3483 replies to this topic

[dasmo]

Younger individuals with families are moving to places where they can afford to live, he said. “So at the end of the day, the things we need to help with that are housing, but that is never going to happen because of the way the municipalities don’t want to build more housing. Density is not something that people want on the Saanich Peninsula. Everybody seems to be against it because they want to protect their investments. But what they are going to find is that their cost of living is going to far surpass the investment increases they are going to see in their houses. That is just my prediction.”

https://www.vicnews....sing-companies/

This guy has it all wrong. People do not want to specifically “protect their investment” but they do prefer streets less crowded and quieter neighbourhoods. We all do. And there is no good reason to welcome high density development, for many.

Exactly, They want to protect their way of life.

[Sparky]

^ Exactly, that’s what zoning laws do.

[Victoria Watcher]

Density likely has its place, even on the Peninsula. But it’s certainly not everywhere. Just like it’s not welcome in middle block Fairfield or Rockland or South Oak Bay.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 08 May 2022 - 06:43 AM.

[dasmo]

Density completely has it’s place. It’s also desirable by many. I used to desire it. Now I’m glad I got away from it. The idea that it makes a place more affordable seems a bit propaganda like though. The most densely developed places are not the most affordable.

[Victoria Watcher]

I’ve said it here before:

If literally today, 10,000 1-bedroom condos came available throughout Greater Victoria, priced at $200,000, they’d be gone before the end of this month.

And we’d be no further ahead.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 08 May 2022 - 07:06 AM.

[dasmo]

Pretty much. Personally one low hanging fruit to change is sending everyone a letter telling them their house is worth $200k more this year! If it’s for tax purposes, make it an index value.

[Mike K.]

It wouldn’t be so controversial if we also improved infrastructure when adding more density. We seem to lack a desire to expand roads and improve traffic flows as neighbourhoods grow, which then deflates tolerance for more density.

[Nparker]

...We seem to lack a desire to expand roads and improve traffic flows as neighbourhoods grow, which then deflates tolerance for more density.

As far as the City of Victoria goes, I would say that as density increases the infrastructure is actively made worse. See the "Nightmare on Vancouver Street" for proof.

[Mike K.]

And transit services lack expansion as well.

Per-capita, transit was superior in 1990 to what it is today.

[dasmo]

As far as the City of Victoria goes, I would say that as density increases the infrastructure is actively made worse. See the "Nightmare on Vancouver Street" for proof.

No kidding! Vancouver is killed. A few speed humps would have been enough.

[Nparker]

And it only succeeded in making Cook Street and Quadra Street more congested.

[E2V]

Now that the United Church of Canada has pledged to use all available property assets to create affordable housing, I wonder if the plan to use the spare land at the Oak Bay United Church will be revived after quietly disappearing some time ago.

[Mike K.]

Good question.

I would think the embarrassment at The Quest on Oak Bay Ave will give the United Church proposal more goodwill if it re-emerges.

[aastra]

 

The idea that it makes a place more affordable seems a bit propaganda like though. The most densely developed places are not the most affordable.

 

The politics related to density have always been false (just like the politics related to all other issues).

 

Back in the day the authorities assured us that urban density was guaranteed to be intolerably miserable, which energized suburban development and the construction of highways. Dense urban housing for lower incomes was purposely designed to be particularly unattractive. But the inevitable issues related to suburban living caused a revival of interest in city life. And despite the government's best efforts to the contrary, the new forms of dense urban living became very comfortable and visually appealing. Dense living is NOT necessarily going to get you a price discount just because it's dense. In fact, if dense urban living is done well, the exact opposite can and does happen. Because people LIKE urban density when it's done well, and they'll be willing to pay a premium in order to participate in it.

 

Check out what an astute forumer on this very board posted back in 2016 related to Cook Street Village redevelopment:

 

 

One thing that we do need to keep in mind: as you slowly but surely increase density you'll (probably) also slowly but surely increase the appeal of the neighbourhood. Maybe not true back in the old days, but it's almost always true today. The neighbourhood can continue to become increasingly unaffordable despite (or even because of) the additional homes.

 

This is no unusual occurrence, to put it mildly. This exact thing has happened in several neighbourhoods in Victoria. This exact thing has happened in numerous areas of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver. That's why I'm not keen on banging the density-for-affordability drum. As is often the case, people want to boil everything down to crude numbers and in doing so they overlook qualitative considerations and thus miss the essence of what's really happening.

