For the past decade I have sent out a holiday greeting 'card' offering 12 housing related ideas for the 12 Days of Christmas. Before sharing my 2024 card, here is what was sent out last year. I hope you find some of these concepts of interest.
Thursday, December 19, 2024
Vancouver City Council orders demolition of 500 Dunsmuir - Holborn schemes again.
It seems that as I get older I get crankier.
Perhaps this is why I became quite upset when I read that Vancouver's Chief Building Official (CBO) was recommending that the owner of 500 Dunsmuir be required to demolish the building for safety reasons. While I have not had any involvement with this property in the past, I am interested in the city's heritage, and knew that this was one of the few significant heritage buildings in the downtown. I also knew that the owner, Holborn Properties had no interest whatsoever, in heritage, or good urban planning for that matter.
If the owner's name sounds familiar, this is the company that
- took far too many years to develop what was supposed to be a Ritz Carlton, then the Trump Tower property;
- then allowed the Little Mountain property to remain vacant for more than a decade without paying any Empty Home Taxes, (and eventually getting concessions from the city on the timing of the replacement social housing); and
- finally let this heritage building remain vacant and rot so that it could be demolished, rather than be incorporated into the company's future redevelopment of this and nearby lands.
Sadly, the owner put council in a very difficult position with what they thought was little choice but to listen to its CBO and approve the demolition.
In fact, there was another option. They could have required the owner to prop up the walls as occurs with heritage properties around the world that are undergoing redevelopment.
While I rarely write to Council, I did so this time, after reading a note from former councillor Jean Swanson who questioned why the city's SRO policy requiring a $300,000 fee PER UNIT, when an SRO unit is allowed to deteriorate to the point that it has to be demolished, did not apply to this property. Had it applied to this building, the fee would have been $50.1 million, for a property assessed at $8.1 million, which is another matter!
While there are various opinions on whether the fee should apply, councillors did take notice and eventually approved the motions set out below.
I will offer just one final comment. Reference is made to the future rezoning. I would question why the owner should be allowed to rezone this property, after demolition. It is zoned Downtown District C2. This allows commercial development at a 7 FSR.
This zoning was put in place a decade or two ago when the city was concerned there wasn't adequate capacity for office buildings in the CBD. (Ironically, Chuck Brook and I spoke to Council at the time opposing this zoning change since we thought mixed use was preferable from an urban planning perspective.)
That said,Holborn Properties cleverly avoided having to pay the Empty Home Tax and the SRO demolition fee since residential uses are not an outright use. So I say, once the building is demolished, tell them they can build as per the existing zoning. Don't allow a rezoning. And talk to former City Planner Michael Gordon who wrote on X that the conservation of this heritage building in any future redevelopment was a requirement if the owner wanted residential uses on the Bay Parkade property, another of their downtown holdings.
Property assessment. One other thing. I have become fascinated by property assessments in my old age. I have even successfully appealed a few. That's why I was surprised to see the assessment for this 12,000 sq.ft. property in the CBD was assessed at only $8.1 million. The land was assessed at only $6,345,000 but the building improvements, that are so deteriorated and unsafe the building must be demolished, were assessed at $1,757,000.
Meanwhile, a vacant lot next door half the size, (that may also be owned by Holborn), is assessed at over $10 million.
Finally, a special thank you to councillors Rebecca Bligh and Sarah Kirby-Young who took a particular interest in this unfortunate matter, and are trying to see if there's some way to punish Holborn for what was described as a 'despicable act'. Agreed.
Update December 18, 2024: Today, City Council adopted a resolution, with amendments, to declare the building at 500 Dunsmuir Street a danger to public safety. The property owner, 500 Dunsmuir Property, owned by Holborn Properties, will be required to demolish the structure. The owner is also required to preserve certain heritage features to be reused in any future development of the site, provided that can be accomplished safely.
Note to editors: Please see amended motions below. This is a draft copy provided for your understanding and the published minutes are the official record of the meeting.
Declaration of Dangerous Building at 500 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED
MOVED by Councillor Kirby-Yung
SECONDED by Councillor Bligh
- THAT Council declare that the vacant, dilapidated building on the property located at 500 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, B.C., with the legal description of:
PID: 015-471-624, LOT 40 BLOCK 44 DISTRICT LOT 541 PLAN 210;
PID: 015-471-616, LOT 39 BLOCK 44 DISTRICT LOT 541 PLAN 210;
PID: 015-471-608, LOT 38 BLOCK 44 DISTRICT LOT 541 PLAN 210; and
PID: 015-471-594, LOT 37 BLOCK 44 DISTRICT LOT 541 PLAN 210, collectively the “Property”;
is a danger to public safety pursuant to section 324A of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c.55.
