|
Baronjutter posted:The Janion Hotel alone could have its own thread... holy poo poo. Yeah, the point here was less "Boo taxes unfair!" and more to point out that there are a LOT of moving parts involved in housing. Which is why we need a national housing strategy.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Yep. Taxes, subsidies, direct investment, building codes, zoning, neighourhood, city, regional, national policies, economic conditions, banking and financial regulations, wages, workers rights, it all quite directly effects construction and prices. And of course the bubble we're seeing now is a result of all of the above almost seemingly purposefully engineered to create it, and won't be solved by any magic bullet, and will keep happening in the future until we sort this poo poo out. I'd love to hear some peoples ideas for solving or at least improving the housing situation in Canada though. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yep. Taxes, subsidies, direct investment, building codes, zoning, neighourhood, city, regional, national policies, economic conditions, banking and financial regulations, wages, workers rights, it all quite directly effects construction and prices. Add transit and infrastructure to that list. IMO transit is key. It defines the useful area of your city and what sort of density you can support. I would even argue that it's THE primary mechanism by which cities themselves can drive supply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Fineable Offence, did the rebgv ever study the impact of residential property taxation on housing prices? I'm under the impression that a lot of the tax burden has shifted from residential to commercial property tax.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Add transit and infrastructure to that list. IMO transit is key. It defines the useful area of your city and what sort of density you can support. I would even argue that it's THE primary mechanism by which cities themselves can drive supply. Imagine if the money dumped into those stupid fast ferries had been used on transit instead? loving hell
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
That's pretty much what I think every time I read about some huge government waste or gently caress up. "Imagine if that money went into transit".
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Imagine if the money dumped into those stupid fast ferries had been used on transit instead? loving hell That is remarkably depressing. Flying trains could have been everywhere, but no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Fineable Offence, did the rebgv ever study the impact of No. And by that I mean "put anything after that sentence fragment and the answer is still no", because they didn't research ANYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:No. oh dear...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd love to hear some peoples ideas for solving or at least improving the housing situation in Canada though. - Eliminate all tax breaks and other home ownership assistance programs. - Continue tightening mortgage regulations, specifically with regard to a) the borrower's ability to afford it and b) the risk involved and who it falls on. - If long term vacancies really are as high as that article suggested, start to penalize them. - Transit transit transit - Density density density - Start building social housing again, distributed evenly regardless of surrounding land-value (or else you get ghettos and yaletown) - Subsidize housing for seniors - Socialized housing for disabled people - A sliding scale of partial housing assistance for the middle class - Increase property taxes to pay for all of this Mrs. Wynand fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:oh dear... I once told my boss we should pitch a multi-party research project to the Feds and banks to assess the level of foreign investment actually present in the marketplace, and the conversation went something like this: Boss: "Why would we do that?" Me: "...because it's the #1 hot button issue right now in real estate, and if some level of government decides to set policy on bad information, it could have a negative impact on our members?" Boss: "I just don't see the point.  "Basically, there just aren't a lot of smart people at the board, and none of them are analytically inclined. Mr. Wynand posted:Wynand's n-point housing strategy plan: Pro post, though I'd add: -Institute a real loving building code -Actually inspect/enforce said building code. True story: the head building inspector for the City of Burnaby once told a co-worker of mine that they "don't actually go in to inspect buildings anymore, we just sign the permit sight unseen". When asked why this was the case, he said it was because their legal department had told them it would protect them in the event that an inspector missed something and the city got sued. Somebody from the City of North Van (iirc, it may have been the District) chimed in to say that their legal people had told them the same. Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Pro post, though I'd add: If that is Vancouver I am legitimately honestly very, very, very scared about Halifax. Qualified tradesmen and builders do not suddenly exist out of thin air. Again, Haligonians' opinion, but straight up banning the construction of new subdivisions or making them extremely financially unattractive until density is re-established is something I think needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:If that is Vancouver I am legitimately honestly very, very, very scared about Halifax. Qualified tradesmen and builders do not suddenly exist out of thin air. What makes you think there are any qualified tradesmen in Vancouver? My parents house, back in the 90s, had a basement that would constantly flood because the drain tiles weren't laid properly. They sold the house for almost 2 million in 2011 to some mainland chinese. The flooding problem was never fixed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:If that is Vancouver I am legitimately honestly very, very, very scared about Halifax. Qualified tradesmen and builders do not suddenly exist out of thin air. The incident that happened just the other day with the crane lift in downtown Halifax, the other incidents in the past year of people falling 10'+ off of scaffolding, and other issues that have happened, pretty much proves that the Health and Safety sector is pretty much a write off around here. It's just a matter of time before some or a group gets killed. For the most part the construction industry around here is horrid, but what do you expect when all the experienced workers have moved out west, and still do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
I work related to construction in Victoria and sites get shut down or put on hold here all the time for very nit-picky code issues. Maybe I'm just not seeing the corruption/incompetence or maybe it's not as bad here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Does rent control figure into a sustainable housing strategy plan, or is that sort of a band-aid on a gushing wound?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Imagine if the money dumped into those stupid fast ferries had been used on transit instead? loving hell I'd much rather thank about the money dumped into the god drat Port Mann project, which is actually a whole order of magnitude worse then the fast ferries. The fast ferries cost a total $431 million and at the very least attempted (but failed) to jump start a local ship building industry. The Port Mann on the other hand costs $3.3 billion after the latest budget re-estimate, and it's money coming directly out of the transportation budget - i.e. transit. The bridge will alleviate traffic over the short term which will encourage more people to move out into the suburbs until the commute gets to exactly the same point it was at before. This is what has happened to literally every single highway expansion project in every city in the world since highways were invented. Nobody in Surrey et al will benefit from any of this, except over the very short term. Vancouver/Burnaby/NewWest on the other hand will experience far worse traffic then before no matter what because you have a much greater volume of commuters coming in that have to distribute themselves along the existing (and impossible to expand) local roads. It will also have to dedicate more space to parking which means less space for residences or jobs. The apparent solution will be to drive the highway all the way into the city at an astronomical cost, destroying or splitting up swaths of communities and absolutely murdering all the walkable neighborhoods that are one of Vancouver's few remaining endearing qualities. And all this is just on top of loving over everyone else for transit budgets, it is merely the corn-covered cherry on the poo poo frosting that is this loving bridge. I'd rather have 6 more fast ferry programs or just set fire to 3 billion dollars then this loving bridge. For $3.3 billion we could have put in a new tram system, including the very very badly needed one over Broadway to UBC, kicked the evergreen line into gear and we could even have stuck a bunch of park'n'rides and trams or just more and better buses all over Surrey and actually improve their commute over the long term while building up both cities, improving several local economies, defusing the housing price situation and increasing the city's permanent revenue base which can used to better schools, save puppies, house grandma and all that good stuff. But no, instead people who moved out to Surrey so they can have an 6 bedroom house with a "rumpus room" and 3 garages get to cut their commute by ~40 minutes for 9-18 months. Good deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Pro post, though I'd add: Building codes can be used as offensive weapons, too, mandating things like brick/masonry walls, copper piping, etc, to push the price of reno work up out of the reach of the plebs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:-Institute a real loving building code Jesus loving christ...  I wonder if this is related to the fact that my current building clearly doesn't have enough elevators for how many floors it has (i'm guessing you work around a city hall? would you happen to know if that is actually in a code?), and that only a single door from the fire escape stairs actually opens from the inside and if the fire happens to be near that door, I guess we can all just burn alive safe from thieves?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Does rent control figure into a sustainable housing strategy plan, or is that sort of a band-aid on a gushing wound? Rent control just creates more market distortion, which is what got us into this mess in the first place via the CMHC. I'd rather social housing be taken care of through some kind of monthly credit/voucher/whatever that people below the poverty line can use to supplement their income to access market housing, with actual social housing being reserved for people who are legitimately in need of it. That, combined with a renewed, robust strategy of supporting co-ops, should take care of the 'working poor' and lower middle class types, with minimal cost to the government. Definitely anything but the current model of density bonusing in return for a few token non-market units from the developer, though. That poo poo is so stupid and futile it boggles my mind how long we've let it go on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:If that is Vancouver I am legitimately honestly very, very, very scared about Halifax. Qualified tradesmen and builders do not suddenly exist out of thin air. Whereabouts are these new subdivisions? I was back recently and heard the guy who owns the Inn on the Lake is building a huge condo building out there. Funny thing is, it'll draw water from the lake. I had no idea what to make of condo/apt type buildings going up where there isnt even city water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:
