I'm so glad that you are writing about the hard truth math / rents Brian! People don't understand what the purposefully ambigious "below market" actually means in terms of inflated rents (that won't inlcude water/hydro/wifi) and the shrinkflated units sizes.
What nonsense, that taxpayer money should be helping to "subsidize" these kinds of rents. Thanks as always for bringing these woeful truths to our attention.
I stumbled upon this article after attending the Kitsilano Jane's Walk.
I think Peter pointed out very effectively that the reason behind high rents is people actively opposing the construction of new housing. While the demand for it grows, our zoning bylaws barely change, resulting in scarce and expensive homes.
Brian, you are focusing on a single building, which I assure you has long queues of people lining up for every unit, because that's what's happening everywhere. Even at these prices, new homes are desired. People want to live in Vancouver, but most of the city remains low-density and increasingly expensive, thanks to the efforts of people opposing development and density.
Your son unfortunately has to thank these people, and we both know who I am talking about.
Sieva, thanks for reading. As to your comments: Peter had to go back to the 1928 Bartholemew Plan in order to base his exclusionary zoning ideas. He is correct—North America (and Europe) was full of such zoning at that time. To keep going back there is what I call the "original sin" approach—bad things were done a century ago and that's now on neighbours to fix. We have tried to fix them, even while the city has thrown out all of the community plans, design guidelines, etc. that citizens contributed to for decades, in favour of the simplistice and ruinous Broadway Plan and Vancouver Plan.
But residents of places like Kits have been supportive of additional housing for some time—certainly since the CityPlan days 20 years ago. False Creek South, False Creek North and Coal Harbour were all welcomed by residents because the developers had done the work at the community level, had included schools, parks and community centres and paid for them.
The fact that city staff did not move forward with additional inclusionary zoning until the dying days of Kenedy Stewart's regime is on staff and Councillors, not neighbours. The years it takes to get from rezoning inquiry to public hearing is on them as well—residents have been shut out of review processes starting with the Vision years, now 13 years ago. Yes, some residents oppose specific upzonings, but they have been ignored anyway as Council has passed every single spot zoning/ upzoning in the past several years. With a few notable block busting exceptions, projects are approved at public hearings that last minutes, not days. Even when critics point our blatant errors in submissions, for example inaccurate shadows and building heights shading parks and schools, contrary to the Broadway Plan policies, their diligence is ignored.
Peter mentioned there are 900 zonings in Vancouver, neglecting to mention 800 of them are spot rezonings scattered throughout the city—and all of those were approved as well. The Broadway Plan itself will double that number of spot rezonings as block after block is "busted." I receive correspondence from residents at the extreme outer edge of the Broadway Plan, near no significant transit, as they see 20-storey proposals to replace not single family homes but multiple conversions and small rental and strata buildings, all more affordable than what's now being proposed.
This City Conversation has received way more views, comments and shares than any of my writing—ever. Most of the comment has been supportive of the concerns I raise—the huge differences between the rents that were proposed by developers versus promised by government; and governmental inaction in the face of this deception. You will notice Peter never talked rents or construction costs, except when he was praising the many "plain Jane" rental buildings scattered throughout Kits and many other neighbourhoods—presumably those remarks were intended to take the edge off 1807 Larch's stark form. But he failed to mention how many of these older, more affordable rentals are being replaced by unaffordable rentals, with the city providing virtually no assistance or support for existing renters.
High rents and home prices arise from many factors: foreign and local investors driving up land prices; a longstanding shortage of construction workers; the refusal of the construction industry to embrace technology unless heavily subsidized; and more recently high interest rates. Peter's attempt to blame it all on residents is simply setting one resident against another. Not the kind of approach we need today or any day.