- THAT Council approve the resolution attached as Appendix “A” to this report, and thereby order the registered owner of the Property to demolish the building, remove the demolition debris from the Property, and fill in the basement on the Property within 21 days of a copy of the resolution being served on the owner pursuant to section 324A and 324D of the Vancouver Charter. During the demolition of the building the owner is to safely preserve the heritage defining cornice, dentils and bracket elements of the building fronting Dunsmuir and Richards streets as shown on the diagram attached to the resolution, and store them at the owner’s expense until such time as they can be reused in-situ as part of any future redevelopment of the site.
FURTHER THAT the following sentence be added to the end of clause 2 of the Resolution as contained in Appendix “A”:
“During the demolition of the building the owner is to safely preserve the heritage defining cornice, dentils and bracket elements of the building fronting Dunsmuir and Richards streets as shown on the attached diagram, and store them at the owner’s expense until such time as they can be reused in-situ as part of any future redevelopment of the site.”
- THAT if the owner fails to comply with the order of Council within 21 days of being given notice of the resolution, Council further authorizes the City Building Inspector or the City Building Inspector’s designates to take any and all actions necessary to do the required work, including entering onto the Property and engaging private contractors, to demolish the building on the Property, remove the demolition debris from the Property, and fill in the basement on the Property pursuant to section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
- THAT Council direct staff as part of their planned regulatory task force related to unoccupied buildings to consider building inventory, monitoring process, standards of maintenance bylaw for vacant buildings, and taxation options.
- THAT Council direct staff to report back on any legal avenues the City of Vancouver may have to seek recourse for the apparent neglect of the subject building and loss of heritage by the property owner;
AND FURTHER THAT Council direct staff to report back on any avenues Council has to seek compensation as part of future rezoning applications the property owner may pursue.
///
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
Open Letter to Vancouver City Council regarding Broadway Plan from former Vancouver City Planners and other experts - December 9, 2024
While I have been expressing concerns about the negative impacts of certain aspects of the Broadway Plan, I am by no means alone. Indeed, many former City of Vancouver planners, as well as private sector architects, planners, and other experts in planning and urban development also have concerns. However, for various reasons until now, they have chosen not to speak out.
However, with the approval of the first towers replacing older rental apartment buildings and duplexes and triplexes on low-scale leafy residential streets, and forthcoming Council consideration of modifications to the plan, it was decided that it was time for more people to speak out. This led to the preparation of an Open letter to Vancouver Mayor and Council that was issued yesterday, December 9, 2024. The following is the text of the letter, and some additional comments from the signatories.
We, the undersigned, write with concerns about the Broadway Plan and especially the staff report to further expand the Plan. We appreciate and support the good intentions of bringing more housing and affordability to Vancouver’s crippling housing crisis, but as experts with years of high level experience in planning, development and architecture, we write to ask that Mayor and Council pause and consider the many issues with the particulars of the Plan and how it will impact our city.
• The Broadway Plan promised a measured buildout over 30 years, but we are seeing a frenzy of profit speculation, land banking, flipping and land inflation into the heart of vulnerable established, mixed use neighbourhoods due to the plan which, by the city’s own estimates, will demolish thousands of existing, affordable homes, resulting in forced resettlement to thousands of people in pursuit of what may be little if any net increase in affordable housing. This does not meet the City's own affordability needs requirements in the Housing Needs Assessment released last June 25, as required by the Province.
• In a 30 year build out, existing good, affordable housing should be protected, not demolished. Renewal of aging housing can happen later in the plan when replacement housing is there for impacted tenants to transfer directly to.
• The destabilizing impact of evictions extends far beyond the people who are directly impacted as many in similar buildings live in fear of the same outcome. “when am I next?”. This is causing considerable emotional distress for thousands.
• The “Enhanced Tenant Protections” are helpful, but do not consider the many issues being experienced by tenants who are subject to eviction. The disruption and anxiety for many vulnerable renters is considerable and the protections do not adequately compensate or address meaningful failures in the Tenant Protections. Under the plan, many tenants are not being offered anything like equivalent replacement units when they do eventually return at some point in the future. The best ‘tenant protections’ is not to evict tenants!
• The experience of years of good planning practices, which Vancouver has been lauded for, are being ignored in favour of a reliance on one type of housing; small, expensive units in towers. Towers concentrated on Broadway and the immediate areas near transit make sense, but as we move blocks away from transit, we encourage a range of housing which will suit families; low rise apartments, row houses, townhouses and infill which is sympathetic to neighbourhoods and organically enhances the community and social fabric so highly valued, instead of in conflict with it by dropping towers in the middle of RT and RM zones.
