Jump to content

      



























Photo

Victoria rental housing market and related issues discussion


  • Please log in to reply
1882 replies to this topic

#281 Jason-L

Jason-L
  • Member
  • 1,257 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 12:38 PM

And I'm sure none of this is because the average rental rate in Victoria has jumped and reno'd apartments will be able to charge that higher rate.


  • Nparker likes this

#282 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 12:57 PM

Housing needs upgrading, there's no illusion about that. The only reason why it's now become an issue at the forefront is because governments have been disinterested in helping the industry build and now we're in a bind. They deferred the problem, so here we are.
  • DavidSchell likes this

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#283 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 03:03 PM

Housing needs upgrading, there's no illusion about that. The only reason why it's now become an issue at the forefront is because governments have been disinterested in helping the industry build and now we're in a bind. They deferred the problem, so here we are.

 

I think it's mostly blame shifting from the industry.   Why did they start building rentals a couple years back?  because it made economic sense to do so.  Why didn't they before that?  Because it was more lucrative to build condos.  Simple as that.      The fast track process is nice but it is not the key factor in whether rentals are built or not.  


  • Nparker and spanky123 like this

#284 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:15 PM

 

Why did they start building rentals a couple years back?  because it made economic sense to do so.  Why didn't they before that?  Because it was more lucrative to build condos.  Simple as that.

 

Note that some large rental projects were floated during the condo mini-boom of the early 2000s but they weren't allowed to pass. In other words, developers were indeed proposing to build rental units even back when it wasn't so lucrative to do so (circa May 2004->January 2005). But the city and neighbourhood groups weren't playing ball. The blame should fall squarely on them.

 

From the memory hole:

 

 

Once-shunned tower projects back on table for rezoning
Times Colonist
January 13, 2005

A controversial proposal to build 16-storey and 12-storey apartment towers in James Bay has been revived despite overwhelming opposition from neighbouring residents.

Quadra Pacific Properties and Associated Building Credits have applied for rezoning applications to be considered by Victoria council this morning.

Associated wants to build 105 rental apartments in a 16-storey block and 16 townhouses at 350-360 Douglas St. Quadra Pacific is proposing a 113-unit tower at 415-435 Michigan St.

Both projects were rejected by all but three of 120 people attending a community meeting last May.

Ross Sinclair, who lives nearby at 624 Avalon St., is outraged that the proposals have resurfaced, especially because rezoning notices appeared during the Christmas holidays when they might have been overlooked.

"The community has already nixed this once," Sinclair said, adding that the projects do not conform to the James Bay neighbourhood plan.

Planning staff has recommended both proposals be rejected. However, consultant Mark Johnston, a former Esquimalt and Victoria city hall administrator, has argued rental apartments are badly needed.

 

Rental units have not been built in James Bay area since the 1970s.

 

 

City council rejects second application for James Bay towers
Times Colonist
January 14, 2005

Victoria council showed little appetite Thursday for new residential towers in James Bay when it rejected two proposals for apartment buildings.

Reg Stewart and his family wanted to build the first private-sector rental accommodation in the neighbourhood since the 1970s. However, council rejected rezoning applications by companies linked to the family for 16-storey and 12-storey towers opposed by most neighbouring residents.

The proposals at 350-360 Douglas St. and 415-435 Michigan St. did not comply with planning policies for James Bay, already the densest neighbourhood in the city.

Mark Johnston, a consultant and former city administrator representing the Stewarts, said the projects would provide badly needed rental accommodation for the city.

The proposed towers would have gone up next to the existing buildings developed by the Stewarts several decades ago -- the Goodacre Towers, Regent Towers and Charter House buildings. Their proposal also offered $400,000 for the James Bay New Horizons seniors centre for a food-services facility.

The city planning department said this fell way short of the $3-million cash benefit required under the city's "density bonus" policy. This policy sets a value for density approved beyond what zoning rules normally allow.

Mayor Alan Lowe said while the city needs more rental accommodation, the proposals were "too big and too dense." Towers built in the 1970s could no longer serve as the model for James Bay, he indicated.

Coun. Pamela Madoff said that neighbourhood was effectively "downzoned" in the 1970s after residents complained about too many tall buildings in the precinct that spreads south of the legislature buildings.


Edited by aastra, 07 July 2016 - 04:23 PM.


#285 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:19 PM

Rentals were not built because lenders wouldn't lend without government backing.

The only reason we saw rental housing building booms in the past is because of government involvement.

Regardless, there were developers over the last 20 years who wanted to build legacy projects irrespective of the financials. They were denied, their projects were killed by politicians.

