3521 replies to this topic

[LJ]

Why don't we go straight to the council flats and stop dicking around with all this nonsense.

[Nparker]

Why don't we go straight to the council flats and stop dicking around with all this nonsense.

I think that's the plan for Hudson Place 2.

[Victoria Watcher]

Housing debate delayed so public can review 2,000 pages of detail

 

City considers delegating some housing approval authority to staff.

 

https://www.timescol...-detail-5337478

 

 

 

 

In the report tabled Thursday, city staff said an extensive engagement process showed strong support for a streamlined process to approve houseplexes, townhouses and heritage conserving infill. Only eight per cent of respondents indicated that none of the housing forms should follow a delegated development permit process.

 

The report also suggests missing-middle housing design guidelines and the streamlined approval process would apply in all traditional residential areas in Victoria. The guidelines would require a certain amount of parking. Where that couldn’t be achieved due to the size or ­layout of the lot, developers would be expected to provide transportation substitutions such as car-share co-op memberships and transit passes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment: Victoria's 'missing middle' plan won't bring affordable houses

 

​​​​​​​A commentary supported by 30 residents of Victoria.

 

https://www.timescol...-houses-5337465

 

 

The plan should primarily be for Victoria-based young families who can’t afford our average $1.42-million housing prices. Even the below-market housing ownership price suggested in the report to council is set at only 10 per cent lower than the average market price.

 

Victoria’s 2012 Official Community Plan was years in the making and was informed by more than 6,000 residents. The online engagement leading to the missing middle report had only 800 participants.

 

By and large, people living in Victoria’s residential districts are unaware of the implications of this proposal: The diminution to their quality of life and the unpredictable disruptions that will become commonplace in their neighbourhoods.

 

Changing the OCP so radically should be informed by wide consultation throughout the communities.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 04:37 AM.

[Mike K.]

Going by what I saw at the meeting yesterday not all of council even read the report. Or the questions they asked they wouldn’t have asked.

[Victoria Watcher]

Does the report have glowing examples of where this has been done elsewhere and it had the desired affect?  With or without and negative consequences?

 

Or are they just winging it, both staff and politicians here? 

 

Why not wait two years and see what happen here in New Zealand?

 

 

 

 

https://www.timescol...-cities-4695930

 

 

 

 

 

New Zealand’s government has ordered an end to single-family zoning in its five biggest cities, drawing the attention of B.C. housing advocates and planning experts.

 

Housing advocates think it is an example worth considering in B.C.’s most expensive markets, but others caution it might have unintended consequences.

 

Legislation introduced last week would require the New Zealand cities to apply “medium density residential standards” to single-family areas by next August (2022). The new rules will allow property owners to build up to three housing units, to a height of three storeys, covering 50 per cent of what were typically single-family lots in cities including Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

 

___________________

 

While the New Zealand move “does make single-family homes more expensive,” Davidoff said, it would have “a significant effect on prices” by increasing the availability of other housing types, such as multi-unit buildings.

 

The change is recognition that “New Zealand’s housing shortage is being made worse in our biggest cities by limits on the number and types of houses that can be built,” said the country’s housing minister, Megan Woods.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 05:58 AM.

[Mike K.]

When this debate started last year, the talking points were building new townhomes in the CoV could be achieved for $700-$800k, a range doable for two couples earning $150k per year (doable for many). The average for re-sale townhomes in April was $926k, now firmly in the realm of couples earning $200k plus.

I don’t know who can afford a nearly million dollar townhome, but it’s not an average family already locked out of the market.

On the flip side, what would help affordability is if we built a 50,000-unit subdivision west of Sooke. Or on the Malahat. But why not split the density between both? Nothing short of that will improve housing affordability. At best now we’re just slowing the rapid price increases.

Of course we could also do the same in Metchosin, but I don’t think that’s politically possible. That really only leaves us with the suburban subdivision as an option, because despite building 6,000-units of condos and apartments just in the CoV since 2016, we appear to be no further ahead. So if condos and apartments could make life more affordable, building townhomes in place of a few houses won’t achieve it either.

[Victoria Watcher]

As I have stated before, a six-plex of 2/3 bedroom units in Fairfield with 0.15 parking stalls per unit might not sell/rent as well as one would hope.  Therefore, they won't be built that way.  If you own a car (almost all households where they own the property do own at least one car) one might have parking spot anxiety. 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 06:30 AM.

[Mike K.]

It’ll sell, but soon the new owners will be at odds with existing residents over on-street parking.

[Mike K.]

Ismo has some insight into this. He says a lot of people buy condos without parking then expect the city to provide it to them, or give them preferential treatment.