• Staff insist that the public consultation was robust, but much of the consultation took place at the onset of the pandemic and the vast majority are only now appreciating the extent and scope of this detailed plan. Residents understood the broad concept of a revitalized Broadway and towers adjacent to transit nodes, but are shocked to learn of evictions, demolition and towers on residential streets many blocks away from the actual transit area. A meaningful public consultation about how the Plan is going so far and where it will go next is vital.
• The 350 page Broadway Plan amendment report was made available on December 4th and subsequently revised further the next day, adding 53 more pages. This leaves a scant 3 business days for public and experts to analyse and respond before Council considers the report for approval on December 11th. This is not a reasonable amount of time to consider the implications of a 353 page amendment document.
• The city signed on to the Regional Planning Strategy which supports job creation across the region. The Broadway Plan’s idea of attracting jobs to the Plan area is counter to the agreed strategy. The Broadway Plan seeks to bring people closer to their jobs in the Plan area, but instead it serves to drive families further away because they seek ground oriented and more spacious housing for their families, something which The Broadway Plan makes less attainable, not more. This means more commuting, more congestion and more emissions, not less.
We write to ask that the city pause the plan and consult more widely with the public and experts with many years of experience in planning, housing and development to discuss how to do the Broadway Plan more effectively to achieve the goals we all share, to build “A Better City” and to truly address our housing crisis.
Signed:
Ralph Segal, Former Chief Urban Designer, City of Vancouver.
David Ley, OC, FRSC, PhD, Urban Geographer, Professor Emeritus UBC, Order of Canada.
Christina DeMarco, Urban and Regional Planner, former lead planner for the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy.
Dr. Penny Gurstein, Professor Emeritus and Former Director, School of Community and Regional Planning, UBC.
Larry Beasley, CM, FCIP, Former Co-chief Planner of Vancouver, author Vancouverism.
Scot Hein, Former senior urban designer/development planner for the City of Vancouver, led the city’s Urban Design Studio for most of his 20-year career, founding board member of Urbanarium. Adjunct Professor Urban Design UBC, Recipient of the Architectural Advocacy Award from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.
Brian Palmquist, Award winning architect and auther, AIBC MRAIC BEP CP LEED AP
Arny Wise, B. Comm., M.Sc.(Planning) U of T, Professional Planner MCIP, RPP (retired), Board of Directors, Toronto Economic Development Corporation (1990-1999).
Sean McEwen, Architect, AIBC, FRAIC. Affordable housing advocate.
Patrick Condon, Professor UBC School of Landscape and Architecture, author Broken City. Former city planner, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments.
Barbara Gordon, Retired Architect AIBC and retired Director of Capital Planning, UBC
Lance Berelowitz, AA Dipl RPP MCIP, Principal Urban Forum Associates.
Elizabeth Murphy, private sector project manager formerly with the City of Vancouver’s housing and properties department, BC Housing and BC Buildings Corp
Michael Geller, FCIP, RPP, MLAI, Ret. Architect AIBC, Adjunct Professor, SFU Centre for Sustainable Development; School of Resource and Environmental Management, Faculty of the Environment.
Bill McCreery, BArch UMan; Sub Lt. RCNR, helped create North and South False Creek and thousands of units of developer & public housing in Vancouver.
Tom Phipps, Retired Senior Planner City of Vancouver (33 years)
Elvin Wyly, Urban Geographer, Housing Researcher
Graham McGarva, Architect AIBC, AIA, AAA, OAA, LEED
Sandy James, LEED AP City Planner, Managing Director Walk Metro Vancouver
Monday, December 2, 2024
Vancouver Sun story about Section 19(8) of BC Assessment Act - Derrick Penner- December 2, 2024
In a way, I'd likd to claim responsibility for this story. I discovered this section of the Act by accident several years ago when carrying out an assessment appeal for a Cambie Corridor project. I couldn't understand why the two lots adjacent to the Savoy project had significantly different assessed prices. I subsequently told everyone I knew about the section of the act that allows certain properties to be assessed below market value.
This year I did a couple of interviews about it, and wrote a blog. I mentioned it to Douglas Todd at Vancouver Sun who in turn mentioned it to Derrick Penner. While the November 30, 2024 deadline to make application has passed, there is still an opportunity to seek relief next year. It's just a more convoluted process. Here's Derrick Penner's story that appeared on line today.
Longtime Metro Vancouver homeowners nervously watching their property values rise due to B.C.’s transit-oriented development legislation have an option to avoid being side-swiped by higher property taxes.
The B.C. law that establishes automatic transit-oriented zones within 800 metres of transit stations increases the development potential — and value — of land within them, even if homeowners have no plans to cash in.
B.C. Assessment, however, does give owners the option to apply to have their properties assessed on actual use, rather than potential use.
It has helped homeowners, such as those on Cambie Street who faced dramatic spikes in property value when Vancouver approved its Cambie corridor plan to upzone most of the street to higher-density housing.
