214 replies to this topic

[RFS]

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

Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can possibly believe this

[Mike K.]

We’re one of the fortunate regions on this earth where space is not an issue.

We’re choosing not to build on that space for a litany of reasons tied ultimately to politics. We could build 150,000 homes along the Sooke-Renfrew oceanfront and do so in a way that’s less impactful on the environment than what you see in low density North Saanich.

Urbanization has occurred on less than 1% of Vancouver Island.

[FirstTimeHomeCrier]

I meant that within the urban core, what we need is more high-density housing. There is very limited space within the urban core for single family homes. I'm not saying there is no empty space, but rather we can build homes for more people if the empty space is used for duplexes, row houses, townhouses, condos, etc.

[Rob Randall]

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

 

Im sorry but I dont know how anyone can possibly believe this

 

I believe it. We're not Calgary or Houston. There are geographic limits. We can continue to build to satisfy demand but prices won't drop, it's only a matter if prices go up a little or a lot.

[Mike K.]

99% of Vancouver Island is undeveloped. Where are these geographic limitations?

I too agree we can’t build our way out of high prices. As prices drop, demand for our housing increases, but at least supply controls the upwards pressure on prices to a large degree.

[Rob Randall]

^I have long thought it would be better to build a new city somewhere between Cowichan lake and Leechtown so that that there could be a web of multiple highway connections rather than a vulnerlble single linear highway serving a Port Renfrew city.

[jonny]

I meant that within the urban core, what we need is more high-density housing. There is very limited space within the urban core for single family homes. I'm not saying there is no empty space, but rather we can build homes for more people if the empty space is used for duplexes, row houses, townhouses, condos, etc.

 

High density neighborhoods are usually very expensive, though. 

 

 

I believe it. We're not Calgary or Houston. There are geographic limits. We can continue to build to satisfy demand but prices won't drop, it's only a matter if prices go up a little or a lot.

 

I think if we had a six or eight lane (relatively) straight shot highway between Victoria and Duncan a lot of Victorians would be living in cheaper SFHs north of Victoria proper. 

 

Natural geography is a massive limitation. So are the ALR, the highway and local politics.  

[Mike K.]

Our limitations are artificial, much like our traffic issues.

Look at Bear Mountain. It’s doing just fine up on that hill. Triangle Mountain, Broadmead, Mill Hill, Dean Park, The Cairn, Mt Tolmie, the Uplands in Merchosin, Broom Hill in Sooke, The Highlands, the Malahat, and on and on it goes.

Why did we stop building on terrain we’ve spent generations building on? Are little hills suddenly impenetrable development scenarios? We’ve got hundreds of square kilometres of formerly logged, re-logged and logged again lands that are in spitting distance of our urban region ...and yet they remain sacrosanct and off limit ...waiting to be logged once more.

[aastra]

 

I think if we had a six or eight lane (relatively) straight shot highway between Victoria and Duncan a lot of Victorians would be living in cheaper SFHs north of Victoria proper.

 

If we're actually talking about expanding the metro area then it seems to me the most effective way to do it (no comment re: the rightness/wrongness aspect) would be to bridge the inlet. That would open up some very affordable suburbs (until they aren't affordable anymore) and facilitate faster/more convenient transit connections, too.

[Nparker]

High density neighborhoods are usually very expensive, though...

But not always.

 

[baconnbits]

If we're actually talking about expanding the metro area then it seems to me the most effective way to do it (no comment re: the rightness/wrongness aspect) would be to bridge the inlet. That would open up some very affordable suburbs (until they aren't affordable anymore) and facilitate faster/more convenient transit connections, too.

  Interburn - Highland pacific golf club area

the entire area behind langford

farm land by mount douglas

cordova bay millstream area north of bear mountain.

 

saying nothing of sooke, metchosin and north island

 

yes infrastructure needs to develop, but infrastructure is critical to the development of housing.

 

between interurban, mount douglas and cordova bay - i'd be stunned if you couldn't add more than 30k houses between low density SF houses and mid-rise or garden product apartment (sale or rental) communities.

