52 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

How much do you think a 195 sq. ft. unit will rent for, if we had, say, 1,000 of them available?  I'd say $400 to $500 at best.  These can be built.

 

(The Dominion Rocket has a 195-sq. ft unit.)

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 October 2017 - 11:50 AM.

[Nparker]

I can build units for $60,000 to $80,000 each if government gets out of my way.

Does that include not adhering to building codes?

[Nparker]

It's affordable as they are mandated to be very small.  

But you said they would be market rates, so presumably regardless of size the rents would be dictated more by the number of bedrooms, than by the square footage.

[VicHockeyFan]

Does that include not adhering to building codes?

 

I need a few amendments, but not much.  I mostly need zoning/density changes so I can distribute the high cost of land over more units.  And I need some land.  I already know where I can get it, around permiters of parks and school grounds.

 

Ormond, top of View St.

 

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 October 2017 - 12:01 PM.

[Nparker]

How much do you think a 195 sq. ft. unit will rent for, if we had, say, 1,000 of them available?  I'd say $400 to $500 at best.  .

They would rent for whatever the market would bear. Do the new, one bedroom units at the Azzuro rent for significantly less than the larger one bedroom units built all over the city in the 1960s & 1970s?

[Nparker]

...And I need some land.  I already know where I can get it, around perimiters of parks and school grounds.

The backlash against this by neighbours, school families etc. would make your plan very nearly impossible I am afraid. I can't see much public enthusiasm for surrounding parks and schools with low-cost slums.

[VicHockeyFan]

RAP

 

 

 

[VicHockeyFan]

The backlash against this by neighbours, school families etc. would make your plan very nearly impossible I am afraid. I can't see much public enthusiasm for surrounding parks and schools with low-cost slums.

 

Well, maybe we need a new type of tenancy agreement that does not currently exist, a work/rent program.  People can only access the units on a month-to-month basis as long as they do 10 hours work in the park each month.  Maybe they do a 15-minute scan each morning for garbage and needles etc., with phone app in hand for tracking.    Real park stewards.

 

"What's that Jimmy, your park has nearly 24-hour stewards that really care for the park?"

 

"Ya, that's right, they are out every morning looking after it, and asleep adjacent at night, in case there's any trouble"

 

"Holy cow, I just get the odd City person in my park at best once per week, unless I call, and it's a different guy every time.  How can I get a park steward for my park, Jimmy?"

 

"Call Mayor Helps!"

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 October 2017 - 12:59 PM.

[TallGuy]

Zero setbacks look nice in some areas (Fernwood Inn as shown above), but they are impractical and annoying if people are walking more than single file in the same direction. Not too mention the areas where the utility poles and street signs are in the sidewalk and you have to wait for the person walking in the opposite direction to pass. You need to increase the sidewalk width by at least 50% or you might as well have no sidewalk at all.

 

Affordable shouldn't have to be impractical.

[VicHockeyFan]

Zero setbacks look nice in some areas (Fernwood Inn as shown above), but they are impractical and annoying if people are walking more than single file in the same direction. Not too mention the areas where the utility poles and street signs are in the sidewalk and you have to wait for the person walking in the opposite direction to pass. You need to increase the sidewalk width by at least 50% or you might as well have no sidewalk at all.

 

Affordable shouldn't have to be impractical.

 

It's freakin' Mason St.  The neighbourhood I grew up in had zero sidewalks, we managed somehow.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 October 2017 - 01:23 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

Not too mention the areas where the utility poles and street signs are in the sidewalk and you have to wait for the person walking in the opposite direction to pass. 

 

Somehow I'm thinking this is a first-world problem.    

 

I know in Syria this is not a problem.

[TallGuy]

Mason Street is in/near downtown. It should have better provisions for pedestrian traffic. Not to mention that low income housing users probably don't have vehicles and would appreciate a deep sidewalk that they will use often.

 

If you're just going to construct an ugly, impractical POS, why bother? Low income people should enjoy their environments too.

[VicHockeyFan]

Mason Street is in/near downtown. It should have better provisions for pedestrian traffic. Not to mention that low income housing users probably don't have vehicles and would appreciate a deep sidewalk that they will use often.

 

If you're just going to construct an ugly, impractical POS, why bother? Low income people should enjoy their environments too.

 

If we want all the low income people to be housed, they will have to take what they get/afford.  Get out of the low-income cycle and you can rent better.  We need basic stuff in abundance.

[TallGuy]

Somehow I'm thinking this is a first-world problem.    

 

I know in Syria this is not a problem.

If it's good for the goose, eh? The "it works well for this country on the other side of the world with completely different climate, geography, politics, economy, etc, etc" is the laziest approach to anything ever.

[TallGuy]

If we want all the low income people to be housed, they will have to take what they get/afford.  Get out of the low-income cycle and you can rent better.  We need basic stuff in abundance.

 

To paraphrase: Just work harder.

 

It's pretty clear who has never been in a low-income cycle.

Edited by TallGuy, 05 October 2017 - 01:42 PM.

[TallGuy]

If it's good for the goose, eh? The "it works well for this country on the other side of the world with completely different climate, geography, politics, economy, etc, etc" is the laziest approach to anything ever, even if you're being facetious.

[aastra]

 

...I need some land.  I already know where I can get it, around permiters of parks and school grounds.

 

I really take issue with the narrative that physical space itself is in extremely short supply. There are no end of empty lots, parking lots, underdeveloped sites, etc. A modern and ostensibly civilized society should never be aspiring to stuff people into tents in parks, doghouses on boulevards, backyard sheds, bicycle campers, tree forts, or any other denigrating format du jour.

 

If the various levels of government were really serious about getting people housed and making more housing available (not to mention if they were really serious about guiding communities toward less dependence on the automobile) then methinks target #1 would be the surface parking lots that accompany literally hundreds of old apartment blocks all over town. Where are the perks and incentives for encouraging property owners to build on those parking lots? I'm supposed to believe there's a genuine housing crisis even though many such apartments devote as much space to parking as to living? Come on. 

 

Seriously, there are so many career poseurs acting like they're all about radical innovation and going after sacred cows and so forth, and yet in the year 2017 the notion that city neighbourhoods should be full of surface parking lots still goes unchallenged (even though the issue was raised all the way back in... 1973! See news item below). Crazy but true, it's much safer for politicos to advocate for tent cities than to advocate for slightly more efficient use of existing land.

 

 

--

 

 

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,"

 

(this post was edited in 2021 to add the old news item)

Edited by aastra, 06 February 2021 - 09:23 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

This thread begins with me building housing on a parking lot.

[aastra]

I'm just saying you hear it all the time. People claim there's no room left and therefore (other) people should be living in dumpster homes or down in the sewers or on makeshift rafts in the harbour, etc. Insane nonsense is deemed to be perfectly reasonable -- no idea is too crazy -- but the idea of encouraging the replacement of all of those post-1945 parking lots remains way off the table. It's just too crazy.

[Nparker]

This thread begins with me building housing on a parking lot.

Why would the residents of Townside Manor give up nearly half their parking though? I think a more appealing option would see all of the following redeveloped with a series of 4-6 storey buildings with some covered surface parking (like at the rear of TM) for little net gain and no net loss of residential parking.

Of course there is still the issue of the NPNA and their hatred of even moderate densification.