For the moment, the development market in areas affected by the transit-oriented zones law has cooled substantially due to uncertainty around how municipalities will enact its requirements, according to appraiser and tax expert Paul Sullivan.
“We’re not seeing changes in land value,” said Sullivan, tax agent and regional leader for the tax-technology firm Ryan. “In fact, we’re seeing substantial declines in land value (in) an environment where there are no presales, high interest rates and high construction costs.”
But Sullivan says homeowners should be aware of the little-known Assessment Act actual-use provision because when the development market turns around, “we’re going to see some pretty spiky upturns in value.”
Long-term residents in a neighbourhood that is changing can apply to B.C. Assessment requesting a special assessment on their properties that recognizes the value of what the property is being used for is less than the “highest and best use” associated with its development potential.
The provision is part of B.C. Assessment’s assessment review process and can be triggered by various reasons, not just new development, according to Bryan Murao, area assessor for the Lower Mainland.
“Even in quite simple scenarios — if you have, for example, a large lot that could be subdivided into two houses,” Murao said. “We have that kind of situation going on every year.”
Who is eligible for a special assessment?
Any long-term homeowner in a changing neighbourhood who owns a property that is less than two hectares in size, is used only for residential purposes and where no more than three families can qualify.
To be considered, the owner or spouse has to have lived in the home as a principal residence for a minimum of 10 years.
Also, the sales history of the neighbourhood has to show that the property has greater value for redevelopment than its existing residential use. Murao said rezoning approvals or provisions of new community plans are often not enough to trigger changes in value.
“The market has to first react to that (change),” Murao said. “We really try to pay attention to at what point are we seeing sales of houses in that neighbourhood not being bought for continued use as a house.”
How do homeowners apply?
Homeowners who are eligible can contact their local B.C. Assessment office to request the application, which is considered under the authority’s property assessment review panel process.
A description of the process on B.C. Assessment’s website highlights a deadline of Nov. 30 to submit applications for an assessment review, but Murao said that isn’t an absolute cutoff for 2025 assessments.
“All that Nov. 30 deadline is is a deadline to get it included in the completed (assessment) roll,” Murao said. “We have an early December cutoff for what you’re going to see on your assessment notice.”
Under the legislation, however, Murao said homeowners have until Jan. 31 of the following year to submit applications, which will be handled a little differently.
“(That) just means we have to process it through the (assessment) appeal process, not that the owner has to appeal,” Murao said. “But (we) put it through that so they can get the benefit, if they meet all the other conditions.”
How big a difference can it make?
Retired architect and developer Michael Geller highlighted on his blog https://gellersworldtravel.blogspot.com/2024/11/how-to-avoid-letting-bills-44-47.html a comparison he came across on the Cambie corridor a couple of blocks from the Oakridge/41st Avenue Canada Line Station. Whereas the duplex at 5407 Cambie St. was assessed last year at just under $4 million for “actual, not potential, use,” the property next door, of a similar size, was assessed at $7.6 million.
“(That) means the taxes are significant and significantly more because of something that people often forget about called the additional school tax,” Geller said, referring to the additional school tax rate that starts to kick in on homes worth more than $3 million.
Geller added that he’s heard the comparison that owning a home in one of these zones is like “essentially winning the lottery.”
“However, if they don’t want to sell and want to stay in their home, then they don’t necessarily want to win that particular lottery.”
depenner@postmedia.com
x.com/derrickpenner
Kerry Gold Globe and Mail - Curv projects seeks approval to remove social housing units - Globe and Mail, November 29, 204
 |
| Renderings of the CURV condo project in Vancouver by partners Brivia Group and Henson Group. |
Last week Kerry Gold wrote about one such project in the Globe and Mail. Of course I had to tell her what I thought, and appreciate the fact that she slightly 'santitized' my comments! Here's her story.
The Curv tower development in Vancouver’s West End is a case study in investor influence and market dynamics – and the role developers play in delivering crucial below-market housing.
The 60-storey project promised 102 units of social housing on the levels below the luxury condo and market-rate rental suites, a feature that helped them obtain rezoning approval for considerably more density. Presales had been going well. The marketing spokesperson said they had set a record last year, with the sale of a $4,400-per-square-foot unit on one of the top floors.
But the market for presales has gone soft, and the developer has applied to remove the social housing units from the development. Instead, Montreal-based Brivia Group has applied to the city to pay cash-in-lieu, or a community amenity contribution.
The building originally had 50 secured purpose-built market rental units, but that would increase to 174 units, if the city approves its request to forego the social housing.
“I am not surprised to see this,” said developer and consultant Michael Geller, who’s been keeping an eye on the project – touted as the world’s tallest passive house building – since it launched presales in May, 2023.
