3524 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Saanich councillor De Vries:

Cheapest SFH in Victoria: 900k

Missing Middle Four Plex:
-900k/4 = 225k land cost
-construction costs (450 psf x1200sf) = 540k
-builder profit (15%) = 115k

End unit price ~880k

New family oriented units roughly the price of very old end of life units.

Yes please!

There has a come a time when a nearly million dollar home is a laudable goal, in Saanich.

We’ve lost the plot here.

[Nparker]

I'm actually surprised any figure was included for builder profit.

[Victoria Watcher]

1200 sq. ft. townhouse with no private yard, for $733 per square foot. OK. What’s the win here?

Today there are only 18 3-bedroom listings - mostly old stock - in Saanich or Victoria under $900,000.

How does he figure these brand new units will only be $880,000?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 June 2022 - 03:17 PM.

[lanforod]

1200 sq ft. is gonna be 2 bedrooms too, not 3. Unless those are shoebox bedrooms.

[Victoria Watcher]

Well, he calls them “family oriented”. That would be at least 3 br, no?

I think you can get 3 bedrooms into 1200 sq. ft. with combined living / dining and only 1.5 baths.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 13 June 2022 - 03:21 PM.

[Nparker]

I used to own a 3-bedroom, 1200 square foot townhouse, and indeed the 2 secondary bedrooms were small. One was really only suitable as a den or a nursery, as it would have been a tight squeeze to have anything larger than a twin bed in it.

 

What you definitely don't get in this square footage is any indoor play space for children.

Edited by Nparker, 13 June 2022 - 03:24 PM.

[lanforod]

It's possible, I guess yeah. Small rooms though if so, especially the living spaces.

 

Anyways, do this x100 and you've quadrupled the number of homes.

Theoretically, do it enough times, the supply exceeds demand and prices stagnate or drop. However, thats theoretical and not really possible because the demand is so high, and its increasing not decreasing.

[Mike K.]

Don’t forget the $225/month strata fee.

And yes, that’s a real-world townhome strata fee for 2022.

[Nparker]

The strata fees on my 900 square foot condo are a LOT more than $225/month.

[Mike K.]

It's possible, I guess yeah. Small rooms though if so, especially the living spaces.

Anyways, do this x100 and you've quadrupled the number of homes.
Theoretically, do it enough times, the supply exceeds demand and prices stagnate or drop. However, thats theoretical and not really possible because the demand is so high, and its increasing not decreasing.

That’s one way to look at it for sure.

The other is you’ve also taken a home with a rental suite off the market. So potentially turning two attainable homes into four very expensive homes.

I don’t know if that’s going to get us ahead when so much demand exists for housing in Victoria. Rich retirees don’t care if the unit costs $900k or $1.2M, but the local family earning local wages will.

[Mike K.]

The strata fees on my 900 square foot condo are a LOT more than $225/month.

Yeah, townhomes are less complicated than condo
buildings. A townhome tethered to condo will pay about 2.5-3x in fees what a traditional townhome is assessed.

[dasmo]

Don’t forget that is the price for a SFH before the not up-zoning. After that it’s 1.8 million because it’s a development opportunity.

[Mike K.]

Oh there’s a whole lot that’s left out of this math, for sure.

[LJ]

Well soon we will all be left living in tepees, and we can all pat ourselves on the back for going 150 years back in time.

[Matt R.]

That’s the product of modern ultra-efficient building codes and design efficiency. It’s a thing of beauty, stripped of all of the blunders of past generations. This is similar to what BC Housing is currently building in Victoria neighbourhoods.

The one on Catherine looks like that. I know BC Housing passed on buying the hotel here aa they were planning to build new on some bare land. Wonder how that will look?

[Matt R.]

Well, he calls them “family oriented”. That would be at least 3 br, no?

I think you can get 3 bedrooms into 1200 sq. ft. with combined living / dining and only 1.5 baths.

We four lived quite happily in a 1200sq ft three bedroom at Parkside Place for years, this type of layout. Great for small kids, less great for older kids perhaps. Soon my house will be too big again!

