3521 replies to this topic

[Matt R.]

Wait until you try to post an image.

[Victoria Watcher]

The public will get to tell Victoria on Aug. 4 what kinds of housing should be allowed to exist in the majority of the city.

 

While single-family homes aren’t going anywhere, the city’s missing middle proposal looks to make it so that lots currently zoned for those standalone dwellings could also host smaller multi-family builds.

 

The initiative would allow for corner townhomes and houseplexes, as well as infill homes on heritage-worthy properties – all seen as important housing types to keep families in Victoria – on lots only zoned for single-family homes.

 

___________________________

 

Council on July 14 found some compromise, passing Coun. Ben Isitt’s amendment requiring some missing middle townhome projects to include at least one below-market unit when they seek additional density.

 

 

 

https://www.vicnews....iddle-proposal/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 18 July 2022 - 09:02 PM.

[Mike K.]

What guarantee is there this will become family housing?

We keep using that term, but how realistic is it? From what I’ve seen, there are more empty nesters than families buying these units. And why would families be drawn to multi plex units, but not identical condo units? Where is this notion of ‘family’ housing coming from, for MM properties?

[Nparker]

...Council on July 14 found some compromise, passing Coun. Ben Isitt’s amendment requiring some missing middle townhome projects to include at least one below-market unit when they seek additional density...

Which only means the rest of the units will be priced higher to compensate. How does this create affordability? Comrade Isitt has even less understanding of economics than our prime minister.

[Nparker]

What guarantee is there this will become family housing?

What's the definition of family?

[Mike K.]

The key takeaway is *when they seek additional density. So is the maximum isn’t six units after all.

[Barrrister]

Townhomes would have made more sense for family type units. Otherwise a lot of this is just more condos. They are saying family since this sounds more warm and fuzzy.  You are likely to hear someone telling you how happy their familly was in some European country raising their whole family in a apartment and how much happier everyone is living in high density. This will be followed by how we are going to turn the city into Amsterdam. 

 

If I was either a developer or owned some rental houses in Victoria I would be pushing for this as well. Lots of money on the table. On the other hand, if I had just paid two million for a new build on a quiet street in Fairfield I would be seriously pissed at the thought of my street being slowly torn up for apartment units. The writing was on the wall when Andrews suddenly decided to change his vote and have this brought forward before the election.

Edited by Barrrister, 19 July 2022 - 04:06 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

They are saying family since this sounds more warm and fuzzy.  

 

That's correct.

[Victoria Watcher]

Townhomes would have made more sense for family type units. Otherwise a lot of this is just more condos. 

 

Unless they allow lot mergings/assembly, I'm not sure you can get many townhomes on a SFD lot.

 

I think even if this goes, this whole thing stalls out due to lack of on-site parking.  VERY FEW people will buy a 2 or more bedroom condo without reserved parking.  Some might rent same, if they see easy street parking. 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 July 2022 - 04:11 AM.

[Tom Braybrook]

isitt asked and was told specifically that "below market" meant 10% below current market rates

 

so 10% reduction spread over a sixplex means overall project price reduction of 1.6% oer unit

 

over a fourplex 2.5% per unit

 

a 900 k condo would be reuced to 890k, a 3500/month rental would be 3150/month

 

big deal 

 

there is no affordablity here, just a goldmine foor property developers and builders

[Victoria Watcher]

Voodoo math.

[dasmo]

isitt asked and was told specifically that "below market" meant 10% below current market rates

 

so 10% reduction spread over a sixplex means overall project price reduction of 1.6% oer unit

 

over a fourplex 2.5% per unit

 

a 900 k condo would be reuced to 890k, a 3500/month rental would be 3150/month

 

big deal 

 

there is no affordablity here, just a goldmine foor property developers and builders

Bingo. If you read about the missing middle from the source you will see it is just a marketing strategy.

It's not upzoning!

It is adjusting single family zoning legislation to allow for it to have an increase in density. 

[aastra]

 

The public will get to tell Victoria on Aug. 4 what kinds of housing should be allowed to exist in the majority of the city.

 

All options will be considered, assuming some sort of disruptive change to the status quo is involved.

[Mike K.]

With 4% of the electorate representing ‘strong support’ and a ‘clear mandate’ for council’s ideas, what makes us think we can question officialdom?

[spanky123]

Bingo. If you read about the missing middle from the source you will see it is just a marketing strategy.

It's not upzoning!

It is adjusting single family zoning legislation to allow for it to have an increase in density. 

 

Council can already approve a multi family development. This is where advocates are trying to confuse people by comparing Victoria to cities where only SFDs are permitted. That is not the case here.

[Victoria Watcher]

Council can indeed approve a rezoning anywhere they want.

They can - and often do - create brand new spot or site-specific zoning too. So they can create a new category with super high density if they want.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 19 July 2022 - 10:34 AM.

[aastra]

 

This is where advocates are trying to confuse people by comparing Victoria to cities where only SFDs are permitted. That is not the case here.

 

No doubt. But the "missing middle" agenda has this same shortcoming in literally every jurisdiction where it's being pushed. Neighbourhoods that already allow a half-decently wide range of housing types obviously don't need this initiative. Those areas are already doing their part and already have been doing their part for decades in most cases. In a sane reality, those areas where density and the range of housing types have always been gradually increasing would simply continue with their established pattern of gradual development & re-development. No disruptive programs should ever be needed.

 

Exaggerated focus on certain small districts to the exclusion of all other areas is always a key element of these initiatives. Just like with the homelessness & addiction issues and the concentration of housing and services.

[aastra]

 

...if I had just paid two million for a new build on a quiet street in Fairfield I would be seriously pissed at the thought of my street being slowly torn up for apartment units...

 

Come on. What kind of fool would make a major personal investment in a neighbourhood simply because he likes the established character of that neighbourhood? So what if a particular pattern of development and redevelopment has been evident for the past 60+ years? Tomorrow morning your noble & heroic politicians* might decide to re-zone for skyscrapers, and frankly** it's your own stupid fault if you didn't expect it.

*you know, because they're noble & heroic and they just want to do good things for people
**whoops, I meant Barrrister, not frankly

[aastra]

 

...they can create a new category with super high density if they want.

 

Exactly. And the first step would be to determine the least appropriate area for it.

[Mike K.]

$330,000US to buy the land and build a relative McMansion in Chatanooga, TN: https://youtube.com/...8?feature=share

You can’t even buy a single tiny parcel for $330k US -anywhere- in the CRD, at any size. Starting prices are about $450k CAD in Sooke, and not even the immediate core of Sooke.

We have an affordability crisis because we’ve purposefully capped buildable land, and are concentrating population growth in a handful of cities with locked suburban growth. It’s no more complicated than that.