11779 replies to this topic

[PPPdev]

I did not say that, but the narrative that we are suddenly in a housing crisis like never before is entirely false.

 

Fair enough, my apologies I didn't mean to insinuate your specific position.

 

Many would argue the crisis has accelerated in recent years to a place where it is beyond a crisis and into emergency territory. Just look at Victoria's rental stock, 88% of it is essentially end of life and it takes 5 years to rezone/build a new rental apartment...we are in trouble....

[PPPdev]

Where has this type of "zoning reform" been beneficial to all/most groups?

 

Why are we not asking that question about the downzoning that took place in 1982, who did that benefit and does it continue to benefit?

[Victoria Watcher]

Plexes, Townhouses, and Apartments can co-exist with single family housing and that is a portion of what this policy is about.

 

I believe this too, but why every single neighbourhood, very single block, street, and address?  Don't we want a mix of neighbourhood types?

[Victoria Watcher]

Why are we not asking that question about the downzoning that took place in 1982, who did that benefit and does it continue to benefit?

 

well who knows what happened 40 years ago.  Let's see some contemporary examples of where this type of zoning reform has worked well.

 

If it's a great idea it's probably because we've seen it with positive effects elsewhere, no?  What's the positive model to emulate?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 11:51 AM.

[PPPdev]

well who knows what happened 40 years ago.  Let's see some contemporary examples of where this type of zoning reform has worked well.

 

Abroad: nobody else in the world, beyond parts of the UK and Australia, use this nuanced separation of land uses and even in those other places townhouses and houseplexes were never banned. Countries like Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden have always, even encouraged, densification and they don't have the same levels of rampant pricing increases we've seen in North America.

 

Locally: Montreal, less then 50% of the City is exclusively zoned SF and they have very vibrant neighbourhoods and lowering average home prices. Some PNW examples are Ballard in Seattle, Nob Hill in Portland,  James Bay in Victoria, West End in Vancouver. Both the Victoria/Vancouver examples allowed larger heights then MM is proposing but are good examples of significant density and housing diversity co-existing on a block level.

 

 

Do you have any examples of very restrictive zoning has worked well?

Edited by PPPdev, 06 December 2021 - 11:55 AM.

[Nparker]

...Many would argue the crisis has accelerated in recent years to a place where it is beyond a crisis and into emergency territory....

As long as global population grows, immigration to Canada continues to be encouraged and southern Vancouver Island enjoys the best climate in the country, there will always be a local housing crisis/emergency.

[spanky123]

There is nothing wrong with SF housing and nobody is talking about banning it. It's about re-introducing housing choice back into all neighbourhoods like cities used to, yes even Victoria. Diverse housing was allowed in all Victoria's neighbourhoods until April 1982 when we undertook a mass downzoning.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but you can build a duplex or triplex today anywhere in Victoria as long as council approves the rezoning. What developers want is to bypass council and have a city staffer make the decision. 

[Victoria Watcher]

Do you have any examples of very restrictive zoning has worked well?

 

For qualify of life:

 

Rockland, Fairfield, Oak Bay, Songhees, 10-Mile Point, Broadmead, Uplands, South Oak Bay, Dean Park.  All more desirable for most, than James Bay.

 

Let's try to stay in our own continent at least.  Generations of Europeans have lived very differently in many cases than the way most of us choose to live here.

 

I don't know the geography on the ground in Ballard, but they appear to have been quite selective:

 

https://www.myballar...-neighborhoods/

 

 

 

Perhaps they did it more along with my advice, to neighbourhoods along major roads, or already fairly dense neighbourhoods.

 

I'm happy to turn over huge swaths of the city to this dumb scheme, say anything north of downtown.  But it's  crazy to introduce it into to the quieter areas of the south communities.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 12:21 PM.

[Awaiting Juno]

Where's conditional zoning then? If we want mixed use, why isn't it: if there is no other property of this type within x metres, this use is permitted? If you want a mix, you'd want the rule to be dependent upon the current condition and the desired condition, or else, we will get blocks upon blocks of townhouses with very few SFH's remaining, and those that do, will be entirely out of reach. Generally speaking: the more restrictions on a property the lower the price. Look at the price of co-ops relative to other stock, 55+ buildings relative to other stock, etc. Restrictions on use tend to promote affordability, and yet what is being argued is that we should completely remove restrictions - and it's logical that doing so might not result in what is desired.

 

We need a better development process, where what is desired to be done can be done in a way that is efficient. However, this policy is not that - rather it is a wholesale change that seeks to entirely remake our city, regardless of what existing residents desire.

