3918 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

not clear what a Julty report is.

 

 

 

 

 

An example of a trade-off required to permit more MMH relates to parking, staff explained in a Julty report. Housing meant for up to four families would require as many as four spaces. Placing that onsite could reduce shared green space and the urban forest, while leaving residents to park elsewhere would impact street or laneway parking. The city hopes to hear residents’ preferences on these choices through its ongoing community consultation.

 

Following the engagement sessions, “it’s definitely too early to say anything conclusive about what we’re hearing (from the public),” MacLean said. The first session on Oct. 30 saw just over a dozen participants at the city’s online meeting. “There are definitely people who are keen to see more of these housing options introduced to the city, and others that really want to make sure the (new housing) will be a good neighbour,” MacLean said.

 

 

 

https://www.vancouve...using-proposal/

 

 

 

 

i love the way that is presented.   there are those in favour and those that want "good neighbours".  nobody opposed, right?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 November 2021 - 05:58 AM.

[Nparker]

...Following the engagement sessions, “it’s definitely too early to say anything conclusive about what we’re hearing (from the public),” MacLean said...

In other words, the public hasn't told the CoV what the city wants to hear yet.

[Victoria Watcher]

only 12 people at the first meeting.  obviously the public does not know the plan here.

 

i do not think there is much to fear here.  other jurisdictions where this has happened even on a much smaller scale there has been extreme pushback and the politicians have capitulated.

 

and you are not going to sell or rent many 4-plexes "for familes" with little or no parking.

 

and this council would never even require one parking stall per unit.

 

it might make some sense on some busy streets and at corners.  but 4-plexes are not going to pop up along quiet fairfield streets. 

 

ironically it might make sense on some big lots in Rockland where they could support 4 or 6-car parking, but the city will never go for that.  even though rockland already has many 4, 6 and 8-plexes.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 November 2021 - 06:31 AM.

[spanky123]

only 12 people at the first meeting.  obviously the public does not know the plan here.

 

There were also two online surveys which of course have not been mentioned. When you present options like parking or green space as absolutes it is not much of a surprise that people know the deck is stacked and don't want to waste their time. 

 

I think it is fairly obvious that loading up a 5-6 house cul du sac with an extra 30 units and no parking will create chaos as much as the CoV planners want everyone to think that you do not need to own a car in Victoria. Take away free parking for CoV staff if nobody needs cars!

[MarkoJ]

I've read through all the materials...nothing will get built as a result of this initiative. Step Code 5? (super expensive) lol, wtf. So you can build a 4,500 sq/ft mini-mansion at a lower stepcode but if you want to build four 1,125 sq/ft townhomes it needs to be Step Code 5? Makes sense. Bunch of other issues. This is just political posturing, no reality. 

Edited by MarkoJ, 05 November 2021 - 12:26 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

I've read through all the materials...nothing will get built as a result of this initiative. Step Code 5? (super expensive) lol, wtf. So you can build a 4,500 sq/ft mini-mansion at a lower stepcode but if you want to build four 1,125 sq/ft townhomes it needs to be Step Code 5? Makes sense. Bunch of other issues. This is just political posturing, no reality. 

 

I agree.

 

few buyers are in the market for an 1,125 sq. ft. townhome with zero reserved parking.  

 

it's like how the City was surprised that the take-up for garden suites was small.  no kidding eh.  you made the rules way too hard.  and the build cost way too high on a per-square-foot basis.  

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 November 2021 - 12:37 PM.

[Nparker]

...it's like how the City was surprised that the take-up for garden suites was small.  no kidding eh.  you made the rules way too hard.  and the build cost way too high on a per-square-foot basis.  

And then they tax the hell out of property owners to finance their idiotic, SJW schemes.

[spanky123]

I've read through all the materials...nothing will get built as a result of this initiative. Step Code 5? (super expensive) lol, wtf. So you can build a 4,500 sq/ft mini-mansion at a lower stepcode but if you want to build four 1,125 sq/ft townhomes it needs to be Step Code 5? Makes sense. Bunch of other issues. This is just political posturing, no reality. 

 

Maybe the scheme is to simply up-zone everything so that the assessed value will now be based on highest and best use and CoV will get a windfall in property taxes!

[Mike K.]

If that's the plan, it would be political suicide. It's going to get very challenging over the next several years as the mill rates adjust to place more taxation pressure on residential properties.

 

What's the average tax burden now in the CoV, for a standard SFD. $5,000?