I’d say 90% of people with a car, would buy a six plex unit without a parking stall, if street parking is permitted on the block.

[spanky123]

Ismo has some insight into this. He says a lot of people buy condos without parking then expect the city to provide it to them, or give them preferential treatment.

I’d say 90% of people with a car, would buy a six plex unit without a parking stall, if street parking is permitted on the block.

 

True but the streets are already full, where would the additional 5 cars for every property go?!

[Victoria Watcher]

I’d say 90% of people with a car, would buy a six plex unit without a parking stall, if street parking is permitted on the block.

 

I don't think so.  Not unless is was deeply discounted compared to the same unit with a parking stall.  Of course it might depend on the area too.  In bigger cities, the streets are not only full, but everyone that parks overnight on the street must pay a monthly fee.   See if the good folks of Fairfield want that. 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 06:37 AM.

[Mike K.]

Not their perceived problem at the time.

There are some properties that abuse on-street parking, leading to problems. Now the City is blessing this form of abuse, by having no qualms over adding vehicles to the street.

My only take-away is this is moving the CoV towards a payment regime for residential streets.

[Mike K.]

I don't think so. Not unless is was deeply discounted compared to the same unit with a parking stall. Of course it might depend on the area too.

It’s already a big thing among condos. You can only afford a studio, or a JR 1, and there’s no allocated parking within the project for units of that size. 9/10 a person in that scenario with a car will still buy that condo and worry about the parking later.

[Victoria Watcher]

Not their perceived problem at the time.

There are some properties that abuse on-street parking, leading to problems. Now the City is blessing this form of abuse, by having no qualms over adding vehicles to the street.

My only take-away is this is moving the CoV towards a payment regime for residential streets.

 

I'd actually suggest that almost everyone that parks on the street overnight now, has more than one car per unit.  Which is very typical for units of 2 or 2+ bedrooms.  So your new six-plex might deliver 10-12 new cars to the block.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 06:39 AM.

[spanky123]

As I have stated before, a six-plex of 2/3 bedroom units in Fairfield with 0.15 parking stalls per unit might not sell/rent as well as one would hope.  Therefore, they won't be built that way.  If you own a car (almost all households where they own the property do own at least one car) one might have parking spot anxiety. 

 

Lets not forget it is entirely different living in James Bay or Fairfield where you can walk into downtown vs Cedar Hill. 

 

If you look at the staff report you will be remined of the comments several of us made at the time when the survey was introduced. Do you want green space or parking? Surprise, surprise, 80% of people want green space if it is a binary choice and so staff report that 80% of people support their plans! 

 

I love how staff support their contention that upzoning property has no impact on valuation (should save this for when they pay out a developer for downing their land). Apparently upzoning will create so much new "land" in Victoria that prices overall will come down!

[Mike K.]

There’s also the “street frontage” argument, right? You pay property taxes for property size and in some cases boulevard maintenance, so there is a perceived right of way to frontage. If your home has two vehicles-worth of frontage, IMO you’re good with occupying that space and chances are you’re paying to maintain the boulevard.

If you have one spot, but use three on the street, that’s when problems start.

[Victoria Watcher]

It’s already a big thing among condos. You can only afford a studio, or a JR 1, and there’s no allocated parking within the project for units of that size. 9/10 a person in that scenario with a car will still buy that condo and worry about the parking later.

 

It depends on the area.  I bet new buyers at the Metropolitan (View and Blanshard) rarely buy if there is no parking spot for their car.   Long walk from there to "free" street parking.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 06 May 2022 - 06:41 AM.

[spanky123]

Not their perceived problem at the time.

There are some properties that abuse on-street parking, leading to problems. Now the City is blessing this form of abuse, by having no qualms over adding vehicles to the street.

My only take-away is this is moving the CoV towards a payment regime for residential streets.

 

All anyone needs to do is look at streets in the Tillicum area where there are lots of secondary suites. Not only is every driveway full but so is every street. Now remove the driveways and add 4 more units per property and see what you get.

[Mike K.]

Right, you get paid on-street residential parking. That’s the goal here. Create chaos, and out of chaos you’ll promise order through more bureaucracy.

Like I was saying earlier, Kelowna requires 1:1 parking for these multi-plexes in order to not antagonize existing residents. Victoria is all about the antagonism and has been since 2014.

[Mike K.]

It depends on the area. I bet new buyers at the Metropolitan (View and Blanshard) rarely buy if there is no parking spot for their car. Long walk from there to "free" street parking.

There are always tenants looking for parking there because their unit didn’t come with a stall.

For most people who drive to work it works out. You leave by nine, return when parking is free or just pay $2 until it is.