 

that says nothing about basic increased density along the cook st village area and other pockets where row houses could be developed (first would need B.C municipalities to allow this...).

 

it is the same story in vancouver. you needn't have high rises everywhere. allow for more dense town/row houses in key areas and density will increase. forgo the ALR lands in richmond and coquitlam and allow more SF houses.

 

spend money on improving the roads connecting sidney and langford to Victoria . spend money on PT connecting these two areas with victoria.

[baconnbits]

mid-rise (up to 8 storeys) in Rock Bay, up to 10 storeys in old town by capital iron.

 

there is capacity for an abundance of further housing in Victoria.

[VicHockeyFan]

 We’ve got hundreds of square kilometres of formerly logged, re-logged and logged again lands that are in spitting distance of our urban region ...and yet they remain sacrosanct and off limit ...waiting to be logged once more.

 

Exactly.  These are the same scale, we could put a million people in the red if we wanted to.  1.6M people live in Manhattan alone.

 

 

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 24 April 2018 - 12:50 PM.

[baconnbits]

just cordova bay north of the golf course, if you rezoned it all to allow for 10k sf lots - even assuming you lost 30% of that space to infrastructure (roads, sidewalks parks and facilities), you could fit 11k SF homes

that's without assuming there are any areas you'd build higher density product. and leaves a huge amount of green space.....and a golf course.

 

add in a bit of higher density and there's no way you don't hit 12-15k homes there alone.

assuming average household formation rates hold at 2.5 persons per household, that is additional housing for almost 40k people or a further 10% of greater victoria's population growth.

 

the same for interurban.

Edited by baconnbits, 24 April 2018 - 12:54 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

How about we take James Island, and turn it into Miami Beach?  125,000 people, easily.

 

 

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 24 April 2018 - 01:04 PM.

[Mike K.]

Oh yeah, it’s crazy how underutilized Victoria’s land is, and I’m not talking about SFD neighbourhoods vs rowhouses, but vast tracts of land with a single house per multi-acreage.

And that’s totally cool, variety is the spice of life. But let’s not pretend the 550 square kilometres of the CRD’s logged and relogged land represents that last vestibule of nature on this island.

[jonny]

Why did we stop building on terrain we’ve spent generations building on? Are little hills suddenly impenetrable development scenarios? We’ve got hundreds of square kilometres of formerly logged, re-logged and logged again lands that are in spitting distance of our urban region ...and yet they remain sacrosanct and off limit ...waiting to be logged once more.

 

Because suburbs are bad, mmmkay. 

[VicHockeyFan]

Because suburbs are bad, mmmkay. 

 

And then if that's the stance people want to take, then allow density in the core.  But people seem to want both no "sprawl" and no significant building in town.   

[Casual Kev]

And then if that's the stance people want to take, then allow density in the core.  But people seem to want both no "sprawl" and no significant building in town.   

 

That's the core problem of housing politics today... people want the best of every world and live in a bubble, rather than address a mounting problem.

 

"well urban sprawl is bad so you can't build new suburbs, or else the environment!" "but I also want my centrally located neighborhood to be quiet and full of single family homes so you can't build up here either, don't ruin my character" "oh and high rises in commercial areas can't be too tall because uh like we're not New York"

 

In Victoria's case, it's honestly absurd the fact the city is the seat of government, home to a regional university, host to a Navy fleet, nurturing a tech industry and a touristic destination... and yet the voices of those who want the city to be stuck in time prevail. There's a booming, dynamic economy but housing is not allowed to follow suit.

[jonny]

And then if that's the stance people want to take, then allow density in the core.  But people seem to want both no "sprawl" and no significant building in town.   

 

The wet coast has a long history of NIMBY-ism. 

 

 

In Victoria's case, it's honestly absurd the fact the city is the seat of government, home to a regional university, host to a Navy fleet, nurturing a tech industry and a touristic destination... and yet the voices of those who want the city to be stuck in time prevail. There's a booming, dynamic economy but housing is not allowed to follow suit.

 

We're getting there Kev. The CoV is finally on board, with the exception of a couple of city Councillors. It took Saanich a decade or more, but Saanich city council is reasonably pro-development at this point.