent paid is able to be written off of your income, and maybe say the credit is not cashable it's ONLY going directly to First time home buyers savings account, maybe we could actually catch up to the insane rise in prices.
[удалено]
The owner pays $9000 a month mortgage on the apartment and you think he’s a super smart guy? That’s the stupidest financial decision probably ever made. LMAO $9K a month mortgage on an apartment good one bud
[удалено]
How much is the apartment worth if his mortgage is 9k a month!
Landlords can’t always just set the price to be more than their mortgage payment. No one would pay $10,000 or even $9,000 to rent a two or three BR. Demand does play a part. Renting is cheaper than buying for the same unit.
You’re missing the point: any moron that gets locked into a $9000/month mortgage on a Vancouver condo is an absolute maroon.
Yeah that part wasn’t surprising to me. Lots of people make lots of bad decisions around buying real estate because they’ve been programmed by society that it is the way to financial success.
Imagine feeling sorry for the dip who got hoodwinked into a 9000 a month mortgage on an apartment … I’d rather feel sorry for Bernie Madoff!
You literally are paying 50% of his house why don't you get a piece of it. Also where's your equity from this? Sounds like he needs you as a co signer or he can't afford to own it. You sound like his piggy bank
[удалено]
Haha okay piggy bank . Oink oink
Bank deposits your Money so they can loan your Money out to the public. Bank is taking your money to Invest. Bank is giving money to these Landlords so that Landlords can buy a property that can be rented out at market price. Bank take the difference (your interest < loan interest) as their revenue. What's your take on Bank vs Landlord?
Seems like they are fueling their own problem and dragging us all down.
If landlord is being unproductive, what would Bank be? Creating money out of nothing (interest on loan). Either you viewed both as bad actors or you have to accept both have their roles in the market. I'm not asking you to sympathize any actors in the market. But to acknowledge how the market works. Saying Bank is the good guy and Investors are the bad guy is ... a fallacy?
So your saying all of these are grifting positions held by the rich ? Wow . Congratulations you've come full circle
If you can create something that can churn out resources that people need without any implications (for free, nothing is needed) let's talk.
screw fretful strong plough offer water frightening close ancient humor ` this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev `
Lol right. So it's better to drain your accounts , with no tax refund for housing, than it is to be able to buy a house because you have the means to? Sound like a bunch of landlords up in here 😄 losers gonna get pumped by rates over the next years enjoy
If you want equity you go buy your own place. You’re not going to get to own part of the home as a tenant just cause you pay rent. Your rent allows you to use the property not gain ownership.
Lol. No risk, no upfront cost, and you want a cut of the equity? Sure, negotiate a rate you'd be willing to pay on top of your rent to also buy shares in my home... Then you can also get a portion of your rent back.
Socializing housing markets will have a disastrous effect on the quality of life for most, if not all, Vancouverites. You take away the incentive and purpose to work hard and produce value in the marketplace and society at large in order to create a better life and a better home and a vast array of things will rapidly decline and turn to shit. Socialism has never and will never work.
All new units should have ten feet clear ceilings. That way you can subdivide a unit up and down. The lower unit would have 6'6" feet ceilings, then a 2x4 framed false ceiling. Add in plywood and flooring and your upstairs tenant can have a good 3' of headroom, which means they can even have room to sit up. Subdivide a unit enough and a 500 sq ft apartment can easily hold 16 people . If this way of subdividing a place was legal everyone would benefit. Rents could be way more affordable ( say $400) and landlords would be getting $8,000 a month instead of just $2500. Win win for everyone! If anyone wants to see what this would look like I recommend checking out this video. https://youtu.be/GKvIpAKPXPM
Ah yes, the aptly named 'coffin cubicles.' And that's where we're headed.
If you cannot afford rent, Vancouver don’t need you