[dasmo]

We lived in 1200 sq with 3 no problem. We had a yard though. I also had an office. It also wasn’t a million dollars. You actually couldn’t build that house today. Hollow walls, single pane windows. Not an electrical outlet every six feet. I digress….
The form and character of the missing middle isn’t the problem at all. It’s actually the type of housing found in the Netherlands and why it is dense but family friendly. Row houses are a great form because the front yard and the side yard are relatively useless anyway.
The missing middle is being sold as a way to retain young workers, make it more affordable here, and to solve climate change. It’s being sold by using the aesthetic of human scale character higher density housing design concepts that make sense. But that’s a bait and switch. It is blanket up-zoning with added design control granted to the city. (But don’t call it up-zoning. It’s the same zoning just with higher density) that is the pragmatic reality of the missing middle. Because it’s being rolled out everywhere over the last few years we already have examples of places that have implemented this. Some places a few years ago now. Zero impact on affordability.
Victoria is already an existing city that is pretty much built out in it’s residential areas. Simply not up-zoning the city will not create this vision in our lifetimes. Even their own report alludes to that. In our lifetime it will however worsen the affordability issue since now all land value in those residential areas will increase to align with its highest use. Also the tax. Every character home is now a condo conversion. Every house with a yard is a low rise apartment.
Every low rise apartment a high-rise. In land cost only.

People want affordable homes. They need them. Council should be looking at that in a real and local way. In the context of greater Victoria and looking all the parameters that could affect change in that regard in a pragmatic way

Council should be serving the people of the city not mandating their communities be transformed as per number 11 from the UN’s agenda 2030 sustainable development goals.

[dasmo]

Let's check in on how Portland is doing since passing "Missing Middle" not-up-zoning to it's single family neighbourhoods. 

 

The program got hearty praise at the time as the nation's most ambitious low-density zoning reform. It's spawned an infant industry of developers building smaller, more affordable "missing middle" housing.

Nevertheless, the results thus far have been fairly modest, producing only about 100 additional units since the program went into effect in August 2021.

In response, the City Council is now coming back with a series of even more liberalizing reforms that allow larger buildings and even more types of housing to go in neighborhoods that were once exclusively single-family. The hope is that these reforms will make a wider range of housing options not just legal to build but practical and economical as well.

"I feel like a dam has broken in Oregon housing policy, and it's because we started getting things done," says Michael Andersen, a Portland-based housing researcher at the Sightline Institute. "I'm surprised that things that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago, but awesome, are now on the table."

 

https://reason.com/2...-easy-to-build/

[Nparker]

The fastest price increase in the past 5 years. Well done Portland. Your wokeness has had the exact results I would have expected: making the affordability situation worse. No doubt you've solved racism though.

[dasmo]

The missing middle housing staff proposal is disappointing. The description presented during the public engagement process spoke of zoning changes that would allow, “duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, etc…” Thus folks responded to the survey with this in mind and apparently looked on the plan with some favour. As described, missing middle sounded like it could gently increase density in my neighbourhood – and that’s a good thing.

However, the staff report clearly points to six-plexes on mid blocks (whatever that means) and 12-unit townhouse projects on corners. This feels like a bit of a bait and switch and represents a whole different level of density that I am not comfortable with. In addition, the increase in allowable heights of about 10 feet will raise concerns on those streets where many homes are already well below the allowable heights of 25 feet.

Might I suggest that this proposal, as currently structured, is premature? The zoning changes in the staff proposal should be reduced to reflect the description that the public was given during the engagement process.

I would also note that Minister Eby has indicated support for missing middle and has said that he is interested in checking out the New Zealand approach where triplexes would be allowed across six major cities. He has also indicated that missing middle legislation will be announced after the October elections. Minister Fleming has indicated that the Transportation Financing Authority will soon be given powers to purchase land along major transportation corridors, like Douglas Street, to help facilitate more affordable housing.

With these initiatives coming down the pike, it might be prudent to defer rezoning until after the province has signalled its intentions and we can see that the many moving parts fit together.

Victoria Engagement just sent me a note announcing that missing middle will be presented to council in less than 48 hours, inviting me to click on “Have Your Say” which of course closed months ago. So, disrespectful.

https://www.saanichn...e-proposal/amp/