The Housing Shortage

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

Oh absolutely (other than buying up apartment buildings IS part of the problem).

 

Though not all of it is red tape either. We also don't have enough workers to build as fast as we "need" to.

 

We (the government) should also be building a crap-tonne of public/co-op housing that we're not.

Public housing and low income housing isn’t profitable for developers. The governments have to include incentives with their building permits in order to get developers to build these types of homes. 
 

Developers are for profit. The governments need to hire them to build public housing. Problem is the government is sitting on billions of dollars of land that they haven’t bothered to rezone. Plus there are thousands of acres of ALR land that can easily be rezoned to multi family housing. You don’t need ALR land 30 minutes from downtown Vancouver. There is enough ALR land on the outskirts and in the interior to feed the entire country. 
 

Drive through Richmond one day and see how many monster homes are sitting on acres of ALR land that aren’t even being used for farming. It’s a joke. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Public housing and low income housing isn’t profitable for developers. The governments have to include incentives with their building permits in order to get developers to build these types of homes.

 

I think you missed something...

 

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

We (the government) should also be building a crap-tonne of public/co-op housing that we're not.

 

Of course developers aren't going to build public/co-op housing of their own accord. You have to require "X" percentage of "Y" development needs to be public/social/co-op/rent controlled etc, etc...

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

 

are you talking about Ken Sim or the province? Vancouver has actually rezoned almost every block to be open for multi-family developments. Sim is talking a lot about massive new developments for East Van. 

 

https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/rezoning-applications.aspx

 

 

Ken Sim is doing a great job. Every lot in Vancouver can now be used to build multi family housing. Up to 8 homes on one lot depending on lot size. 
 

He is going after the missing middle sized properties. Townhouse, triplex, fourplex. Families don’t want to live in a condo. So the middle housing that is missing is needed more than anything else. 
 

https://globalnews.ca/news/9962925/vancouver-council-8-homes-per-lot/#

 

[Bob Long]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Ken Sim is doing a great job. Every lot in Vancouver can now be used to build multi family housing. Up to 8 homes on one lot depending on lot size. 
 

He is going after the missing middle sized properties. Townhouse, triplex, fourplex. Families don’t want to live in a condo. So the middle housing that is missing is needed more than anything else. 
 

https://globalnews.ca/news/9962925/vancouver-council-8-homes-per-lot/#

 

 

yep I like Sim a lot. Kennedy Stewart set Vancouver back a decade. 

 

[Elias Pettersson]

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I think you missed something...

 

 

Of course developers aren't going to build public/co-op housing of their own accord. You have to require "X" percentage of "Y" development needs to be public/social/co-op/rent controlled etc, etc...

Yes exactly. And that is being done as we speak. Developers are told to build social housing on their development and in return the city grants them higher density to build more for profit condos. 
 

The problem though is this isn’t nearly enough inventory to make a dent in the market. The government is sitting on thousands of acres of land that they can easily rezone to multi family. For some reason they aren’t doing it. They could easily hire developers to build on this land. Lots of companies would do it. 
 

Like I already mentioned Ken Sim is working on this in Vancouver. The other municipalities need to follow suit. Also, why has it taken this long in the first place?  This should have been done 20 years ago before prices of real estate got out of hand. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Yes exactly. And that is being done as we speak. Developers are told to build social housing on their development and in return the city grants them higher density to build more for profit condos. 
 

The problem though is this isn’t nearly enough inventory to make a dent in the market. The government is sitting on thousands of acres of land that they can easily rezone to multi family. For some reason they aren’t doing it. They could easily hire developers to build on this land. Lots of companies would do it. 
 

Like I already mentioned Ken Sim is working on this in Vancouver. The other municipalities need to follow suit. Also, why has it taken this long in the first place?  This should have been done 20 years ago before prices of real estate got out of hand. 

 

We stopped building public housing ~30 years ago...

 

What a coincidence! 

 

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

You don’t need ALR land 30 minutes from downtown Vancouver.

 

Yeah, because what grows in the warmer, milder climate of the lower mainland of BC can totally be grown in the harsher, more extreme climates in the interior for the same types of yield.  

