3492 replies to this topic

[Kapten Kapsell]

I wasn’t sure where to post this link, but Bc Housing has purchased a site on Catherine Street which may eventually become an affordable housing development: https://vancouverisl...perty-1.5354471

[Nparker]

I wasn’t sure where to post this link, but Bc Housing has purchased a site on Catherine Street...

Cross-posted here: https://vibrantvicto...ssues/?p=596385

[Citified.ca]

The 120-unit Hockley House affordable rental complex at 830 Hockley Avenue in downtown Langford is now complete and welcoming tenants. The six-storey project is the latest affordable housing project to complete in the Capital Region, and one of several newly-built below-market offerings on the rapidly growing West Shore.

 

120-unit affordable rental complex in downtown Langford ready for tenants

https://victoria.cit...dy-for-tenants/

[Victoria Watcher]

The B.C. government says it's investing $2 billion in a low-interest loan program for builders of affordable housing.

 

Housing Minister David Eby says the financing will be provided to private developers and community groups through the province's HousingHub program, a division of BC Housing.

 

_______________

 

 

Eby says the loans will be provided at below-market rates and in return, developers will commit to passing the construction savings on to residents through more affordable rents and housing prices.

 

He says the loans will be repaid once construction is complete, allowing HousingHub to reinvest in more units.

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...sing-1.24307809

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 15 April 2021 - 02:43 PM.

[Mike K.]

At a time when interest rates are already ultra-low and builders are flush with capital.

I don’t know what the end-game is if government is going to compete with lenders. Will lenders raise rates on the middle class, by way of higher banking fees and even lower returns on savings?

[spanky123]

^ If developers feel that the "affordable" guidelines will cost them revenue then they won't take the money unless they are unable to secure financing themselves at a reasonable rate.

[Mike K.]

It’s not so much about the guidelines any longer, as it is about creating product for pension funds and REITs to absorb. Billion dollar funds are desperate for acquisition opportunities and there isn’t enough product to go around for them all to move the needles, and they need hundreds of millions in secure investments to move those needles.

In comes government with financing to help speed things along for near-market rental products the REITs can buy.

[Victoria Watcher]

can't the REITs just build them?

[Mike K.]

Some do, but they’re not all in the business of building physical assets, just investing in those assets by buying finished product.

[Awaiting Juno]

Saw this article and think that there's likely some merit to exploring different approaches to meeting the need.  What if the City bought land for affordable rental housing and then created 100 year leaseholds that would enable non-profit housing cooperatives to build rental housing? The non-profit holds the construction mortgage and the rents pay the mortgage and the maintenance.  Once the mortgage is paid, rents are held constant to cover maintenance costs and are pooled to fund other affordable housing projects. Of note, there is a surprising lack of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units (as well as wheelchair accessible units) that would be either family or room-mate friendly.  The city could further reduce costs by having a set of pre-approved plans ready and waiving permit fees for these projects - ideally the city would pre-identify appropriate lots (on secondary collector roads and main transit corridors to minimize the need for parking requirements). These would be utilitarian units that are finished to a useful standard (ie. not luxury finishings).  Think of the 1950's buildings that had very pragmatic layouts (small but useful).

[Mike K.]

This is already being done by the many non-profit housing agencies operating within the CRD.

 

You also have to factor in wear and tear, which social/government projects contend with to a greater degree than market rentals (on average) where tenants are evicted if there are problems. Social/government housing tenants receive far more leeway in that regard, so you see these projects reaching end-of-life 10-30 years faster than market projects, and in some cases it's also not so much just the wear and tear as it is the less costlier construction budgets from the start.

 

This is a very complex issue, but we have sophisticated firms providing this housing now. For the CoV to get involved it would add another layer of duplication and more competition for government dollars that would be allocated anyways.

Edited by Mike K., 22 April 2021 - 04:05 PM.