As such it's the epitome of irony for Rob Fleming to complain about a lack of rental housing when he voted against said legacy projects when he was a councillor.

Fast forwarding for a moment, the reason why rentals are possible right now is because banks have few choices at such low lending rates. In Victoria given the low vacancy rates banks see rentals as stable, long term investments. That can change at the flip of a hat once rates start rising.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#286 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:42 PM

Rentals were not "cool" 10 or 15 years ago.

 

In 10 of our 13 municipalities they remain uncool.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#287 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:42 PM

 

...a limited supply of rental housing was built on southern Vancouver Island over the last 25 years, a situation the development community largely attributes to lukewarm support for high-density rental developments and overly restrictive zoning.

 

What other conclusion can you come to after reading those articles about the Quadra Pacific proposals? The community claimed to want rentals but then rejected the rentals that were proposed because they were too big, too dense, didn't conform to community plans, etc.

 

How else can you introduce a large number of units if you don't allow for at least a moderate amount of density? Community groups need to wake up and acknowledge the fact that these sorts of developments are much more attractive now than they ever were back in the 1960s-1970s. It's silly to be tarring contemporary developments with the same brush as those old projects.



#288 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:44 PM

Note that some large rental projects were floated during the condo mini-boom of the early 2000s but they weren't allowed to pass. In other words, developers were indeed proposing to build rental units even back when it wasn't so lucrative to do so (circa May 2004->January 2005). But the city and neighbourhood groups weren't playing ball. The blame should fall squarely on them.

 

From the memory hole:

 

That would be the neighbourhood groups though.   What is the city to do when the neighbourhood is so completely against a project?   They can either ignore all feedback and approve it anyway, or don't approve it and be seen as anti-rental stock.   Lose lose.



#289 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:46 PM

Just to clarify, I don't want to see houses demolished for large rental buildings. But those Quadra Pacific proposals were slated for the surface parking lots of existing apartment complexes. Those are ideal sites for more density in the neighbourhoods as far as I'm concerned. I'd actually like to see incentives to build on those lots. Put the parking underground.



#290 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:48 PM

 

What is the city to do when the neighbourhood is so completely against a project?

 

What does the city do when people are completely against the city's projects? They proceed anyway.


  • VicHockeyFan and jonny like this

#291 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:50 PM

Rentals were not built because lenders wouldn't lend without government backing.
 

 Lenders will lend when it is profitable to do so.   I can see the need for government subsidy if it's below-market "affordable" housing, but why should the government step in for normal rentals?  Let the market sort it out. 

 

> Regardless, there were developers over the last 20 years who wanted to build legacy projects irrespective of the financials. They were denied, their projects were killed by politicians.

 

I don't buy this for a second.   Developers are not in the business of building out of the goodness of their heart.   If they proposed a project it was because it would have been profitable.   The NIMBY neighbourhood groups struck it down, no argument there.    The tyranny of democracy.

 

> As such it's the epitome of irony for Rob Fleming to complain about a lack of rental housing when he voted against said legacy projects when he was a councillor.

 

Agreed.   I just don't think it's the main reason.

> Fast forwarding for a moment, the reason why rentals are possible right now is because banks have few choices at such low lending rates. In Victoria given the low vacancy rates banks see rentals as stable, long term investments. That can change at the flip of a hat once rates start rising.

 
Right.   Rentals are being built now because it makes financial sense to do so.  Just as it should be.  


#292 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:51 PM

What does the city do when people are completely against the city's projects? They proceed anyway.

 

If that were even remotely true we would have a sewage plant by now.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#293 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 04:56 PM

If that were even remotely true we would have a sewage plant by now.

 

We'd have a $3B one now if the CRD politicians could get it together.

 

They failed.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#294 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 05:31 PM

Just so I'm in the loop, are we revising the script now to say Victoria city's politicians have been resisting the sewage project? If we're going to say that then why don't we just declare today to be opposite day and also say Victoria's politicians have been heroically resisting the bridge replacement project, tent cities, and the bike lane plan, too?



#295 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 05:50 PM

Just so I'm in the loop, are we revising the script now to say Victoria city's politicians have been resisting the sewage project? 

 

No.  Not sure where you got that idea.   You said if the city (which I interpreted to mean the greater victoria city) wants a project done they go ahead with it regardless of local opposition.   I gave the counterpoint which is the sewage project they have been trying to push on various locations for years and always had to back off on after massive local opposition.   

So no, the "city" does not proceed with their own projects against massive opposition.

Another example:  The tent city in the park which was Help's plan until the community shut her down.


Edited by LeoVictoria, 07 July 2016 - 05:53 PM.