[aGENT]

47 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Yeah, because what grows in the warmer, milder climate of the lower mainland of BC can totally be grown in the harsher, more extreme climates in the interior for the same types of yield.  

 

Yeah, nixing all of the lower mainland's ALR land is probably not the answer. Food security is a real issue too. Nor should it be required. We have plenty of land that can be densified once you tell NIMBY's where to go and how to get there.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Yeah, nixing all of the lower mainland's ALR land is probably not the answer. Food security is a real issue too. Nor should it be required. We have plenty of land that can be densified once you tell NIMBY's where to go and how to get there.

 

It's a developer's wet dream to be able to take all that lower mainland ALR land and develop it, selling it for a hefty profit because location, location, location.  

 

It's the wrong approach to take, and it doesn't (and won't) help the housing situation, since the people who are in need of housing likely couldn't afford what would be developed there anyways.  Plus you'll have so much less land with which to produce agriculture.  A lose-lose proposition, and typical of the short-sighted thinking where the goal is to maximize $$$ now.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Yeah, because what grows in the warmer, milder climate of the lower mainland of BC can totally be grown in the harsher, more extreme climates in the interior for the same types of yield.  

 

The climate is different in Abbotsford than it is in Richmond and Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge?  That's news to me.  I wasn't talking about the interior like up north or even the Okanagan.  I was talking about rezoning the ALR in places like Richmond, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge so we can get more housing closer to the city.  We have enough ALR land in the Fraser Valley to feed the entire country...

[Elias Pettersson]

5 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

It's a developer's wet dream to be able to take all that lower mainland ALR land and develop it, selling it for a hefty profit because location, location, location.  

 

It's the wrong approach to take, and it doesn't (and won't) help the housing situation, since the people who are in need of housing likely couldn't afford what would be developed there anyways.  Plus you'll have so much less land with which to produce agriculture.  A lose-lose proposition, and typical of the short-sighted thinking where the goal is to maximize $$$ now.

 

So where exactly do you think we should be building more housing if not in PoCo, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge?  Right now the only land that is getting rezoned for condos are next to skytrain stations.  That is the most expensive land in the city.  Also, you can't build multi family units within the city next to a skytrain station which is the whole point.  We need to build more middle housing like townhouses, triplexes and fourplexes.  You can't build those in the city because they are too expensive.  You can build them out in the suburbs for half the price...

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The climate is different in Abbotsford than it is in Richmond and Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge?

 

The weather report usually separates "near the water" from "away from the water".  Pretty sure that indicates different climates, even within the same locality.

 

4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

We have enough ALR land in the Fraser Valley to feed the entire country...

 

I'd like to see the figures (and their source) that you're basing this assertion on please.

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The climate is different in Abbotsford than it is in Richmond and Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge? 

 

 

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/abbotsford/climate

Quick Climate Info
Hottest Month	August (19 °C avg)
Coldest Month	December (4 °C avg)
Wettest Month	November (176.0 mm avg)
Windiest Month	March (10 km/h avg)
Annual precip.	1024.5 mm (per year)

 

 

 

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/richmond/climate

Quick Climate Info
Hottest Month	August (18 °C avg)
Coldest Month	December (4 °C avg)
Wettest Month	November (135.9 mm avg)
Windiest Month	March (13 km/h avg)
Annual precip.	797.5 mm (per year)

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/?type=climate&query=Maple+Ridge+bc

Quick Climate Info
Hottest Month	August (19 °C avg)
Coldest Month	December (3 °C avg)
Wettest Month	November (168.0 mm avg)
Windiest Month	March (7 km/h avg)
Annual precip.	926.1 mm (per year)

 

 

Seems there is a difference between some of them

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/port-coquitlam/climate

Quick Climate Info

Hottest MonthAugust (19 °C avg)Coldest MonthDecember (3 °C avg)Wettest MonthNovember (168.0 mm avg)Windiest MonthMarch (7 km/h avg)Annual precip.926.1 mm (per year)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

So where exactly do you think we should be building more housing if not in PoCo, Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge?  Right now the only land that is getting rezoned for condos are next to skytrain stations.  That is the most expensive land in the city.  Also, you can't build multi family units within the city next to a skytrain station which is the whole point.  We need to build more middle housing like townhouses, triplexes and fourplexes.  You can't build those in the city because they are too expensive.  You can build them out in the suburbs for half the price...