“I remember going to the project launch and observing that absolutely no mention was made of the social housing units in the building by the marketing team,” he says. “I think every experienced luxury condo developer will tell you that it is fine to include predominantly market rental units in the same building as condos or create social housing units in a separate building nearby.
“But the Curv wants to be super luxury and just the threat of very low-income people in the building, hanging outside, will deter buyers,” Mr. Geller said.
Two months ago, the city amended the West End rezoning policy to allow for cash-in-lieu payments instead of delivering social housing units, to help with “financial challenges and “recent economic shifts,” said Dan Garrison, the city’s director of housing policy and regulation.
“The changes would also align the West End’s housing requirements with the newly approved [provincial] guidelines for transit-oriented areas,” he said in an e-mail.
Such payments should cover costs for off-site social housing, including land and construction, and will be “determined on a case-by-case basis through the rezoning process,” according to the amendment. The West End community would be given priority for the funds.
Because of the market downturn, there are 280 social housing units within three projects that have been rezoned around the Burrard Street corridor that are not getting built, according to the city.
When Brivia Group’s partner Henson Development applied for a rezoning four years ago, the city policy for the area required either 25 per cent below-market housing or one-for-one replacement of the existing rental apartments, whichever was greater. There are 51 units in two older apartment buildings lost due to the redevelopment at 1059-1075 Nelson St. (the addresses have since been changed to 1059-1083 Nelson St.). But the city considered the promised social housing and purpose-built rental units at the Curv a bonus towards their 10-year housing targets.
“The issue of CAC’s being renegotiated when the market goes soft is very problematic – it generates all sorts of potentially bad behaviour,” says Cameron Gray, former director of housing for the city of Vancouver. In the 1990s, Mr. Gray worked in the early formation of CACs, which the city used to finance below-market housing.
When social housing is involved, it usually requires a developer partnering with the city or a non-profit operator, which is more complicated. Mr. Gray said he can understand why a developer would prefer to simplify and instead have 174 market rate rental units to sell off to a pension fund or other investor, or simply hold as an investment.
“But if you allow the CAC to be treated as insulation for the market, then suddenly the city starts taking on the risk,” he said. “So, the city becomes the risk-bearing partner. It can result in a developer coming in and saying, ‘I can offer them a whole bunch, get my rezoning and come back and say, it doesn’t work … bail me out.’”
As well, the cash might not make its way to social housing if it’s not immediately directed there. And cash loses value due to inflation.
“If the city is doing pay in lieu, it has to put the money to work in social housing pretty quickly,” said Mr. Cameron, who is a fan of the city “land banking,” or purchasing properties in a soft market.
“They have to make the money work, because if you stick it in the bank and have it do nothing, at some point it may become reallocated to street improvements or the art gallery or child care, or something. So, you have to be pretty intentional about what you are doing.”
In the four years since council approved the rezoning, wait-lists for social housing have outpaced population growth, according to Metro Vancouver’s housing data book for 2023. The data showed a 27 per cent growth in the number of people in need of social housing, with 18,865 households on BC Housing’s social housing wait-list. That was up more than 4,000 households since June, 2022.
Mr. Geller pointed out that other municipalities, such as Burnaby, are also adjusting their below-market housing requirements now that projects are failing to get built.
The Curv site had been flipped a few times over the past decade, with each flip driving up the value. The apartment blocks were initially purchased by Wall Financial Corp. in 2013 for a reported $16.8-million, with a plan to develop a tower. They then sold the site in January, 2016 for $60-million, a share sale to a group of Chinese immigrant buyers, as reported by the South China Morning Post. Only a month after the purchase, the consortium then flipped it for $68-million. In 2021, Montreal’s Brivia Group purchased the site for an undisclosed sum and proposed the luxury mixed residential tower.
Construction failed to start this year because the developer has had problems selling its 358 luxury strata units in a market downturn.
Before the downturn, the marketer for the project, Jacky Chan, said many of the buyers were super wealthy, seasoned investors and holders of large property portfolios. More recently, he said the higher interest rates and China’s own housing downturn were having an impact on the Vancouver market.
In B.C., developers must show they’ve got the financing in place to start construction within 12 months of filing a disclosure statement with the BC Financial Services Authority. Lenders require about 70 per cent of the project is presold.
“We still need another $100-million,” Mr. Chan said in June. “We have filed a new disclosure statement that gives us another year to work on it, because of how big it is. We were able to retain 95 per cent of the buyers. … People want to stay in and continue to see this building come through.”
Brivia Group did not respond to a request for an interview.
Frances Bula's Globe and Mail story about the province's Shared-Equity Program - November 28, 2024
I have been a longsgtanding fan of the concept of 'Shared Equity' housing programs in which a portion of a homebuyers cost and appreciation is shared with another individual or organization. In September 2024, the provincial government announced such a program to considerable fanfare.