Brian thanks for your continued tracking of the crazy idea that developers will be building the much needed affordable housing as dictated by our ‘Planning Department’. L2 is the latest joke if the city and the Feds think the overpriced tiny units will help anybody. I’m anxious to see how long it will take for full occupancy. I am not at all happy with the 60 applications for concrete towers scattered amongst wonderful neighborhoods with the same criteria as L2. Keep on tracking !! Cheers
Hi Brian, it seems the affordable part is the 20% of inhabitable floor space that is required to be rented at below market rents. The development permit (in 2020) proposed $950/mo. for a studio, and I'm assuming there are studios at that price, and one-bedrooms at $1200, (plus whatever the allowable increase has been after 2020, so maybe $1050 for studio and $1350 for 1-bdrm. Etc. for 2 and 3 bedroom units.) I'm presuming it's only because of these below-market units that the developer received the loan for $31.8m. Russil Wvong pointed out this different take to me when I linked to your article on his substack, 'Vancouver needs more housing."
Dale, thanks for your comments and for reading CCs. Your presumptions are just that, educated guesses about one possibility. But there is no evidence that 20% of the suites in this building are reserved for affordable rents. If that is the case, the developer through their rental agency should make that evident. Otherwise we are justified in worrying that there are no affordable suites...Over to you and Russil.
Hi Brian, I emailed the property manager and they said: "Yes the building has 20% below market units. I’ve added your name and contact info to the contact list. Those units will be released last, most likely late June/July. You will receive an email from our office once we are ready to begin showings." So that seems positive on the face of it. I will check to see if the COV or province is monitoring the allocation of these below-market units (and making sure that units maintain their below-market rents after tenants leave). It seems there will be a significant number of units of this kind coming available in the Broadway corridor, a bit of a bright spot in our horrible rental market. On the downside, the rents for the market units will be driven (even) higher to compensate for the loss on below-market rentals. As perhaps evidenced by the rents at 1807 Larch...
I'm so glad that you are writing about the hard truth math / rents Brian! People don't understand what the purposefully ambigious "below market" actually means in terms of inflated rents (that won't inlcude water/hydro/wifi) and the shrinkflated units sizes.
I actually had a couple folks check my math before I published, in "an abundance of caution." Thanks for reading, Linsea. Take care.
It would be awesome if we could get an investigative journalist - like Sam Cooper - to do a story of who funds AHV. This is going to YVR's fate if AHV continues their mandate https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/the-story-behind-the-many-ghost-towns-of-abandoned-mansions-across-china
That AHV is doing the Jane's Walk is as good as sign as any that the city is doomed. Thanks for sharing, Brian.
I think that more likely it’s their misunderstanding of what JWs are all about- conversations rather than diatribes. Thanks for reading.
What nonsense, that taxpayer money should be helping to "subsidize" these kinds of rents. Thanks as always for bringing these woeful truths to our attention.
I’m hoping some day to write more positive things. Meantime, thanks for reading .
I stumbled upon this article after attending the Kitsilano Jane's Walk.
I think Peter pointed out very effectively that the reason behind high rents is people actively opposing the construction of new housing. While the demand for it grows, our zoning bylaws barely change, resulting in scarce and expensive homes.
Brian, you are focusing on a single building, which I assure you has long queues of people lining up for every unit, because that's what's happening everywhere. Even at these prices, new homes are desired. People want to live in Vancouver, but most of the city remains low-density and increasingly expensive, thanks to the efforts of people opposing development and density.
Your son unfortunately has to thank these people, and we both know who I am talking about.
Sieva, thanks for reading. As to your comments: Peter had to go back to the 1928 Bartholemew Plan in order to base his exclusionary zoning ideas. He is correct—North America (and Europe) was full of such zoning at that time. To keep going back there is what I call the "original sin" approach—bad things were done a century ago and that's now on neighbours to fix. We have tried to fix them, even while the city has thrown out all of the community plans, design guidelines, etc. that citizens contributed to for decades, in favour of the simplistice and ruinous Broadway Plan and Vancouver Plan.
But residents of places like Kits have been supportive of additional housing for some time—certainly since the CityPlan days 20 years ago. False Creek South, False Creek North and Coal Harbour were all welcomed by residents because the developers had done the work at the community level, had included schools, parks and community centres and paid for them.