You mean like, your standard suburban 1-family home? That might be too much of "banning the symptoms". There is nothing wrong with suburbs, I'm not actually against them, you can have your white picket fence and everything. Just don't drive into town is all (and there are several ways this can be done).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Building codes can be used as offensive weapons, too, mandating things like brick/masonry walls, copper piping, etc, to push the price of reno work up out of the reach of the plebs. ok so, don't do that maybe
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I wonder if this is related to the fact that my current building clearly doesn't have enough elevators for how many floors it has (i'm guessing you work around a city hall? would you happen to know if that is actually in a code?), and that only a single door from the fire escape stairs actually opens from the inside and if the fire happens to be near that door, I guess we can all just burn alive safe from thieves? You want page 34, I think. Also, I don't work for city hall, I work for a provincial crown corporation now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Does rent control figure into a sustainable housing strategy plan, or is that sort of a band-aid on a gushing wound? It makes developers skittish about building new inventory and existing owners less likely to maintain their property (because you are effectively putting a ceiling on their revenue). It would actually make the current problem of vacancies waaaay worse. It would not be my first choice for Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Rent control in it's current form in B.C. also doesn't actually really impact rents, because you can raise rents once a tenant leaves, and last I saw the stats the average length of tenancy in B.C. was sub-2 years. The fact that rents basically track to income growth and/or inflation is because the market still almost-kinda works. At the rate we're losing stock, though, that won't last much longer. Pretty much the only thing that's kept it in check is the number of retarded speculators buying condos and then renting them at a massive loss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:You mean like, your standard suburban 1-family home? I think one of the issues in Halifax is just that getting on the peninsula has always been a huge pain in the rear end and a lot of employment left for the industrial parks, which has had a really weird effect on the downtown and peninsula itself when combined with the surburban development. Halifax has some pretty unique geography that requires more careful and imaginative urban planning than I think we've seen from an HRM council ever, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Rent control in it's current form in B.C. also doesn't actually really impact rents, because you can raise rents once a tenant leaves, and last I saw the stats the average length of tenancy in B.C. was sub-2 years. And for anyone that sticks around longer than two years, you can serve them a renoviction in order to increase the rent. The current rent controls in place are less than ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:You want page 34, I think. Also, I don't work for city hall, I work for a provincial crown corporation now. Beh, the only hard minimum is 2. They want you to work out the demand yourself to hit some target average waiting time (ours has certainly missed their target of 70 seconds by about 200). There also seem to be like 20 move-ins per months and then your wait time is ~5 minutes. Oh well, really not much they can do about it now. Well, suing the developer might make me feel better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:stuff about the port mann The Canada Line cost 2 billion. With that 3.3 the billion, how would you expand transit in the lower mainland, such replacing non-earthquake proof overpasses, creating extra lane capacity, improved on-ramps etc would be unnecessary? How is rapid transit supposed to fix all these deficiencies? Or is this a big gently caress you to all the assholes in the suburbs, i'm more sophisticated than you because i wear skinny jeans and flannel shirts and ride a fixie or something? edit: Whatever the solution, you can't just shut out the suburbs because you worship jane jacob's gospel of induced demand. Why do you want to ghettoize the suburbs? namaste friends fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:ok so, don't do that maybe Oh, I know, I'm just saying that having a higher level of government nudge municipalities to strictly enforce building codes shouldn't be done without a building code for the building codes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The Canada Line cost 2 billion. With that 3.3 the billion, how would you expand transit in the lower mainland, such replacing non-earthquake proof overpasses, creating extra lane capacity, improved on-ramps etc would be unnecessary? How is rapid transit supposed to fix all these deficiencies? Because "more roads" doesn't work. It just leads to more suburbs which fill up that capacity. You fix things by a: stop building more suburbs, they don't work, they are urban planning, social, environmental, and economic disasters. Build transit, encourage density and the slow transformation from highway-served suburbs to transit served suburbs. Yes those exist and are quite possible, you can have your house and your train too. It's not a "gently caress you" to the suburbs, it's basic urban planning 101 level stuff. Port Mann is a populist/political infrastructure project, not an actual rational urban planning/traffic engineering project. All it will do is enable more suburbs, more traffic. Currently suburbia is massively subsidized through both infrastructure spending and tax/financial regulations. Generally we subsidize things we want more of, and tax things we want less of, we don't want more suburbs. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Rent control in it's current form in B.C. also doesn't actually really impact rents, because you can raise rents once a tenant leaves, and last I saw the stats the average length of tenancy in B.C. was sub-2 years. Doesn't work like that. Under the standard RTA lease agreement a fixed term lease automatically becomes a month-to-month lease at the end. I know this in great detail because I once had a landlord demand that we agree to cross out that part of the lease agreement, which is definitely a non-optional part of the RTA itself, although neither the RTA board nor a lawyer were 100% certain about what would happen if this came up and I contested it. (we decided to pass) The fixed lease term is actually for the benefit of the landlord so they can have an assurance that they won't have to do the work of renting out the place for at least that term. You are always protected from eviction however, both fixed term and month-to-month, indefinitely. The few (but notable) exceptions are: 1) The landlord or an immediate family member (parents, spouses or children only) wants to move in. They actually have to live there, I think there's even a minimum term during which they cannot rent or sell the place at all (since they are supposed to be living in it) should they go this route. 2) The landlord wants to perform "material" renovations (i.e. tear down the place). In both situation, you also get a generous notice and a whole month of rent for free. (i.e. if you move out immediately, they have to give you a month's worth of rent, and if you take a month to move out, you don't pay for that month). Simply selling the property does NOT allow you to get rid of tenants - the lease simply changes titles from your old landlord to the new one. When they buy the place they automatically inherit all terms of the existing agreement. The new owner has to either tear the place up or lie in it if they want you out. Basically once you take on tenants you can't get rid of them unless they break their lease agreement (illegal pets, damage to property, don't pay rent etc) or they choose to move out. It's actually pretty solid protection. The rate itself however is 4.3% for 2012, which is actually quite high and basically on par with rent increases for new units. Like I said, it seems to just track demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Doesn't work like that. I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about, but none of your post addressed what I was talking about, which is the fact that most people move out of their apartments on a voluntary basis often enough that the aggregate impact of rent control is negligible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Because "more roads" doesn't work. It just leads to more suburbs which fill up that capacity. You fix things by a: stop building more suburbs, they don't work, they are urban planning, social, environmental, and economic disasters. Build transit, encourage density and the slow transformation from highway-served suburbs to transit served suburbs. Yes those exist and are quite possible, you can have your house and your train too. So we should just let road infrastructure fall apart so we can realize your urban hipster utopia? If only people would stop driving home to their cozy cul-de-sacs in Coquitlam immediately after work and sip a cocktail at the Tiki Bar in the Waldorf, life would be peachy for everyone in Vancouver and we would solve global warming right? Let me remind you, the reason people move to the suburbs is because they can't afford to live in the city. And no I'm not saying that everyone deserves a 2000 sq/ft house and 2 car garage. There are lots of condo projects in Chiliwack, Abbotsford and Langley. There's a big condo development just 5km north of the Peace Arch crossing for christ's sake. People don't want to live next to a chicken rendering plant, nor should they if they don't want to. The problem with conventional 'basic urban planning 101 stuff' is that it's not basic urban planning 101. Actual urban planners recognize the problem is far more complex than simply abolishing roads. edit: I want to make it clear that I'm a huge proponent of public transit, having lived in europe and the pleasure of experiencing cities like hong kong, taipei and singapore. I absolutely love travelling by rail. But having experienced european suburbs where public transit isn't available/and or reliable and the residents are too poor to buy cars, I urge you to consider that your exposure to this particular gospel of sustainable planning is not sufficient. namaste friends fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:So we should just let road infrastructure fall apart so we can realize your urban hipster utopia? Please, please, stop with these loving shitposts. You throw more ad hominems around than a Gordon Ramsay marathon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The Canada Line cost 2 billion. With that 3.3 the billion, how would you expand transit in the lower mainland, such replacing non-earthquake proof