1095 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

If you look at the prices of SFD in the City of Victoria and on the Westshore you’ll notice something we’ve never seen before: generally speaking, the prices aren’t that different.

Why? Because the market has figured out that due to this region’s absolutely tiny urban footprint living in Langford and living in Fairfield are one and the same, albeit with different perks and drawbacks that appeal to one buyer over another. Where we get caught up is when locals invoke their own prejudices in their decision making (ie “I’d never be caught living in Langford,” or “Fairfield is for yuppies”). But a large inflow of newcomers, who are helping drive this market, don’t have these generational biases and despite locals going on about “where the value, future, smart money are,” they happily buy in Vic West, Esquimalt, Colwood, etc.

Ten years ago none of us would have assumed that a new-build home in Langford on a relatively small lot could cost $850k. Yet here we are. So what’s the solution? More land for single family development. There’s simply too little supply for a region as large as Victoria, but that supply isn’t constrained by a lack of land.

[PPPdev]

The history of zoning not separation of land uses, it is separation of people. Currently, it is dividing people social economically but also leading to highly inefficient land patterns. Whether we want it or not, downtown Victoria still represents the hub of the region and not providing more compact housing forms closer to the core has social, environmental, and economic consequences. I’m not saying we should allow 6 storeys in SFD neighbourhoods but ground oriented 2.5-3 storey duplexes and townhouses aren’t going to be a massacre to neighbourhoods the way some vocal people tend to say. In the end, protection of one area, leads to displacement somewhere else. Areas with low SFD and high multi family also have higher ownership turn over, displacement and rents rising at 2x the rate of other areas. As we grow, growth should happen equally so that Harris Green doesn’t grow 500% compared to Rockland a -0.15%.

[Freedom57]

Some people like to live in dense areas, such as high rises, and other people like to live in less dense areas and single family homes with a backyard and privacy.   There is no need to make our city into one big homogeneous neighborhood. How horrible and lacking in interest and diversity.  So no - not all growth should happen equally.  Ugggg.  Just ruin the city.    Instead our growth needs to be thought out carefully.

[PPPdev]

Townhouses are not high density and offer backyards. It is textbook missing middle housing: middle density, middle sized, suitable for middle class incomes.

[G-Man]

And the other thing is, whenever I post a rage comment over there (HB style) it doesn't seem to get past the moderator.

So then Guru-Man... why do so many people still claim that Victoria has too many SFDs? In the city proper in particular the SFDs account for only ~14% of the dwellings. It's not difficult to imagine that number getting down into single digits before too long. What's the goal? Getting the SFD percentage down to zero?

I think as has kind of been said that the largest area of building type in Victoria seems to be the SFD even though lots of them have been divided up into multiple units. Also I think that people may also see alot of SFDs I. Victoria because they are in Saanich or Esquimalt and don't know it.

[LJ]

If there was a selection of high quality townhomes/row homes when we built our house we probably would have bought one of them. I think they are the ideal compromise.

[thundergun]

We bought a new townhouse close to downtown about four years ago after a long period of apartment/condo living and couldn't be happier with it.

[Jackerbie]

Same,  I don't understand why proper non-strata row houses aren't a super popular thing.  A block of row houses is often denser than a block of local 4 story apartments except zero BS with stratas or common property or need for elevators.  It's seems so ideal.

 

For a while it was a BC Building Code issue. "Party walls" were not permitted between fee-simple lots, so each rowhouses needed it's own exterior wall. I believe that has been changed, and now there's just a requirement for legal agreements on Title stipulating responsibilities of each owner in regards to the shared wall.

[woz]

If there was a selection of high quality townhomes/row homes when we built our house we probably would have bought one of them. I think they are the ideal compromise.

 

We bought a new townhouse close to downtown about four years ago after a long period of apartment/condo living and couldn't be happier with it.

 

First developer to offer a high quality rowhouse (fee simple) around James Bay/Fairfield/etc. gets my hard earned dollars. That is if they build this when I'm in the market in the near future. Sadly no one is offering this. Maybe if there's a dip in land prices developers will consider this type of housing?

[29er Radio]

It is possible to do TH on bottom two levels and have condos above

[Nparker]

It is possible to do TH on bottom two levels and have condos above

But that doesn't really address the issue of fee simple townhouses, or people who want to avoid dealing with strata issues.

[Jackerbie]

It is possible to do TH on bottom two levels and have condos above

 

Yes. That's basically the required form of development in Vancouver and a few other Metro Van municipalities.

 

It looks like that's what the intent was for 834 Johnson, but the townhouses appear to be designed as live/work units with office components on the ground floor instead of living space.

 

[29er Radio]

But that doesn't really address the issue of fee simple townhouses, or people who want to avoid dealing with strata issues.

I must have missed that part of the thread. You are right fee simple would be very hard to achieve in a row housing situation with current land title process's

[dasmo]

That would be the best, freehold row houses. But unfortunately our city wasn’t designed for that. Visited Philadelphia recently and that particular feature stood out to me. You visit Ben F’s home location and you see that when he built his house it was maybe the second one on the street at the time. A cute little row house just waiting for the others to join. Their would have been lots of space back then I assume but the European sensibilities towards urban development were still prevalent I guess.

[Jackerbie]

That would be the best, freehold row houses. But unfortunately our city wasn’t designed for that. Visited Philadelphia recently and that particular feature stood out to me. You visit Ben F’s home location and you see that when he built his house it was maybe the second one on the street at the time. A cute little row house just waiting for the others to join. Their would have been lots of space back then I assume but the European sensibilities towards urban development were still prevalent I guess.

 

Most people would have been walking for their day to day activities, so you'd want to build close to amenities. Row houses allowed for compact neighbourhoods, which made the number of customers within walking distance higher than the single-detached homes of today. That's why any change to the housing types allowed should also consider the land uses allowed, i.e. "three floors and corner stores." Montreal is fantastic for this!

[PPPdev]

We've done fee simple townhouses before, they had 22 different charges on title for all the party wall agreements. Buyers would get scared off by all the charges and preferred the simplicity of strata ownership.

[Baro]

When I talk about row houses I mean houses that just happen to have zero side wall setbacks.  Not unlike any traditional urban building.  Your neighbour could demolish their row house and build a bigger one and it wouldn't affect your structure in any way.

[woz]

We've done fee simple townhouses before, they had 22 different charges on title for all the party wall agreements. Buyers would get scared off by all the charges and preferred the simplicity of strata ownership.

 

I don't understand what this means though I am but a simple layman. A rowhouse has at most 2 shared walls (1 for end units), where does the complexity/scariness come from?

[Nparker]

When I talk about row houses I mean houses that just happen to have zero side wall setbacks...

Do the current building codes allow this?

[Rob Randall]

Do the current building codes allow this?

 

I don't think so. You're telling the City, "I want a zero setback because I'm kinda pretty sure my future neighbour will want to do the same thing."