214 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

One project in downtown Victoria actually redesigned its three-bedroom layouts into two-bedroom+den layouts. Buyers asked for two larger bedrooms and an average-sized den rather than three bedrooms, one of which was very small. 

 

Would that have not been the same thing? Two bedrooms, and the small bedroom as a den?

[Mike K.]

Honestly it's the strata fees that destroy most people's aspirations to buying a large condo. Few families can afford/want to pay a mortgage for a $950,000 condo plus $1,000/month for strata.

[Mike K.]

Would that have not been the same thing? Two bedrooms, and the small bedroom as a den?

 

Two larger bedrooms at the cost of creating a small den. The third bedroom was not much larger than a den.

[Casual Kev]

Honestly it's the strata fees that destroy most people's aspirations to buying a large condo. Few families can afford/want to pay a mortgage for a $950,000 condo plus $1,000/month for strata.

 

That's a really good point. Developers could maybe introduce variable strata fees to lessen the burden of large units (e.g. $0.4/sqft for the first 500 sqft, $0.3/sqft for the next 501-1000, etc.) but I guess that would just make their sticker price even higher relative to smaller ones.

[VicHockeyFan]

Honestly it's the strata fees that destroy most people's aspirations to buying a large condo. Few families can afford/want to pay a mortgage for a $950,000 condo plus $1,000/month for strata.

 

$1000/mo. seems a bit high.

 

That might be true, but those same people often underestimate cost of upkeeping a house.

[VicHockeyFan]

That's a really good point. Developers could maybe introduce variable strata fees to lessen the burden of large units (e.g. $0.4/sqft for the first 500 sqft, $0.3/sqft for the next 501-1000, etc.) but I guess that would just make their sticker price even higher relative to smaller ones.

 

That's not within the law, they cannot do that.  It's all based on unit entitlement.  ie. if you have double the square footage, you must pay double.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 23 April 2018 - 04:59 PM.

[Casual Kev]

That's not within the law, they cannot do that.  It's all based on unit entitlement.  ie. if you have double the square footage, you must pay double.

 

Ah, makes sense.

[Nparker]

That's not within the law, they cannot do that...

In fact, the Strata Property Act does allow for alternate means of calculating strata fees, but it requires a unanimous vote of the owners

Calculating strata fees

99   (1) Subject to section 100, owners must contribute to the strata corporation their strata lots' shares of the total contributions budgeted for the operating fund and contingency reserve fund by means of strata fees calculated in accordance with this section and the regulations.

(2) Subject to the regulations, the strata fees for a strata lot's share of the contribution to the operating fund and contingency reserve fund are calculated as follows:
 

Change to basis for calculation of contribution
100   (1) At an annual or special general meeting held after the first annual general meeting, the strata corporation may, by a resolution passed by a unanimous vote, agree to use one or more different formulas, other than the formulas set out in section 99 and the regulations, for the calculation of a strata lot's share of the contribution to the operating fund and contingency reserve fund.

(2) An agreement under subsection (1) may be revoked or changed by a resolution passed by a unanimous vote at an annual or special general meeting.

(3) A resolution passed under subsection (1) or (2) has no effect until it is filed in the land title office, with a Certificate of Strata Corporation in the prescribed form stating that the resolution has been passed by a unanimous vote.

http://www.bclaws.ca...43_06#section99

[rsnxmt]

Ehh housing markets across canada would beg to differ

I think the big message behind Abundant Housing Vancouver is that more housing starts of all kinds (condo, townhouse, rowhouse, etc) is badly needed to help satisfy demand to drive prices down. Since 80% of the land is already taken by 20% (not quite the right numbers but illustrative) of the population (ie in SFH) there needs to be rezoning to make a variety of densities and types to address pricing. I think on the whole the discussion in this thread is supporting the same idea. Is that in line with your statements FirstTimeHomeCrier?

[VicHockeyFan]

In fact, the Strata Property Act does allow for alternate means of calculating strata fees, but it requires a unanimous vote of the owners

 

Ah, OK.

[Mike K.]

I think the big message behind Abundant Housing Vancouver is that

 

1) more housing starts of all kinds (condo, townhouse, rowhouse, etc) is badly needed to help satisfy demand to drive prices down. Since 80% of the land is already taken by 20% (not quite the right numbers but illustrative) of the population (ie in SFH)

 

2) there needs to be rezoning to make a variety of densities and types to address pricing.

 

1) Vancouver is already building housing as fast as it can be built. Every year over 30,000 individuals are added to Metro Vancouver's population. In fact the pace of construction is also partly responsible for the increase in housing costs due to labour costs, the supply/demand of materials, delays due to labour issues, the cost of development land due to demand, etc.

 

2) municipalities benefit financially from up-zoning to a higher density or a more lucrative land use, or subdividing a property. This makes properties more valuable, thereby raising property taxes. A subdivision will also yield municipal costs known as Development Cost Charges which are very, very high.

[Casual Kev]

The limited construction labor pool is a real issue when trying to build our way into affordability. Soaring prices despite limited densification already occupies most workers - tearing down every other house and building a bigger/more luxurious one, renovating now-valuable rental stock, adding secondary suites/laneway houses, etc. In my neighborhood there are tons of new 3-floors houses taking up almost all of their lots even though the local population is actually decreasing...

[VicHockeyFan]

There might be something to be said for cookie-cutter prefabs though, and a decreased cost. If neighbourhoods would accept them.

[Rob Randall]

I think you could infill the Saanich inlet and build 50,000 homes and prices still wouldn't drop.

[Mattjvd]

I think you could infill the Saanich inlet and build 50,000 homes and prices still wouldn't drop.

I say develop Cedar Hill golf course. SFHs townhomes/rowhouses, and lowrise apartments. Could probably get a few thousand units in there.

[Mattjvd]

I think you could infill the Saanich inlet and build 50,000 homes and prices still wouldn't drop.

I say develop Cedar Hill golf course. SFHs townhomes/rowhouses, and lowrise apartments. Could probably get a few thousand units in there.

[VicHockeyFan]

I say develop Cedar Hill golf course. SFHs townhomes/rowhouses, and lowrise apartments. Could probably get a few thousand units in there.

 

 

Same scale ^

[lanforod]

Move your map over a little, VHF . How big is BHP in comparison? Another few thousand homes there maybe...?

Removing green space in urban areas isn't really the best answer, IMO. I'd much rather we develop the Blenkinsop valley and get that out of the ALR.

[Mattjvd]

Move your map over a little, VHF . How big is BHP in comparison? Another few thousand homes there maybe...?
Removing green space in urban areas isn't really the best answer, IMO. I'd much rather we develop the Blenkinsop valley and get that out of the ALR.

Yeah, I get that. I'm hesitant to remove greenspace, but that's about 0.5 square km of pay-to-use greenspace. To me (and I'm not trying to state this as fact, just how I feel) it could be better used as a couple thousand housing units, with a hectare or two of free public parks.

Edited by Mattjvd, 24 April 2018 - 08:48 AM.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

I think the big message behind Abundant Housing Vancouver is that more housing starts of all kinds (condo, townhouse, rowhouse, etc) is badly needed to help satisfy demand to drive prices down. Since 80% of the land is already taken by 20% (not quite the right numbers but illustrative) of the population (ie in SFH) there needs to be rezoning to make a variety of densities and types to address pricing. I think on the whole the discussion in this thread is supporting the same idea. Is that in line with your statements FirstTimeHomeCrier?

 

Yeah, I probably should have said we don't have enough space to build new SFHs in such a way that would reduce prices.