There was just one problem. While over the long term real estate prices always go up, they don't always go up in the short term. While the premier talked about how this program would help people buy, he never once discussed the fact that if someone had to sell within a relatively short timeframe, and the price went down, or the home wasn't worth as much as they had paid for it given all the upfront costs associated with buyng a new home (GST, PTT, legal fees, etc.) the homebuyer could lose a lot of money, including some or all of their downpayment.
So when Frances Bula called me to ask my opinion of the provincial program, I had to mention this. Here is her Globe and Mail story.
B.C. shared-equity housing plan prompts both hope and skepticism
Imagine buying a brand-new studio apartment in a prime location on Vancouver’s west side, close to the city’s major hospitals, to schools, and to a spectacular city garden park, for $372,000.
Or a two-bedroom apartment for $780,000 – an amount of money that normally would get you no more than a small one-bedroom in the less-pricey east Vancouver neighbourhoods, a two-bedroom townhouse in the southern suburb of Surrey, or a house with yard in Chilliwack, an hour’s drive east of the city.
No, the time machine hasn’t rolled back to 1990. That’s what the provincial government is offering B.C. residents who are in a targeted middle-income bracket through a new affordable home-ownership program that was announced just before the recent election.
Premier David Eby said those prices would cover 60 per cent of the cost and the province would provide a second mortgage for the other 40 per cent, payable only after the buyer sells or has lived there for 25 years.
In that announcement, the deal was limited to the 2,600 new homes being built by Vancouver’s powerhouse Indigenous development group, MST Development, in what is called the Heather Lands development just off Oak Street near Eric Hamber high school and Van Dusen Gardens.
It’s something the local Indigenous nations in MST had lobbied for since the early days of development planning.
“Through offering the opportunity of homeownership to more people, we are aligning our cultural values of caring for the people who live in our territories, while also delivering economic benefits to our community and the next seven generations,” said Chief Jen Thomas from the Tseil-Waututh Nation.
During the election campaign, Mr. Eby also said it would be expanded to the rest of the province. (Details are still to come on that with his new, smaller, and very different group of NDP MLAs now in charge at the legislature.)
In the meantime, the first promise is set to roll out in 2025, according to the original news release from October.
Vancouver's Heather Lands development near Van Dusen Gardens, was limited to the 2,600 new homes being built by Vancouver’s powerhouse Indigenous development group, MST Development.
CANADA LANDS CO.
And that program – a novelty for B.C. – is prompting a mix of hope, skepticism, and interest among both locals and people across the country as the province tries out a new strategy that has been undertaken in Ontario for many years by philanthropic or non-profit private organizations, not government.
“From the point of view of individual families, it’s awesome,” says John Fox, a lawyer who is one of the country’s pre-eminent specialists in this type of housing strategy, often called shared-equity home ownership. “You have security of tenure and, if the underlying value goes up, that benefits them.”
Mr. Fox, with the Toronto firm Robins Appleby, also noted that the program was likely conceived not just to benefit those individual families but to create a healthier city. It makes room for middle-income families with children in a neighbourhood that they would otherwise be shut out of, rather than having to move an hour or more away to get the same value for money.
“It does create diversity in a neighbourhood and that can be a positive. And it’s a wonderful thing to have nurses close to the hospitals. Those are important aspects.”
But he and others noted that a program like this can have some pitfalls. As well, it provides only a very limited strategy for one small piece of the much larger housing crisis in B.C. and Canada that has resulted in everything from homelessness and a sense of massive housing insecurity for lower-income renters to double-income professional households finding themselves forced to either buy far from where they want to be, squeezed into tiny spaces if they stay central, or confined to renting indefinitely at high prices.
Mr. Fox noted that, for someone to buy the two-bedroom units, which the province estimated would go for $1.3-million, the buyers would have enough to qualify for the $780,000 that would still cost. That means a household income around $168,000, but it can’t be too much more than that or it exceeds the province’s limit on income that is part of its effort to make sure the right group is buying in. That limit would be $191,000.
For local developer Michael Geller, who created the shared-equity home-ownership program at Simon Fraser University when he oversaw housing programs there, the risk for the buyer is that prices might go down – an almost unheard-of event in recent Vancouver history but still not outside the realm of possibility. Then buyers who might have to sell for various personal reasons, especially if it’s shortly after they purchase with all the attendant extra fees and “new-car” premium, will end up losing a lot. They’d have to pay back the province the 40 per cent of the original selling price, not 40 per cent of whatever their unit might sell for in a down market.
“It’s often difficult, if you have to sell in the first couple of years, to recover the initial cost,” said Mr. Geller.