[Victoria Watcher]

I have now more clearly identified all the areas that the city should consider for upzoning first, before they venture into our racist neighbourhoods.

 

First and foremost, ALL THE BLUE ROADS.  go nuts.  6 to 12 to 20 storeys, no matter.

 

 

4.  is essentially everything between Government and Blanshard, from downtown to Hillside. 

5.  I'm willing to sacrifice all of this to the plan:

 

 

1. and 3. is "new Rock Bay" and older Rock Bay.  If those industrial lands have better uses that is economical, I'm all for it.   I'm not the type that says we need industrial downtown just because.

 

2.  if some riff-raff that can go upzone.

 

 

Not on my original map, but this area can get a serious upgrade too:

 

 

Down with car dealerships, up with people!

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 January 2022 - 06:01 AM.

[Sparky]

The problem with thinking that infill housing will solve the affordability problem is that it can't. Our country has too many "buyer ready" people in it. Whoever was in charge of keeping track of the demographics of high school students 10 years ago were asleep at the switch. This isn't a Victoria problem. This is a Canadian problem. Here is a story from Oshawa.

 

What “really broke us,” James says, was bidding $195,000 above asking for a so-so, lower-priced house in a less desirable Oshawa neighbourhood, only to have 15 other would-be buyers top them. It sold at $302,000 over asking.

 

 

https://www.macleans...t-housing-2021/

[Mattjvd]

The problem with thinking that infill housing will solve the affordability problem is that it can't. Our country has too many "buyer ready" people in it. Whoever was in charge of keeping track of the demographics of high school students 10 years ago were asleep at the switch. This isn't a Victoria problem. This is a Canadian problem. Here is a story from Oshawa.


https://www.macleans...t-housing-2021/

Not on it's own, but it should be part of the mix. The places in the country with big supply crunches like that need to add as many units of all types as they can: downtown highrise, 'middle density' infill, and greenfield subdivisions

[punk cannonballer]

Yeah it's not an either/or proposition. That said, the land values are becoming such that density and infill will be the only option in urban contexts moving forward. We're pretty much there. The only buyer for unrenovated shacks fronting Bay or Hillside for $999k is a developer assembling land. The vast majority of young busy families are opting for a condo at that point. The question communities need to be asking themselves when going through OCP and other policy exercises isn't 'what do we want this to look like' so much as 'how are we going to respond to this crazy development pressure we're going to be facing?'

Edited by punk cannonballer, 14 January 2022 - 10:54 AM.

[Mike K.]

Regarding the value question. What's worth more? A CoV SFD lot up-zoned for six-units, or a Saanich lot across the street zoned for an SFD?

 

The CoV's value assessment looks like something assessed in a vacuum, unless I'm not reading their rationale correctly.

[spanky123]

Yeah it's not an either/or proposition. That said, the land values are becoming such that density and infill will be the only option in urban contexts moving forward. We're pretty much there. The only buyer for unrenovated shacks fronting Bay or Hillside for $999k is a developer assembling land. The vast majority of young busy families are opting for a condo at that point. The question communities need to be asking themselves when going through OCP and other policy exercises isn't 'what do we want this to look like' so much as 'how are we going to respond to this crazy development pressure we're going to be facing?'

 

Young busy families are not the demographic that will increase over the next 30 years (according to the City's own data). Sounds like we are trying to use policy to force a change.

[spanky123]

I wonder how the uptick in prices has impacted secondary suites. It would strike me that a family buying a $500K home could likely use a mortgage helper in the form of a basement rental whereas the retired couple coming here from Vancouver or Toronto now paying $1.5M for the same house a decade later probably don't need the income and may just keep the space for family when they come to visit.

Edited by spanky123, 14 January 2022 - 12:02 PM.

[punk cannonballer]

How is anyone 'forcing change'? The market is screaming for units and municipalities are not acting fast enough to respond to demand. The choice will be simple: don't rezone to higher density and accept a $2m benchmark house. Or, actually build so that people can afford to live here.

[spanky123]

How is anyone 'forcing change'? The market is screaming for units and municipalities are not acting fast enough to respond to demand. The choice will be simple: don't rezone to higher density and accept a $2m benchmark house. Or, actually build so that people can afford to live here.

 

If we don't build what the people moving here want then we are not do anything about affordability. 

[Victoria Watcher]

If we don’t build what the people moving here want, then maybe they won’t come?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 January 2022 - 12:12 PM.

[Nparker]

If we don’t build what the people moving here want, then maybe they won’t come?

You mean like supported housing?