3493 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

I’d also like to challenge the “building owners frequently ‘renovate’ their rentals here for sale” matter-of-fact claim made by the letter writer.

It’s just more bafflegab.

 

That happened 15-20 years ago when rents were in the toilet and the market was moving towards strata ownership.

[Mike K.]

Yes, and even then, there were only a handful of such projects across the entire region.

Off the top of my head:
- one in Saanich
- one in Esquimalt
- Sutton East in Victoria
- Sutton West in Victoria
- a small building on Dowler Place in Victoria

[Mike K.]

Now that being said, many of the units in those conversions went right back into the rental pool.

[aastra]

 

The editorial in praise of developers, suggesting they will meet all housing needs in the city, if the council will just get out of their way, is wishful thinking, and naïve, to say the least...

It (Victoria) needs affordable housing for the citizens who live and work here.

 

As always we need to remind ourselves, who built the vast majority of the run-of-the-mill housing in the CoV today? The housing that the masses of ordinary people live in? Was it the government?

 

The government doesn't need to get out of the way. The government needs to make it easier, cheaper, faster to build housing of all types. Victoria in 2019 still owes the vast majority of its now run-of-the-mill rental stock to the construction boom of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Victoria in 2019 still depends on that now run-of-the-mill rental stock.

 

When we drag our feet in 2019 and try to tinker with or outright resist the formula that saved our bacon back in the day, we're only ensuring the continuation of the housing crisis for another several decades. Resisting new construction as a matter of principle is not a principle!

 

Suffice it to say, the word "new" and the phrase "excessively luxurious, exclusively reserved for the very rich" are not synonyms. People need to drop this baloney. The new construction gets old fast. Do I need to post those Daily Colonist articles from the 1960s and the complaints about the scourge of new apartments that were supposedly off-limits to ordinary people? Those very same formerly new & supposedly exclusive apartments comprise the lion's share of Victoria's plain-Jane housing stock today.

 

I want to modify what I said above. Victorians have great enthusiasm for repeating past mistakes but no enthusiasm for repeating past successes.

[Mike K.]

Past successes are not celebrated because in the mind of a politically motivated activist giving an inch is not an option.

[Nparker]

Especially if those past successes resulted from private sector investment and initiative, since this doesn't align with the SJW world view.

[aastra]

 

Never said it was a big number, but that you can't just dismiss it altogether.

 

Okay, so we shouldn't dismiss it altogether, since attractive developments will elevate attitudes and expectations in the vicinity (similar to the effect when dilapidated old houses are restored in a run-down neighbourhood). A district will become more desirable if positive things are happening.

 

But the Customs House's impact on general affordability in the CoV would surely pale in comparison to the impact on general affordability in the CoV caused by (for example) the dearth of mid- to high-density development in Saanich. Adding 2,000 apartments or condos anywhere near the Saanich border is going to have infinitely more impact on general affordability in the CoV than adding 5 or 10 affordable units at the Customs House. Are we kidding?

 

If ordinary people need places to live and if the shortage of places to live is causing problems and making things expensive then let's keep on adding places for ordinary people to live. Addressing the shortage should be job #1, all the time, every year, every generation. Why do we even question this?

[aastra]

The population won't stop growing, so keep on making those "sizeable dents". The job is never done. Do some people actually believe that a few new apartments would somehow end the issue? Settle matters forever?

 

 

Daily Colonist
September 24, 1976

Question answered with suite bonanza

There are signs that the housing shortage in Victoria will be greatly relieved -- if not eliminated -- in the next 12 months.

The housing construction boom expected to begin shortly will produce at estimated 2,000 apartment units. The city's engineering department is processing about $60 million worth of buildings permit applications.

...the 2,000 units would "make a sizeable dent" in the city's housing shortage.

There are 34 or 35 projects involved, comprising the 2,000 units: all projects are of the four-storey frame construction type.

All will have reasonably-priced rental accommodation because they will be partly financed by federal low-interest money.

City officials say there isn't a condominium project among the 34.

Builders feared that the commission might rule against the four storeys, allowing only three-storey frame buildings.

...

Edited by aastra, 06 July 2019 - 12:07 PM.

[Mike K.]

And those buildings made a huge difference at the time.