overpasses, creating extra lane capacity, improved on-ramps etc would be unnecessary? How is rapid transit supposed to fix all these deficiencies? Replacing overpasses is all fine and dandy, but creating extra lane capacity is worthless. Every city in the world has bad traffic, bar none. That's traffic in cities. The more you try to alleviate road congestion the more ridiculously distorted your idea of roads becomes. The interstate in and around Seattle has as many lanes going in either direction as the *new* Trans Canada has in total *and* they have a center express way that's six lanes wide again. With three times the lanes they *still* have congestion. The more lanes you build for cars, the more convenient a road will be and the more cars there will be on the road. Traffic will always more or less balance until all roads between any two places are equally inconvenient. You'll have spent all this money, paved over all this land, built all this infrastructure and you'll be just as stuck in traffic as you were before. On the other hand, building light rail takes cars *off* the road because suddenly the trains can get you there for $5 and you don't have to sit in traffic and you get there on time because the trains are run by computers and you can get completely shittered at a bar where you're going and go home by the same method you arrived. Fewer people decide to drive because light rail does the job and does it very well because it's a dedicated people moving system, as opposed to roads which are good at moving things point to point but terrible at moving people point to point. It has nothing to do with hating the suburbs, it has to do with the fact that cars are a terrible fit for city transportation and light rail is a good fit, which is why places like London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Moscow, Tokyo, Berlin and New York all run on light rail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:The Canada Line cost 2 billion. With that 3.3 the billion, how would you expand transit in the lower mainland, such replacing non-earthquake proof overpasses, creating extra lane capacity, improved on-ramps etc would be unnecessary? How is rapid transit supposed to fix all these deficiencies? We can fix the overpasses with plenty left for transit. Lane capacity and on-ramp improvements are also worthwhile (as long as they don't include rebuilding a massive loving bridge), provided there is underutilized capacity down the line (otherwise all you're doing is helping people get stuck in traffic faster). Again, I'm not against suburbs (and neither is BFF Jane). I outlined what I would do for surrey in that post: park'n'rides, improved local transit (tram or buses or those gimpy suburb buses, or relaxing taxi permits, depending on their density requirements and plans - I'm not very familiar with Surrey's inner workings). The p-man isn't very far from the existing sky-train crossover, so you don't even need some fancy new rapid-transit bridge, just bring them to the old one. I know the expo line is straining a bit too, but there is yet more that can be done. Finish replacing the old cars with the new high capacity ones. You can also make them longer then the stations in a pinch (something that will simply have to happen for the Canada line, having those dinky short stations was a criminal oversight), and have 2-phase boarding if things really go crazy, though at that point we should probably look at a second sky-train crossing. There is also a traditional rail line that could maybe support a West-Coast-Express type commuter train, but rail lines in Vancouver are governed by all sorts of really strange arrangements and authorities, plus all the existing freight will have time around the commute times. There is nothing wrong with suburbs. We do need more high-density mixed use hipsterrific new-urbanized development as well, and there is certainly no lack of people wanting to live in them, but we can absolutely also have enough single family, 6 bedroom, 3 bathrooms, deadly quiet after 8 pm, white picket fence communities for everyone who is into that sort of thing. No 3 car garage though. Drop the kids off to school, drive 10 minutes to the train, ride it for 50 minutes, and walk to the office. If it's good enough for Don Draper, it's good enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:32
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Because "more roads" doesn't work. It just leads to more suburbs which fill up that capacity. You fix things by a: stop building more suburbs, they don't work, they are urban planning, social, environmental, and economic disasters. Build transit, encourage density and the slow transformation from highway-served suburbs to transit served suburbs. Yes those exist and are quite possible, you can have your house and your train too. I want to distance myself from this: I disagree. People do want suburbs. They can absolutely be sustainable, they just need to look/work a little different from the current model. They will still be perfectly recognizable. I do not in any way think of them as a necessary evil that has to be contained. We can and should keep building them, just not the way we have been.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:So we should just let road infrastructure fall apart so we can realize your urban hipster utopia? Nobody said we should stop upkeep on existing roads. When I was living out in South Delta I would have killed for a Skytrain that ran to Bridgeport like the new Canada Line. I still fantasize about Translink extending the new line out to the Ferries (I am well aware this will never happen). There are perfectly good travel solutions that favor suburbs that are not ADD MORE LANES.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:37
|
|