5833 replies to this topic

[marks_28]

Maybe because your building is 40 yrs old? When I lived at the 834 (one bedroom non-corner unit) I was averaging around $17-$18 per month. I never turned on the heat and I didn't cook a lot, but I do quite a bit of laundry. Now I am around $22 a month in my 2 bedroom but once again A/C only a few days every summer. I do heat in winter from time to time but heatpump is efficient.

 

I think I'm right in the middle. 40 year old building, don't have AC, nor do I use electrical heating in the winter. I use the natural gas fireplace sometimes during the winter. Lots of cooking and laundry though. Average maybe $35/month.

[MarkoJ]

Here's BC Hydro stats. It states that condo unit use (total) is about $80 per unit after all things considered than $104 for a detached dwelling. Not much right? 1. Still less. 2. Not taking into account all the other efficiencies of condo living as a land use decision.
https://www.bchydro....-april-2019.pdf

Not an accurate picture because a much higher percentage of SFHs versus condos also use oil or gas. If the same percentage of homes used electricity for heating the disparity in monthly average bills would be higher.

[Mike K.]

And most houses house more than one person, which the majority of apartments do not.

[LJ]

All. Day. Long. This is quite the tennis match you two have going.

All I know is that I am not getting in on this one. Electricity/Energy whew.

Edited by LJ, 19 October 2021 - 07:23 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

A new program will gift established residents of Langford a portion of downpayment costs towards new homeownership, funded over the last five years by developers as a condition of rezoning.

 

The City of Langford’s Attainable Home Ownership Program was announced during Oct. 18’s council meeting. By imposing additional rezoning fees on every Langford developer over the last five years, Langford Mayor Stewart Young said the city was able to earmark $3 million towards their affordable housing fund, which will assist 250 families in making a downpayment on those finished homes.

 

“This program comes at the height of a major housing crisis across the region and will assist those Langford families who could afford a mortgage payment but are struggling to save the amount necessary for a downpayment,” Langford Mayor Stew Young explained in a statement.

 

https://www.vicnews....of-downpayment/

 

Households of at least two people having lived in Langford for at least two years, earning less than $125,000 combined gross annual income, without real estate or over $50,000 in assets and who qualify for pre-mortgage approval will be able to apply for the program. Funds gifted from the program can reach up to 75 per cent of the downpayment on a two-bedroom condo not exceeding $450,000.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 October 2021 - 06:05 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Assistance is to be granted on a sliding scale based on gross annual household income. Those with incomes less than $99,999 would receive 75 per cent, while those between $100,000 and $115,000 would receive 50 per cent of the down payment and up to $125,000 would receive 25 per cent.

 

Young said they can’t afford to subsidize someone looking to buy a single-family home for just under $1 million, but they can help young families looking at condos in a city that is now building taller buildings and adding density to its core.

 

“We are going higher,” said Young. “When we get above six storeys we make units more affordable and we can get condos around the $300,000 to $550,000 range.”

 

https://www.timescol...ndos-1.24364863

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 October 2021 - 06:23 AM.

[Nparker]

...Households of at least two people...

And once again single people are considered second class. The scheme should be based on income/assets and not on the composition of one's household. Not that I would likely ever consider living in Langford, it's just the principal of the matter that irks me.

[Mike K.]

The thinking is two people are less of a risk than a single mortgage holder, and also tend to be more stable in terms of settling down. Langford wants to de-risk this program as much as possible.

 

If you want a program that doesn't care if you're single or living as a couple, Haven offers that through BC Housing. In fact with that program being single is an advantage, as a couple might end up earning above the maximum threshold.

[Nparker]

50% of all marriages end in divorce and couples split up all the time. I still say if a single person has both the income and the mortgage pre-approval they should be eligible.

[Mike K.]

Well, at least Punk will be happy there will be two or more people in each of those condo units! Now we're talking serious energy savings/averages 

[Victoria Watcher]

Energy? Or electricity?

[Mike K.]

Electricity, and gas.

 

I know we dwelled on hydro in the discussion above, but natural gas is a major source of energy for multi-unit projects, especially those with centralized water heaters (HVAC systems can use gas, too). I don't know if the individual water tanks in units tend to more often land as electric or gas powered, though.

[Victoria Watcher]

 I don't know if the individual water tanks in units tend to more often land as electric or gas powered, though.

 

they will almost never be gas.   you'd have to vent them, more hassle/cost for the builder with the building envelope.   maybe in some townhomes, not likely ever in apartments.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 October 2021 - 07:41 AM.

[sebberry]

they will almost never be gas.   you'd have to vent them, more hassle/cost for the builder with the building envelope.   maybe in some townhomes, not likely ever in apartments.

 

On-demand gas would be so nice in a condo.  They already have to vent the bathroom, dryer and kitchen vents out the side.  What's one more?