50-years later, though, we’re building less than 2,000-units of rentals per annum. More like 2,000 every 3-4 years, and that’s only since 2012-2013 or thereabouts.

[Victoria Watcher]

well part of the reason is there is less open lots or house tear down opportunities now to site new buildings.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 July 2019 - 12:21 PM.

[aastra]

Come on, there are still tons of parking lots, severely underdeveloped sites, you name it.

Edited by aastra, 06 July 2019 - 01:43 PM.

[aastra]

Dockside Green is sitting empty.

Edited by aastra, 06 July 2019 - 01:43 PM.

[aastra]

 

Dockside Green is sitting empty.

 

Yes, I do think Dockside Green would be a great place for rental buildings.

[Victoria Watcher]

well dockside green is hard to understand but all other sites are revenue producing with no risk including yes parking lots.

[aastra]

The surface parking lots accompanying older apartment buildings and the various shopping centres would seem to be well past ripe for residential development. Is (was) it a crisis or not?

 

 

Daily Colonist
February 14, 1973

Committee Recommends: Underground Parking

Builders of four-storey frame apartment buildings will have to provide... at least 50 per cent underground parking, if city council approves a recommendation by Victoria's zoning committee.

The proposal... specifies that at least 50 per cent of the parking spaces must be underground. At present, all parking may be above ground.

...the amendment was designed to put an end to black-topping half the city.

"...even those which are considered of a good design and quality, have acres of surface parking. We had to do something about that,"

[Nparker]

Daily Colonist

September 24, 1976

There are 34 or 35 projects involved, comprising the 2,000 units: all projects are of the four-storey frame construction type. All will have reasonably-priced rental accommodation because they will be partly financed by federal low-interest money...

Where are the federal government incentives for builders of purpose-built rentals today?

[LJ]

Well according to padmapper there are 68 "cheap" apartments for rent in Victoria proper.

 

https://www.padmappe...ctoria-bc/cheap

[spanky123]

Well according to padmapper there are 68 "cheap" apartments for rent in Victoria proper.

 

https://www.padmappe...ctoria-bc/cheap

 

When converted to USD and compared to other comparable downtown waterfront locations, $1,000 a month for an apartment is pretty darn cheap.

[aastra]

 

"Put focus on rentals in next phase of housing strategy"
Times-Colonist
July 10, 2019

"We don’t need more housing that is out of reach of the average-income earner,” the strategy says, adding that high-end development “is frustrating for some Victorians, and devastating for others in desperate situations, who are forced to move into substandard or overpriced housing because there’s just nothing else available."

 

I really have a hard time blaming mid- to high-end condo projects in the 2010s for ~50 years of inaction on the affordable housing front.

 

How many times do we need to say it? The number of rental units in Victoria is effectively unchanged since the early 1970s. The main problem is the lack of new units. The main problem has always been the lack of new units.

 

Do some people imagine that everything would be rosy if they could somehow erase the recent crop of nice condo units? Folks, if you take those nice condo units off the table then the housing crisis would only be that much worse. People looking for affordable units would still be facing the exact same lack of options that they face right now (that they've been facing for the past ~50 years), and people looking for mid- to high-end units would be facing a similar lack of options.

 

Giving the middle finger to mid- to high-end developments doesn't magically produce more affordable developments, is my point. Can we really believe that the authorities still don't grasp this concept? After everything that's happened?

 

If you're hungry and I just bought the last sandwich from the only sandwich shop in town, preventing me from eating my sandwich won't solve your problem. The CoV needs to encourage new sandwich shops to open up. In the very least the CoV needs to stop preventing new sandwich shops from opening up.

 

The population is growing. The CoV needs to be encouraging developers to build new rental units. Stop talking around it and start actually doing it.

 

 

...and improving permit turnaround times.

 

Yay. Slow clap.

 

If the affordable housing issue were a fire that needed to be extinguished, the CoV would have tried absolutely everything by now (multiple times)... EXCEPT pouring water on the frickin' fire.

[RFS]

Is the "average" person a renter?  I think there are more owners in Canada than renters.  Market condos are far more average and normal than government subsidized rentals.  And how does the existence of market condos affect the existence of subsidized rentals?  This council is knowingly "killing some projects" (in Issit's own words) in the hopes of forcing rentals into what ever projects actually end up going ahead.  Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face