#296 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,650 posts

Posted 07 July 2016 - 07:27 PM

 

Not sure where you got that idea.   You said if the city (which I interpreted to mean the greater victoria city) wants a project done they go ahead with it regardless of local opposition.

 

I think I got that idea because I was raising the issue of quashed rental projects in James Bay specifically. You asked what the city's options were when facing neighbourhood opposition to new rentals.

 

In that instance, "the city" could only = Victoria proper. (Obviously Langford or Central Saanich would have no relevance.)

 

I replied that the city's normal workaround was to proceed anyway despite the opposition. Again, I was referring to the city proper. (Because Oak Bay or Colwood would have no relevance.)

 

Anyway, I just don't see how it's a tenable claim that the city's people don't pursue projects against massive resistance. They're keen on doing major sewage work at Clover Point of all places. Did we forget about that? Re: the tent city agenda, I think it would be very foolish to regard Topaz Park "round 1" as anything like a victory. We're aware that they're already looking back to Topaz Park, yes? The tent city agenda continues to be pressed, as per the "two steps forward, one step forward" formula.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm a "glass half-empty" sort of guy, but when a tsunami of opposition forces them (the city) to take just one step forward instead of two, I really don't feel like much has been accomplished. I acknowledge that half-steam ahead is slower than full-steam ahead, but everything is still moving in the same direction.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Fun Facts:

Something like ~70% of Greater Victoria's rental apartments are in the city proper:
https://www.cmhc-sch...A01.pdf#page=13

 

And many of the rental apartments in Saanich & Esquimalt are located in neighbourhoods adjacent to the city proper. So when we're talking about rental issues in Victoria we're very much talking about Victoria city.



#297 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 08 July 2016 - 06:29 AM

> They're keen on doing major sewage work at Clover Point of all places. Did we forget about that

Did you forget about all the previous sites they abandoned?

Hell I think they should be more forceful. They will never find a site that neighbours will be delighted about.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 08 July 2016 - 06:32 AM.


#298 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,242 posts

Posted 08 July 2016 - 10:56 AM

There is already sewage treatment at clover point so it's natural to upgrade it....
  • Nparker likes this

#299 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 08 July 2016 - 11:17 PM

Lenders will lend when it is profitable to do so. I can see the need for government subsidy if it's below-market "affordable" housing, but why should the government step in for normal rentals? Let the market sort it out.

I don't buy this for a second. Developers are not in the business of building out of the goodness of their heart. If they proposed a project it was because it would have been profitable. The NIMBY neighbourhood groups struck it down, no argument there. The tyranny of democracy.

In decades past the federal government backed rental projects, hence the huge volume of rental housing built in Victoria (and country-wide). The industry has asked for governments to bring the programs back, but to no avail. Luckily right now the banks are hungry for stable, long term investments and given Victoria's vacancy rate they want to lend. Two years from now the situation could be reversed and the industry won't have financing unless the government gets involved. Regardless of vacancy, if the banks feel condos are safer, that's what they'll support. Victoria has had a sub-1% vacancy rate for over a decade but it's only in the last few years that the banks have been motivated to lend.

Quadra Pacific properties had elected to build several legacy buildings on their parking lots in James Bay (they owned the land, they were well financed). They admitted the investment was one with a very, very long term outlook and the head of the company felt it was his opportunity to leave a legacy to the City at a time when nobody was able to build rentals. He has since passed away, and his holdings have been mostly (if not entirely?) sold off.

You can look up all of the info in the paper archives in the library. It's all there. They tried, but they got cut down and gave up.

The irony, right?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#300 LeoVictoria

LeoVictoria
  • Member
  • 3,471 posts

Posted 09 July 2016 - 07:31 AM

In decades past the federal government backed rental projects, hence the huge volume of rental housing built in Victoria (and country-wide). The industry has asked for governments to bring the programs back, but to no avail. Luckily right now the banks are hungry for stable, long term investments and given Victoria's vacancy rate they want to lend. Two years from now the situation could be reversed and the industry won't have financing unless the government gets involved. Regardless of vacancy, if the banks feel condos are safer, that's what they'll support. Victoria has had a sub-1% vacancy rate for over a decade but it's only in the last few years that the banks have been motivated to lend.

 

I'm ok with condos being built instead of dedicated rentals if that is what private industry will build.  I don't believe we need government support to have a balance of rentals and condos.  Relax rental restrictions in the condo towers and they can effectively meet rental demand.  Maybe we wouldn't facing 20,000 rental units needing renovation all at once if there wasn't a huge rental boom in one time.   


Edited by LeoVictoria, 09 July 2016 - 07:32 AM.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)