The fact that city staff did not move forward with additional inclusionary zoning until the dying days of Kenedy Stewart's regime is on staff and Councillors, not neighbours. The years it takes to get from rezoning inquiry to public hearing is on them as well—residents have been shut out of review processes starting with the Vision years, now 13 years ago. Yes, some residents oppose specific upzonings, but they have been ignored anyway as Council has passed every single spot zoning/ upzoning in the past several years. With a few notable block busting exceptions, projects are approved at public hearings that last minutes, not days. Even when critics point our blatant errors in submissions, for example inaccurate shadows and building heights shading parks and schools, contrary to the Broadway Plan policies, their diligence is ignored.
Peter mentioned there are 900 zonings in Vancouver, neglecting to mention 800 of them are spot rezonings scattered throughout the city—and all of those were approved as well. The Broadway Plan itself will double that number of spot rezonings as block after block is "busted." I receive correspondence from residents at the extreme outer edge of the Broadway Plan, near no significant transit, as they see 20-storey proposals to replace not single family homes but multiple conversions and small rental and strata buildings, all more affordable than what's now being proposed.
This City Conversation has received way more views, comments and shares than any of my writing—ever. Most of the comment has been supportive of the concerns I raise—the huge differences between the rents that were proposed by developers versus promised by government; and governmental inaction in the face of this deception. You will notice Peter never talked rents or construction costs, except when he was praising the many "plain Jane" rental buildings scattered throughout Kits and many other neighbourhoods—presumably those remarks were intended to take the edge off 1807 Larch's stark form. But he failed to mention how many of these older, more affordable rentals are being replaced by unaffordable rentals, with the city providing virtually no assistance or support for existing renters.
High rents and home prices arise from many factors: foreign and local investors driving up land prices; a longstanding shortage of construction workers; the refusal of the construction industry to embrace technology unless heavily subsidized; and more recently high interest rates. Peter's attempt to blame it all on residents is simply setting one resident against another. Not the kind of approach we need today or any day.
Brian thanks for your continued tracking of the crazy idea that developers will be building the much needed affordable housing as dictated by our ‘Planning Department’. L2 is the latest joke if the city and the Feds think the overpriced tiny units will help anybody. I’m anxious to see how long it will take for full occupancy. I am not at all happy with the 60 applications for concrete towers scattered amongst wonderful neighborhoods with the same criteria as L2. Keep on tracking !! Cheers
Thanks for reading, John. Stay tuned for some thoughts about solutions.
Hi Brian, it seems the affordable part is the 20% of inhabitable floor space that is required to be rented at below market rents. The development permit (in 2020) proposed $950/mo. for a studio, and I'm assuming there are studios at that price, and one-bedrooms at $1200, (plus whatever the allowable increase has been after 2020, so maybe $1050 for studio and $1350 for 1-bdrm. Etc. for 2 and 3 bedroom units.) I'm presuming it's only because of these below-market units that the developer received the loan for $31.8m. Russil Wvong pointed out this different take to me when I linked to your article on his substack, 'Vancouver needs more housing."
Dale, thanks for your comments and for reading CCs. Your presumptions are just that, educated guesses about one possibility. But there is no evidence that 20% of the suites in this building are reserved for affordable rents. If that is the case, the developer through their rental agency should make that evident. Otherwise we are justified in worrying that there are no affordable suites...Over to you and Russil.
Hi Brian, I emailed the property manager and they said: "Yes the building has 20% below market units. I’ve added your name and contact info to the contact list. Those units will be released last, most likely late June/July. You will receive an email from our office once we are ready to begin showings." So that seems positive on the face of it. I will check to see if the COV or province is monitoring the allocation of these below-market units (and making sure that units maintain their below-market rents after tenants leave). It seems there will be a significant number of units of this kind coming available in the Broadway corridor, a bit of a bright spot in our horrible rental market. On the downside, the rents for the market units will be driven (even) higher to compensate for the loss on below-market rentals. As perhaps evidenced by the rents at 1807 Larch...