[Nparker]

...this policy is not that - rather it is a wholesale change that seeks to entirely remake our city, regardless of what existing residents desire.

Isn't this the goal of all so-called progressives though; not just in regards to housing, but in all aspects of our world?

[Mike K.]

Fair enough, my apologies I didn't mean to insinuate your specific position.

 

Many would argue the crisis has accelerated in recent years to a place where it is beyond a crisis and into emergency territory. Just look at Victoria's rental stock, 88% of it is essentially end of life and it takes 5 years to rezone/build a new rental apartment...we are in trouble....

 

I try to raise this daunting problem during my radio sessions as often as I can when discussing housing policy.

 

Victoria council has reinforced a narrative where replacing end-of-life rental housing means tenants are being 'renovicted,' and additional stipulations/council vote determinants have materialized that have effectively strangled the replacement of old rental units as the pursuit is too often just not viable.

 

The supply of new housing is a trickle compared to 20,000+ units of purpose-built-rental inventory nearing end-of-life, most of which will go beyond its intended lifetime due to politics, and only be bulldozed following a disaster like a major fire, flood, or structural damage.

[PPPdev]

Victoria Watcher:

 

Sure, all of those areas of town are very desirable, if you can afford to live there. But allowing zoning to act as a defacto socio-economic barrier is leading to continued wealth disparity. Beyond that, low density neighbourhoods have a much higher per capita GHG emissions so there is also the zoning impacts of climate change that needs to be reconciled. 

 

This statement really has me confused:

 

"I'm happy to turn over huge swaths of the city to this dumb scheme, say anything north of downtown.  But it's  crazy to introduce it into to the quieter areas of the south communities."

 

You are essentially saying that the scheme is resulting in a negative outcome but then are ok with it happening to somebody else, that is the literally what the reform is trying to avoid, allowing growth to happen broadly and equally, why should south Victoria be walled off?

 

Spanky123:

 

Yes, you are right and look how that is going. City's own housing report shows we are 6,000 units behind and average 700 built per year and the approval system is getting more complex, longer, and people keep moving here.

 

AwaitingJuno:

 

Conditional Zoning doesn't exist in legislation. While we can all agree the Local Government Act (LGA) is very outdated and needs reform, amendments to the Act take years and years where zoning reform is needed much quicker than that. So I don't think Missing Middle and LGA are mutually exclusive, they should be pursued in tandem. I don't agree that this policy will remake the entire City. Duplexes and townhouses have been permissive in the OCP for 10 years in Fairfield and we've only seen the construction of less than 30. Even lots that have been prezoned R2 have seen very little turnover. The land economist firm hired but the City even said the uptake of the policy would be very limited do the financial feasibility not being positive for most properties.

[Awaiting Juno]

 Duplexes and townhouses have been permissive in the OCP for 10 years in Fairfield and we've only seen the construction of less than 30. Even lots that have been prezoned R2 have seen very little turnover. The land economist firm hired but the City even said the uptake of the policy would be very limited do the financial feasibility not being positive for most properties.

 

 

In which case wouldn't the much wiser approach be to examine why these types of missing middle that are ALREADY permitted, aren't being built in large numbers? Wouldn't it be wise to maybe adjust policy and practice and streamline the existing to see if that results in increased supply (in agreement with existing OCP's). Wouldn't it be wiser to look at why it isn't already financially feasible, and working to make it more affordable? Permitting fees, timelines for building permit issuance, timelines for building inspections, and overhead costs of development that the city imposes? I further note that permit fees are based on the value of the project, not the number of units nor the amount of city resources needed to review/approve the project.

 

The city is responsible for a significant chunk of the cost (and timeline) of building a home - and saying blanket rezoning is going to fix the problem is a fairytale. It won't. We need a process and expense review - because what we're demanding is directly in conflict with what is needed. 

 

If a home can be built most other places in the country for $250/sq ft in construction costs - should we maybe wonder why its costing $300, $350, $400+ here? Requiring deconstruction doesn't help. Demanding things be built to Step Code 4 doesn't help. Forcing variance applications for technical problems, doesn't help.

[Mike K.]

All the City of Victoria has to do is to make the application and approvals process more streamlined, like what they do over in Langford, and re-construct the CALUC process.

 

In the span of only several months you can have a 50-unit townhome project approved in Langford. That same project will take 2-3 years to be approved in the City of Victoria and in Saanich, provided everything flows smoothly. Aryze's Foul Bay project is now into year three, I think? It likely won't see the green light until year four, and be completed and ready for occupancy by year six, maybe year seven of the process.

