1095 replies to this topic

[mysage]

There is no real answer to your question without considering the other end of the equation. What good does it do for a community to have 100% of the housing units in a community occupied? Fully occupied by 1 person or 2 people or perhaps like certain parts of the world whole families of 4,5 6 or more people. I would argue that the strain on communities of having a 100% + occupancy rates is far worse than the strain of having a 15% vacancy rate (with the units having been sold in the first place).

The whole point is we live in a land that puts premium on lifestyle and attracts those that can afford to buy and only use occasionally.

[tedward]

Maybe you'd like to legislate them to be full, put all the homeless in them?

Nope, not me. As usual the black/white, yes/no thinking has taken the place of nuance.

All I am saying is that this is an issue that needs to be accounted for in both public and private planning. It affects shops and private services but it also can affect public services and future zoning and development requests.

[mysage]

Nope, not me. As usual the black/white, yes/no thinking has taken the place of nuance.

All I am saying is that this is an issue that needs to be accounted for in both public and private planning. It affects shops and private services but it also can affect public services and future zoning and development requests.

OK, any suggestions on how that might be accomplished?

[aastra]

What's the worst-case scenario? The few commercial units in the bottom of the condo building (if they exist) remain empty for a long period until the rents are adjusted to reflect the actual potential of the spaces? So where once there was a parking lot or an empty lot there is now a nice new condo building with many (but slightly fewer than expected) new residents, nice landscaping, and some empty commercial units on the ground floor. A bit disappointing, but still a massive transformative improvement over what was there before. And many people and many firms were employed for many months during the building's design and construction.

It seems like we're grounding this analysis on the assumption that a certain percentage of empty units must translate into a certain negative impact somehow, somewhere. I think about some of the beautiful new residential buildings along the Coal Harbour waterfront and I wonder if (for example) marble-clad One Harbour Green could have been built at all in its current form if those extra units that tend to be unoccupied had not been included.

And meanwhile, the stock complaints about new residential buildings (too much new traffic, too many new people, too much noise and activity) are mitigated if some of the units are unoccupied.

[Jacques Cadé]

More on Vancouver's empty-condo debate: http://www.theglobea...rticle11147711/

At the panel discussion, Sandy Garossino, a former crown prosecutor and community advocate, brought up the impact of unaffordability on low-income groups, such as seniors. Investor behaviour pushes prices up. Their impact trickles down.

In an interview, she talked about the inevitable class divide that is the consequence of operating as a playground for rich people. There are the people in the expensive houses. And then there are the people making the coffee, cleaning the houses, caring for children and the elderly, and working at 7-Eleven. Where do they live?

.... We may not have hard data, but we all know what’s happening. The speculators are creating empty-feeling, overpriced neighbourhoods, the opposite of settling down and getting to know the neighbours.

“I feel that there are a lot of people who came to Canada and made their money outside the city and they are bringing that capital into Vancouver’s real estate market,” Mr. Yan said. “I am absolutely sure that is happening. Because when you look at the income numbers, it doesn’t make sense otherwise. We are not a wealthy city.”

Simply put, there are two things happening. People are taking on an incredible amount of debt, and there is another group from around the world that is buying. They don’t need mortgages, and they pay cash for multiple units.

A shiny new building is better than a surface parking lot, sure. Construction generates jobs, and property taxes provide revenue for the municipality. But those things don't automatically produce an affordable, vibrant downtown.

[VicHockeyFan]

More on Vancouver's empty-condo debate: http://www.theglobea...rticle11147711/

A shiny new building is better than a surface parking lot, sure. Construction generates jobs, and property taxes provide revenue for the municipality. But those things don't automatically produce an affordable, vibrant downtown.

A shiny new building is better than a surface parking lot, sure. Construction generates jobs, and property taxes provide revenue for the municipality. - all sounds great to me!

East Van is the affordable, vibrant downtown. I don't think anyone wants downtown to look like that.

[G-Man]

^ I think you mean the Downtown Eastside. East Van is quite nice.

[VicHockeyFan]

^ I think you mean the Downtown Eastside. East Van is quite nice.

No, I mean East Van. That's the affordable part near the city, out towards the PNE.

[G-Man]

Oh I thought you were saying it seemed dowtownish and it doesn't to me.

[sebberry]

Ran into some old friends today who were over from Vancouver. It's not just condos that sit empty - foreign buyers are buying houses for the land value, bulldozing the houses, building new houses and letting them sit empty.

[VicHockeyFan]

Ran into some old friends today who were over from Vancouver. It's not just condos that sit empty - foreign buyers are buying houses for the land value, bulldozing the houses, building new houses and letting them sit empty.

So? Where does the previous owner move to? They must go somewhere an help "vibrify" that area they move to. So the vibrancy is only moving from one area to another, not disappearing. I honestly do not know what the "problem" is here. Who is suffering?

[G-Man]

I don't get it either. Perhaps just jealousy.

[sebberry]

So? Where does the previous owner move to? They must go somewhere an help "vibrify" that area they move to. So the vibrancy is only moving from one area to another, not disappearing. I honestly do not know what the "problem" is here. Who is suffering?

I don't know, but these people said they had (I think) about 3 vacant, brand new homes on their road.

I think they're just holding onto them for the land value, and since new houses that haven't been lived in are more desirable than lived-in ones, it's an easier sale later on.

We didn't spend much time talking about it.

[aastra]

Thought this was an interesting chart posted by geotag277 over at skyscraperpage.com:

 

 

source: http://www.metrovanc...1-Dwellings.pdf

 

edit: for searchability, "apartments fewer than five storeys" or "fewer than five stories"

Edited by aastra, 13 October 2017 - 09:47 AM.

[johnk]

Ran into some old friends today who were over from Vancouver. It's not just condos that sit empty - foreign buyers are buying houses for the land value, bulldozing the houses, building new houses and letting them sit empty.

But they are paying higher property taxes due to higher assessments. They are buying insurance, paying water taxes but not using any city services like police, fire or garbage collection. Almost free money for the municipality. The money has gone to sellers who will invest it in the larger economy or buy elsewhere (unless they take the money and run to Mexico).

Edited by johnk, 27 March 2016 - 03:24 PM.

[LJ]

But they are paying higher property taxes due to higher assessments. They are buying insurance, paying water taxes but not using any city services like police, fire or garbage collection. Almost free money for the municipality. The money has gone to sellers who will invest it in the larger economy or buy elsewhere (unless they take the money and run to Mexico).

In the CRD you don't pay for water if you don't use any. There are no taxes or base fees like gas companies etc.

[johnk]

In the CRD you don't pay for water if you don't use any. There are no taxes or base fees like gas companies etc.

Really?
My last water bill of $269 shows
$103 for metered water,
$35 for sewer-muni (60% of consumption),
$75 for sewer-CRD debt (60% of consumption)
$55 basic charge.
Seems to me I would pay $55 even if I did not use a drop.

Edited by johnk, 31 March 2016 - 09:48 AM.

[LJ]

When I am away for the winter my water bill is zero.

 

They are one of the few utilities that don't have auto pay or even electronic billing. They still snail mail the bill out.

 

So I go on the web site from time to time to check my account it always says "no bill available"

 

Last year I called them and asked them about it and the girl said "if you don't use any water we don't bill you". 

 

And they don't.

[Mike K.]

LJ is in Langford. John, which muni do you live in?

[Nparker]

Jane Jacobs: Urban visionary or "crazy dame"? Discus.

 

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Jane_Jacobs