[South Jubilee] The Redfern | Condos; retail | 4-storeys

I believe the difference for Potts and Loveday was that no currently affordable housing is needing to be demolished to make way for the new building, whereas this was the case for the Cook Street Village proposal. They argued that the developer should at least provide enough affordable units to replace those that are lost. This proposal doesn't have a net loss in affordable housing. Dubow was not present to vote on the Redfern proposal. Isitt voted both proposals down because of affordability concerns.

The developer is building a rental complex in Esquimalt that more than makes up for the handful of units lost to make way for the CSV project. Why does the housing have to be within the same property as the development? Who is to say the replacement housing will meet the needs of the existing residents? That’s where this pursuit of affordability starts to break down, as politicians view the world through blinders and operate as though every move is linear and every action has a 100% foreseeable outcome.

The developer is building a rental complex in Esquimalt that more than makes up for the handful of units lost to make way for the CSV project. Why does the housing have to be within the same property as the development? Who is to say the replacement housing will meet the needs of the existing residents? That’s where this pursuit of affordability starts to break down, as politicians view the world through blinders and operate as though every move is linear and every action has a 100% foreseeable outcome.

How many affordable units are proposed in the Esquimalt rental complex? 

What are the rental rates at the existing homes on Oliphant Street, and what are the incomes of the residents?

You didn't answer my question. My guess is zero? Does Aragon even have a single affordable unit anywhere in its portfolio? It's just bizarre to me that some developers seem to be able to find a way to make it happen and others call it simply impossible or unworkable. 

I don't have access to the specific rents of those homes but the resident that spoke at the council meeting claimed they were affordable. That's literally all I have to go off of. If it turns out the tenant who spoke at the council meeting and said she was extremely worried she wouldn't be able to find anything else she could afford near the city centre actually lied to council, that's a different story.

Let me be clear though, that I'm not opposed to the development and would have approved it if I was in council's position, just based on the improvements to the urban realm, streetscape, and the benefits that urban density brings to walkability and to the surrounding shops in CSV. I just don't believe claims that building expensive housing helps affordability in the region. As I've mentioned before, we've had years where average rental prices increased as vacancy rates also increased, so while supply and demand surely plays a role, it's an oversimplification of the complex problem of housing affordability.

Havent followed to closely on all the proceedings for Cook Street but the diference may be due to different OCP designations between the projects and the Inclusionary Housing and Community Amenity Policy. 

 Isitt voted both proposals down because of affordability concerns.

It's hard to explain economics to a communist.

You didn't answer my question. My guess is zero? Does Aragon even have a single affordable unit anywhere in its portfolio? It's just bizarre to me that some developers seem to be able to find a way to make it happen and others call it simply impossible or unworkable.

Let’s break this down.

How is affordable housing created?

Since we’re in the wrong thread I’ll cut to the chase.

Affordable housing in market projects is affordable by name only. Other residents subsidize it, meaning the average cost remains the same, and someone else has to dig deeper to cover their mortgage or rent. In the long run, these affordability requirements actually drive housing prices higher.

But we also know what’s new is expensive, what’s old is cheaper. Those houses on Oliphant were once new, and are now old. The life cycle of housing plays into affordability, and today’s brand new homes will one day, eventually, be more affordable to someone than a brand new option. That doesn’t mean costs will decrease, but that which is older will not command as high a price as that which is brand new.

Since we’re in the wrong thread I’ll cut to the chase.

Affordable housing in market projects is affordable by name only. Other residents subsidize it, meaning the average cost remains the same, and someone else has to dig deeper to cover their mortgage or rent. In the long run, these affordability requirements actually drive housing prices higher.
 

 

Not sure i fully agree with this statement. Developers will sell / rent the balance of the project at market prices. Because there may be affordable units in the project does not alter the achievable prices in the remaining units. The developers will sell at market prices in either situation despite the loss in revenue from the affordable component. 

 

No doubt on a larger scale, the inclusion of affordable housing impacts the market as a whole by driving up developers costs, but it is not directly subsidized by the other unit purchasers within a development IMO.  

Yes it is. and subsidized by the units in the building next door built last year with similar policies and by units in the building down the street built next year that are subject to similar policies.

the blanket “amenity package” that local governments demand from developers continue to drive up prices.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 December 2020 - 03:34 AM.

And let’s not forget that “affordable” government projects require subsidies from the taxpayer. They have more leeway to offer lower prices (can tap into lower interest rates; typically face less opposition from councils and planners; can utilize municipal or government land; will offer levels of finishing market projects cannot offer, and so on) but they are still dependant on taxation dollars.

So residents where affordable units are within market projects subsidize the below-market suites next door, and their tax dollars also go towards affordable government housing.

This is not a complaint against providing affordable housing, but Isitt’s pursuit of affordability is not what we think it is, and housing prices will continue to rise until sufficient supply can force prices to stagnate. Since we know that’s extremely unlikely to occur in a market where thousands move to each year, we have to accept that prices will continue to rise thanks to demand, alongside higher development costs and construction costs.

of all places why would we expect Victoria to EVER keep up with demand? at least in the past people had to go where jobs were. but every year more and more Canadians retire and also work from home/remotely. all that means more demand around here you’d think.

we are like the Florida of Canada. have you seen the latest stats on state to state migration in the USA. seems EVERYONE is moving to Florida.

here: https://www.newgeogr...ople-are-moving

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 14 December 2020 - 08:04 AM.

I noticed several days ago that about half of GardenWorks' main building is now occupied by a sales office for the Redfern. The cashier at GardenWorks said they plan on closing in August.

of all places why would we expect Victoria to EVER keep up with demand? at least in the past people had to go where jobs were. but every year more and more Canadians retire and also work from home/remotely. all that means more demand around here you’d think.

we are like the Florida of Canada. have you seen the latest stats on state to state migration in the USA. seems EVERYONE is moving to Florida.

here: https://www.newgeogr...ople-are-moving

 

Even Florida real estate crashed in 08/09. You can definitively build enough in high demand places... or too much.

Even Florida real estate crashed in 08/09. You can definitively build enough in high demand places... or too much.

 

growth did not STOP though in florida.  population increase by year:

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 01 February 2021 - 06:37 AM.

Presales Beginning Late May 2021

Thank you for your interest in a home at The Redfern. We’re very close to our sales launch, which will begin in late May when The Redfern’s beautiful presentation centre is completed at 1920 Oak Bay Avenue.

One-bedroom residences at The Redfern will be priced from $649,000 and two-bedroom homes from $1,199,000. We’ll be in touch in the weeks ahead to invite you to book a private tour with our sales team.

...One-bedroom residences at The Redfern will be priced from $649,000 and two-bedroom homes from $1,199,000...

Yowza! The 2-bedroom starting price seems rather steep.

..

Edited by newbie_01, 17 April 2021 - 11:43 PM.

The 2 bed prices are ludicrous but the 1 beds are no better - $649,000?? Unless they're building 700 square foot units, that's Shangri La pricing. 

We are slowly making our way to $2,000 a square foot for up-market new-build inventory.