[Awaiting Juno]

Doing the math - at $275 per square foot construction cost, if the land is retained by the city, the construction cost for a 11,600 square foot building with 4, 800 sq ft units (2 bed 1 bath), 3, 1200 sq ft (3 bed, 1 bath), and 3 1600 sq ft (4 bed, 2 bath) units would be $3,190,000.  That results in a mortgage expense of $13,690 per month (at 2.1% interest). If rents are $1500 for a 2 bed, $1800 for a 3 bed, and $2100 for a 4 bed - rents would be - $17,700 per month ($4,010 per month going to contingency/reserve funding). Assuming you can build this using 3 stories, you'd need 4,000 Square feet as foot print, keeping a 40% ratio means the lot size would need to be about 10,000 square feet...(some allowance for hallways, ideally exterior to minimize heating/maintenance cost)....

[Nparker]

...For the CoV to get involved it would add another layer of duplicity and more competition for government dollars that would be allocated anyways.

I am not sure duplicity was the word you wanted to use, but it may just be le mot juste.

[Mike K.]

Doing the math - at $275 per square foot construction cost, if the land is retained by the city, the construction cost for a 11,600 square foot building with 4, 800 sq ft units (2 bed 1 bath), 3, 1200 sq ft (3 bed, 1 bath), and 3 1600 sq ft (4 bed, 2 bath) units would be $3,190,000. That results in a mortgage expense of $13,690 per month (at 2.1% interest). If rents are $1500 for a 2 bed, $1800 for a 3 bed, and $2100 for a 4 bed - rents would be - $17,700 per month ($4,010 per month going to contingency/reserve funding). Assuming you can build this using 3 stories, you'd need 4,000 Square feet as foot print, keeping a 40% ratio means the lot size would need to be about 10,000 square feet...(some allowance for hallways, ideally exterior to minimize heating/maintenance cost)....

Missing from that equation are engineering, architectural, consulting and professional costs, excavation, insurance, operating costs, management and maintenance costs, and I don’t think you can build at $275/foot, more like $350 with the way things are going and with unionized labour.

[spanky123]

Saw this article and think that there's likely some merit to exploring different approaches to meeting the need.  What if the City bought land for affordable rental housing and then created 100 year leaseholds that would enable non-profit housing cooperatives to build rental housing? The non-profit holds the construction mortgage and the rents pay the mortgage and the maintenance.  Once the mortgage is paid, rents are held constant to cover maintenance costs and are pooled to fund other affordable housing projects. Of note, there is a surprising lack of 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units (as well as wheelchair accessible units) that would be either family or room-mate friendly.  The city could further reduce costs by having a set of pre-approved plans ready and waiving permit fees for these projects - ideally the city would pre-identify appropriate lots (on secondary collector roads and main transit corridors to minimize the need for parking requirements). These would be utilitarian units that are finished to a useful standard (ie. not luxury finishings).  Think of the 1950's buildings that had very pragmatic layouts (small but useful).

 

The Soviets did that in the 50s and 60s as well.

[spanky123]

Missing from that equation are engineering, architectural, consulting and professional costs, excavation, insurance, operating costs, management and maintenance costs, and I don’t think you can build at $275/foot, more like $350 with the way things are going and with unionized labour.

 

Missing from the equation is the fact that the City will pay 3x market for the land to reward their friends! 

[Nparker]

Missing from the equation is the fact that the City will pay 3x market for the land to reward their friends! 

To be fair, they will pay above market to punish their enemies (aka CoV taxpayers) as well.

[Mike K.]

I am not sure duplicity was the word you wanted to use, but it may just be le mot juste.

Ha! Very good. Thanks for that.

[Dexter]

This is an accurate build price these days, land not included. Some have said it can be done for half that but I wish them luck.

Missing from that equation are engineering, architectural, consulting and professional costs, excavation, insurance, operating costs, management and maintenance costs, and I don’t think you can build at $275/foot, more like $350 with the way things are going and with unionized labour.

[Jackerbie]

Fwiw, the article Juno shared estimates construction costs at $320/SF and $365/SF for wood frame and concrete, respectively. This includes the soft costs, about 30% of the total