Others who have been involved in running Ontario’s successful shared-equity home-ownership programs, the province’s offer to cover 40 per cent is much higher than anything they have done. It means that it will take a lot of money to run the program for a limited number of buyers. The province committed $672-million for the Heather Lands supports.
As well, the province’s program is different in another way. It is saying the program will only be an option for the first generation of buyers at the Heather Lands (and presumably elsewhere in the province). Once those buyers sell and the province makes money on its 40-per-cent equity share, it won’t necessarily be ploughed back into that same development or even a project in another location. Instead, the province is promising that it will going into housing, in general, somewhere, somehow.
The 40 per cent “is a significant amount,” says Heather Tremain, who was the CEO of Ontario’s Options for Homes program for a decade, where about 3,400 homes have been developed in 14 different projects since it started more than 20 years ago. “That money won’t go far.”
Another difference: in the B.C., the equity profits won’t be recycled back into a similar program.
That’s what Options, which takes any money it makes on its portion of the shared equity, typically 15 per cent, and puts it immediately back into new projects.
“If we lend someone $15,000, when they sell in five to 10 years, if it has doubled, we receive $30,000. When people pay it back, that allows Options to buy more land and fund early stages of construction,” said Ms. Tremain.
Options is also different from the B.C. program in that only some of the homes in the projects it builds are offered to buyers with the shared-equity option. The rest go to regular buyers who get no special help.
That’s the way it has operated since 1994, when the original founder simply bootstrapped a small incentive program together. The profits from the equity increases helped fund everything after that, which has included projects in various parts of Toronto from the Distillery District and The Junction to suburbs like Markham and Weston.
At Trillium Housing, also in Ontario, the program operates on a slightly different model by using donated money from foundations or private investors wanting to create some social impact with their money.
There, one of the directors, Joe Deschênes Smith, said he has the leeway to provide more than 15 per cent in special cases where he thinks it’s needed and will work out financially for the family. As well, if the market goes down, the organization shares in that.
“We decided we set up Trillium 10 years ago that we’ll take more of the downside,” said Mr. Smith. As well, Trillium doesn’t charge a set interest rate on its part of the mortgage, but makes most of its profit from the equity appreciation over the years.
Ultimately, he, like Ms. Tremain, believes shared-equity programs are a powerful tool for a particular group of people who just need a small boost to get into the housing market -- similar to the one that some first-time buyers get from their parents, to get into the housing market. They’re often households headed by single women, immigrants or non-white people.
They’re working, they’re financially stable, they just can’t quite get over all the current hurdles to get to ownership.
In spite of the differences, Mr. Smith thinks B.C.’s program is strong and promising.
“I’m excited that they’re doing it. I think we need governments like B.C. taking these first steps.”
He’d love to see big investors, particularly union pension funds that should have an interest in providing housing to their members, participating in these kinds of programs.
“It would leverage a lot more support. B.C. needs to figure out how to attract those institutional investors.
Sunday, December 1, 2024
The Uglification of Metro Vancouver quickens with mass upzoning - Douglas Todd Vancouver Sun - November 30, 2024
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/kitsilano-neighbourhood-braces-23-new-towers
This past weekend, he wrote another story that has attracted considerable attention. The fact is, while Vancouver City Council was well-intentioned in wanting to create a lot more rental housing in the hope that it would make rental housing more affordable, the significantly higher FSRs that staff said were necessary have only accomplished two things so far.
They have resulting in a most unfortunate juxtapositioning of 17 to 20 storey towers amongst 2 storey duplexes and older lowrise rental apartment buildings along charming leafy streets, Secondly, they may have increased property values by up to 50% based on prices paid for recent land assemblies. And this is just the beginning. Here is Mr. Todd's most recent column in which I struggle to explain FSR in terms a lay person might understand.
The Uglification of Vancouver Quickens with Mass Upzoning
Advocates of higher density housing in Metro Vancouver often challenge opponents by demanding they look at how the West End, with its scores of residential highrises, has turned out pretty well.
And, at first glance, they seem to have a point. The West End is livable not only because it borders on the beaches of English Bay, the promenades of Burrard Harbour and the wonders of Stanley Park, one of the world’s greatest urban forests.
The West End is also a pretty attractive place because most of the towers there fit into the neighbourhood. Tens of thousands of West End renters and condo owners are the beneficiaries of enlightened city policies that go back 20 to 50 years — when politicians were far more demanding of property developers.
Back then, when city councillors granted builders the profitable right to construct towers higher than permitted under existing zoning, they were legally required to include amenities such as expansive gardens, courtyards, open entryways, trees and parking spots.