 

Consider the north end of downtown. If you extend the Hudson-esque mission onto additional properties around there will the value of a condo in that neighbourhood increase or decrease over the long term? Will the rent for an apartment in that neighbourhood increase or decrease over the long term? We're talking about making an area much more desirable than it used to be. It's not going to get cheaper to live there as it becomes more and more appealing to live there.

 

The major misconception here is this idea that increased density -- sometimes even tiny little increases -- will improve affordability at the expense of desirability. (as if) It's a trade-off. Increased density is likened to a medicine that tastes foul but heals what ails you. In the year 2016 it's simply not true. The days of View Towers and similar such residential projects are long over. Dense urban neighbourhoods that are pleasant and attractive are very desirable. They draw people. People will pay top dollar to be part of them.

 

So if anyone out there regards this CSV development as the noble sacrifice of a chunk of CSV's goodness in order to stick a lance in the affordability dragon... what can I say? They don't get it. They don't understand the processes and what's really happening.

 

Suffice it to say, Cook Street is only going to get more desirable as the village gets spiffied up a bit and gains a little more variety.

 

Edited by aastra, 08 May 2022 - 11:44 AM.

[aastra]

 

Everybody seems to be against it because they want to protect their investments.

 

Exhibit A for the complete misunderstanding of how things actually work. People just don't get it.

[Mike K.]

In most of North America, downtown apartments and SORs were never desirable. Downtown cores were places of business and entertainment, and transient lodging, not residential areas. Empty space in commercial buildings eventually morphed into residences, some for better or worse. By the 90s the revolution had begun, but it’s gotten to a point now where just like the suburbs shunned the inner city cores, now the inner city cores shun the suburbs. And just like the kids of suburban upbringings longed for the city apartments, the kids of city apartments now long for the suburbs.

[dasmo]

The politics related to density have always been false (just like the politics related to all other issues).

Back in the day the authorities assured us that urban density was guaranteed to be intolerably miserable, which energized suburban development and the construction of highways. Dense urban housing for lower incomes was purposely designed to be particularly unattractive. But the inevitable issues related to suburban living caused a revival of interest in city life. And despite the government's best efforts to the contrary, the new forms of dense urban living became very comfortable and visually appealing. Dense living is NOT necessarily going to get you a price discount just because it's dense. In fact, if dense urban living is done well, the exact opposite can and does happen. Because people LIKE urban density when it's done well, and they'll be willing to pay a premium in order to participate in it.

Check out what an astute forumer on this very board posted back in 2016 related to Cook Street Village redevelopment:

I pretty much agree. But done right is the key here. The bones of this area are very solid, thankfully they are hard to break.

[Victoria Watcher]

IRCC also posts year-end data around the first quarter of each new calendar year. The data is a snapshot of all those with a valid study permit on December 31st. The spike in new study permits taking effect led to Canada’s international student population almost fully recovering to the pre-pandemic level. As of December 31st, Canada hosted nearly 622,000 international students. Its international student population stood at nearly 640,000 people in 2019 before the pandemic caused it to fall to some 530,000 foreign students in 2020.

 

https://www.cicnews.....html#gs.1dq7jh

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 26 May 2022 - 06:21 AM.

[spanky123]

^ Of course none of those people need housing and compete with local residents! Our bloated post secondary institutions are entirely reliant on tuitions from foreign students to pay their bills. Many have become nothing more than visa printing presses. I don't think anymore believes that they come to Uxxx to get a quality education, they come to get a student visa that they can then turn into a working visa which then becomes a PR card. If we simply allowed foreign workers and professionals to come to this country in a streamlined manor then half of the post secondary institutions would be out of business.

Edited by spanky123, 26 May 2022 - 07:40 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

A preliminary review of land use designations and planning areas in Oak Bay’s official community plan is underway after council tasked staff with determining what areas in Oak Bay may be appropriate for new affordable housing.

 

Coun. Andrew Appleton made a motion to seek the information during council’s June 13 meeting.

 

There was no discussion as it came in the waning seconds of a meeting already extended to 10:30 p.m. but the motion included an explanation. It cited the current housing crisis in the Capital Regional District where low vacancy and high rents make adequate housing unreachable for many, specifically working families, seniors and persons with disabilities.

 

 

https://www.vicnews....under-scrutiny/

 

 

 

 

This is strange phrasing.  I know they might say that "appropriate" includes areas near services, retail and grocery and public transit.  These areas thus qualify:

 

 

 

But somehow I'll bet they do not make the short-list.

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 18 June 2022 - 06:26 AM.