 

My old building is central hot gas fired water.  So much nicer than wasting an entire closet to a hot water tank when storage is already at a premium.  Depending on other features, in-suite hot water tanks could be a deal breaker for me in my hunt.

[Mike K.]

Think Dockside green development currently under construction versus trying to fit that many people in SFHs on the Westshore and the clearcutting and infrastructure required, not to mention the commuting. I would say the towers are much more friendlier.

 

Despite this, the Capital Regional District has targeted the majority of growth to occur on the West Shore, and that means land has to be cleared whether it's for houses or condos. We also don't need to maintain the notion that downtown Victoria is the main employment hub (and the commuting it requires), as Langford is far better suited as a central commercial hub (access from the north, east, west and south, central to the CRD).

 

I know it can be jarring to re-conceptualize the layout of the CRD and a redistribution of employment, but Victoria wasn't always what it is today. In the 90s it was a very low density city, with pockets of high density thanks to a 60s building boom. There is no reason Langford can't be what Victoria is today, in 30 years, and it's already so much further ahead in pursuing densification along its main thoroughfares than Victoria was in the 90s.

[Matt R.]

Net zero home exceeds step 5 requirements. Looks like a container to me, but it’s a modular home. Nice single acre lot, too bad about the traffic noise.

https://www.zillow.c...zRMxrLlnQOuPE4A

Matt.

[MarkoJ]

I am just saying everything removed from the equation including the cultural desire in North America to living in SFHs having 200-300 people live in a tower (that tower can be downtown Langford, doesn't have to be Dockside) on 1/2 acres or less is better for the environment than having the same number of people live in 100-150 SFHs on 5,000 sq/ft lots.

Edited by MarkoJ, 20 October 2021 - 10:00 AM.

[Mike K.]

For sure. I agree, that if the goal is to maintain more land as undeveloped then that's only possible through densification in already built up areas.

 

I think where I wasn't clear in my exchange with Punk was that in terms of energy consumption, high density living comes at a GHG emissions/energy consumption cost which we may not necessarily see, or understand, because the operating costs and pressures of these buildings is very opaque. I also disagree (I mean it's not even about disagreeing, it's my 'lived experience') that you don't need high density for walkability. I grew up in a neighbourhood that was super walkable despite being comprised of SFDs, and there was little we couldn't get that wasn't within a literal 5-10 minute walk. I grew up in Vic West, in case anyone's wondering. Like 99% SFDs in the 90s, then Songhees and the harbour lands started to densify in the late 90s and into 00s.

 

Also, we have to remember that in high density buildings the ratio of glass (heat loss; heat gain) to wall is in some cases close to 100%, but you'd never have a SFD with that ratio because of building codes. The penthouse atop Promontory is floor-to-ceiling glass, 360 degrees. All units, collectively, on the remainder of the 20 floors below are also glass all around. That loses a ton of heat in winter, and gains a ton of heat in summer.

[marks_28]

Some SFH neighbourhoods can indeed be walkable, but those tend to be older neighbourhoods, are are increasingly not the norm thanks to zoning laws. I wish we could build more coffee shops and corner stores, but that just simply isn't allowed in most cases. Sure, some SFHs may be walking distance from more dense areas, but more are not. Growing up in Gordon Head, I had the opposite experience. Nothing at all within a 5-10 minute walk. A small corner store (that is now gone) was a 15 minute walk away, and besides that, the nearest grocery store was a 40 min walk. But I wish that would change, and we could encourage more commercial space in small pockets of SFH neighbourhoods.

 

I also think Punk was referring to the big picture in terms of high rises vs SFHs. Yeah, agreed, there are a lot of hidden costs picked up by stratas, and sometimes the buildings are not very efficient. Electricity alone, I would still guess dense buildings are more efficient, but I don't think that was the point he was trying to argue. Nor am I right now. My guess is he is taking into account the increased driving that comes with a SFH in the suburbs. All the utilities and infrastrucure required to service those homes. All in, there is no way that a city of primarily SFHs produces less GHGs on a per resident basis than a city with primarily higher density accomodation.

[Mike K.]

I'd love for there to be a study into the energy inputs and outputs for high density urban, high density suburban, and low density urban, low density suburban housing styles. Currently the data is limited, but being in the industry I know what the inputs/outputs are for high density buildings, but those are also anecdotes.

I grew up in a SFD, and mum never drove. It wasn't until I was 16 that there was a vehicle coming and going from the house. All of our trips were on foot, or via transit (rarely a taxi would be called up), but we didn't need a vehicle and everything was minutes away (and I do mean everything, including four or five bus routes 10 seconds to five minutes away).

Then living in a downtown highrise, the number of vehicles coming and going 24/7 from my parkade was shocking to me. We have this notion that when you live in a highrise, you're living a green lifestyle and a car is unnecessary. But when living in an SFD, you're living a catastrophic (for the environment) lifestyle, and a car is necessary.

Yet my lived experiences are polar opposites to that, and I’m sure I'm not the only one.