 

PPP, does that sound about right?

[PPPdev]

AJ ^^ 

 

Agree with a lot of this for sure and as a company, we have been critical of the policy changes related to deconstruction and energy performance without a corresponding uptick in floor space ratios (FSR) which is also driving most of the rest of what you are saying. In 2012, we set broad FSR across OCP designations, they havent been increased yet land, labour, and commodities have all increased dramatically. So developers and builders are being asked to do more, with less.

 

Yes, to a total review of the development process! But that is what is being proposed through Missing Middle, a new MM-1 zone that bypassing the already insane approval process. The proposed densities, heights, and typologies of Missing Middle are all already approved in the existing OCP designations so in some regards, what is being proposed is making the OCP's aligned with zoning bylaws which is what the Open Doors review recommended.

Edited by PPPdev, 06 December 2021 - 02:27 PM.

[Awaiting Juno]

All the City of Victoria has to do is to make the application and approvals process more streamlined, like what they do over in Langford, and re-construct the CALUC process.

 

In the span of only several months you can have a 50-unit townhome project approved in Langford. That same project will take 2-3 years to be approved in the City of Victoria and in Saanich, provided everything flows smoothly. Aryze's Foul Bay project is now into year three, I think? It likely won't see the green light until year four, and be completed and ready for occupancy by year six, maybe year seven of the process.

 

PPP, does that sound about right?

 

Maybe if Aryze would quit with tactics that are toxic to the neighbourhoods in which they're seeking to develop, maybe their projects wouldn't face such opposition and delays. To be honest, Aryze is probably one of the main reasons people are very hesitant about the missing middle policy as proposed. They push the boundaries beyond what would be eagerly welcomed in the neighborhood and then cry NIMBY when the neighbourhood pushes back. Likely the most antagonistic developer operating in Victoria today.

[Nparker]

...Likely the most antagonistic developer operating in Victoria today.

But perhaps the most endeared developer by a certain faction at city hall.

[Mike K.]

Yes, to a total review of the development process! But that is what is being proposed through Missing Middle, a new MM-1 zone that bypassing the already insane approval process. The proposed densities, heights, and typologies of Missing Middle are all already approved in the existing OCP designations so in some regards, what is being proposed is making the OCP's aligned with zoning bylaws which is what the Open Doors review recommended.

 

Great, that's good.

 

And the next step should be an open commitment from the City to say "MM-1 zoning applications will be processed in eight months or less," or something to that regard.

 

I don't like leaving these pursuits open-ended, as the public has no way to quantify in an easy way the efficacy of the changes.

[PPPdev]

Maybe if Aryze would quit with tactics that are toxic to the neighbourhoods in which they're seeking to develop, maybe their projects wouldn't face such opposition and delays. To be honest, Aryze is probably one of the main reasons people are very hesitant about the missing middle policy as proposed. They push the boundaries beyond what would be eagerly welcomed in the neighborhood and then cry NIMBY when the neighbourhood pushes back. Likely the most antagonistic developer operating in Victoria today.

 

Seriously? What reason is there to go on the attack here, we are all having an informed discussion on policy reform.

[Victoria Watcher]

Victoria Watcher:

 

Sure, all of those areas of town are very desirable, if you can afford to live there. But allowing zoning to act as a defacto socio-economic barrier is leading to continued wealth disparity. Beyond that, low density neighbourhoods have a much higher per capita GHG emissions so there is also the zoning impacts of climate change that needs to be reconciled. 

 

This statement really has me confused:

 

"I'm happy to turn over huge swaths of the city to this dumb scheme, say anything north of downtown.  But it's  crazy to introduce it into to the quieter areas of the south communities."

 

You are essentially saying that the scheme is resulting in a negative outcome but then are ok with it happening to somebody else, that is the literally what the reform is trying to avoid, allowing growth to happen broadly and equally, why should south Victoria be walled off?

 

I never suggested the south be "walled off".  I suggested the program should not be applied there.

 

I'm not afraid to say that one of the advantages of living in Broadmead or Uplands or Fairfield or Gordon Head is a general lack of street disorder and crime.  That's one of the favourable attributes of more affluent SFD areas.  And I don't think that bringing crime and disorder into into every community is the solution to crime and disorder.  But to many SJWs that's the "equity" solution they desire.  Make living sh*tty for everyone.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 December 2021 - 03:15 PM.