Through a negotiating process called “conditional zoning,” Vancouver politicians up until the mid-2000s also made sure highrises didn’t replace all the character homes and older apartment buildings in the West End. Such progressive density policies applied as well to Kerrisdale, South Granville, Grandview, Kitsilano and elsewhere.
In addition, Vancouver politicians of decades ago demanded that companies that built major highrise developments had to significantly finance new parks, playing fields, seaside promenades and community centres. Residents today get to enjoy them.
Author and illustrator Michael Kluckner , who has made a career of drawing Vancouver’s changing streetscapes, isn’t exactly enamoured with the towers, old and new, that pepper many neighbourhoods. But at least, he says, older highrises “usually blend in with their surroundings quite well. When I look at the West End and Kerrisdale, I see ensembles, not jumbles.”
Over the past half century Metro, an international gateway, has grown into the fourth most dense region in North America . But proponents of even higher density fail to acknowledge that the city-enhancing policies that guided the relatively esthetic development of the West End and elsewhere are largely gone.
And it’s not just nostalgia to miss them. There are lessons to be drawn from how, compared with the past, there is precious little open ground left on tower sites, while sidewalks grow tighter.
This residential tower, proposed under Vancouver’s upzoned Broadway plan for leafy 14th Avenue, comes with no green space at ground level. That’s unlike earlier highrises. It’s typical of 22 other towers slated for east Kitsilano.
Even though the “conditional zoning” schemes of the past haven’t been entirely abandoned in Vancouver, they have weakened so much that now many 45-storey-plus glass and steel residential towers are being crammed with smaller units onto tinier lots.
And that’s because of an unintended consequence of politicians’ ostensibly well-meaning efforts to reduce housing prices, which are among the most expensive in the world.
Politicians have been convinced developers will be able to charge cheaper home prices and rents if they’re given the green light to build more units on less land — and provide fewer amenities.
The idea seems to make sense on the surface. But, tragically, it’s incorrect.
“It is counterintuitive. That’s part of the political and policy problem,” said Patrick Condon, a professor in the department of architecture at the University of B.C.
What many don’t realize is that when the city slashes its requirement for green space and other benefits on property that has been drastically upzoned, it simply increases the cost developers have to pay for the land. They then have to pass that on to homebuyers.
The upzoning therefore mostly makes landowners and speculators richer. It doesn’t lead to lower housing prices.
It’s worth taking a few minutes to absorb this lesson in housing economics, which especially impacts residents dealing with the sweeping upzoning the city has rammed through with the Broadway plan and the province has imposed within 800 metres of transit-oriented developments.
As Condon puts it slightly more technically, legislating mandatory upzoning without asking for major amenities from developers “merely increases the ‘land price residual,’ which is the amount the developer can afford to pay for the land after all other projected costs are calculated.”
When the city and province reduce expectations that highrise developers have to contribute to the public good through such things as attractive design and green spaces, Condon said, “you sadly increase the market cost of the ‘land price residual.’ That puts money that would have gone to public benefit into the pocket of the land speculator.”
In other words, the price of the land wouldn’t be as high if everyone knew beforehand that politicians were going to be requiring developers to provide green space and other amenities.
With the incredible rise in global and domestic property speculation in Metro, Condon says Vancouver councillors and the B.C. government “have forgotten the time when development more than ‘paid its way’ — and no one was hurt, not the home purchaser, nor the taxpayer.”
The escalating uglification dynamic, which in Vancouver has led to fast-rising property taxes, is explained well in Condon’s important new book, Broken City: Land Speculation, Inequality and Urban Crisis.
That’s where he eloquently describes how the City of Vancouver once led the way in North America in “capitalizing on the engine of its rapid development in order to deliver social benefits.” But that golden goose, of creative conditional zoning is now largely cooked.
Community planner Michael Geller , a lecturer in Simon Fraser University’s environmental department, puts the problem of today’s “overbearing” residential towers in the language of square footage.
In the 1990s, Geller says, developers in Vancouver were often getting approvals to build highrises, like in Kerrisdale, with a floor-to-space ratio (FSR) of two-to-one. That meant the buildings could have two times more floorspace than the lot area.
“But now the 20-storey towers set to be automatically approved along even the quiet residential streets of the Broadway corridor come with a ratio of up to six-to-one.” That will make them appear far more massive.
 |
| At the risk of offending anyone, I trust you'll agree this gentleman looks quite different at 150 pounds, compared to 300+ pounds. Similarly an 18 storey 2 FSR building looks very different than an 18 storey 6 FSR building. |
While some suggest not getting hung up on floor-to-space ratios, Geller says they matter: “Look at a person’s weight. At six feet tall, I would look quite different at 150 pounds compared to 300 pounds.”
Indeed.
No matter which way you describe it, as the requirements diminish for appealing buildings, green spaces and social benefits, so does the city.
dtodd@postmedia.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)