 

Actually, Burnaby has the right general idea.  Set town centres where you can increase activity intensity.  Build those as hubs.  Build housing (and densify) around those hubs, so that you don't need to have that extensive a transit network to get to and between the places you need to for your day-to-day requirements.  Keep the hubs close enough together that you minimize sprawl, but not so close together that you're creating density above the capacity of the infrastructure.  Connect the hubs with good, reliable transit services.  Keep the hubs infrastructure well-maintained and build more infrastructure as needed.

 

Building out to PoCo, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge may be necessary one day, but that day isn't now, and when it comes time to do so, the land to use shouldn't be ALR land.  Doing so now only perpetuates the sprawl that has plagued most Canadian (sub-)urban landscapes, creating climate change nightmare scenarios and using land that has neither the infrastructure basis nor the tax base to support such population growth.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

5 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

The weather report usually separates "near the water" from "away from the water".  Pretty sure that indicates different climates, even within the same locality.

 

 

I'd like to see the figures (and their source) that you're basing this assertion on please.

 

It's 11 degrees in Abbotsford right now and 12 degrees in Vancouver.  I'm sorry, but the weather argument doesn't mean anything.  Regardless, the amount of ALR land in the city is minimal compared to the total amount in BC.

 

The ALR doesn't stipulate that you actually have to have a farm on it.  There is lots of ALR land within 30-40 minutes of the city that do not grow anything on them at all.  A blueberry farm doesn't count either.

 

The total ALR land reserve in BC is 4.7 million hectares.  In the Fraser Valley it is 72,000 hectares.  In the Lower Mainland it is 260,000 hectares.  So, the ALR land in the Lower Mainland only accounts for less than 5% of all of the ALR in BC.  So, we are talking about converting maybe less than 4% of the ALR in the Lower Mainland outside of the Fraser Valley.  That's peanuts.  If you take that 200,000 hectares of land and convert it to housing then you can build a house for every man, woman and child in Vancouver.  And we would still have over 4.5 million hectares of land available in BC for farming.  

 

4.5 million hectares of farmable land can feed over 500 million people, enough to cover all of North America...

[Elias Pettersson]

27 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Actually, Burnaby has the right general idea.  Set town centres where you can increase activity intensity.  Build those as hubs.  Build housing (and densify) around those hubs, so that you don't need to have that extensive a transit network to get to and between the places you need to for your day-to-day requirements.  Keep the hubs close enough together that you minimize sprawl, but not so close together that you're creating density above the capacity of the infrastructure.  Connect the hubs with good, reliable transit services.  Keep the hubs infrastructure well-maintained and build more infrastructure as needed.

 

Building out to PoCo, Pitt Meadows, and Maple Ridge may be necessary one day, but that day isn't now, and when it comes time to do so, the land to use shouldn't be ALR land.  Doing so now only perpetuates the sprawl that has plagued most Canadian (sub-)urban landscapes, creating climate change nightmare scenarios and using land that has neither the infrastructure basis nor the tax base to support such population growth.

 

 

Families aren't interested in living next to a hub full of condos.  They want their own homes.  It's too expensive to build townhouses and fourplexes next to hubs for developers and the prices are too high.  Lots of people work from home now.  They aren't interested in living next to a skytrain station with their kids.  They want to buy a house, or a townhouse or a half duplex out in the suburbs.  To get enough housing out there, you need to redevelop the land and rezone it.  There is lots of ALR land in the suburbs that is not even used for farming.  They need to hurry up and rezone that land before prices start to double again in Vancouver...

Edited November 2, 2023 by Elias Pettersson

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

14 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The total ALR land reserve in BC is 4.7 million hectares.  In the Fraser Valley it is 72,000 hectares.

 

14 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

4.5 million hectares of farmable land can feed over 500 million people, enough to cover all of North America...

 

I love how you used the non-lower mainland part of the ALR and used that as the justification for your assertion below:

49 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

We have enough ALR land in the Fraser Valley to feed the entire country...

 

when in your quote above, you state that the Fraser Valley only makes up 72k hectares.  

 

In addition to a housing crisis, we're also dealing with a climate crisis.  Sprawl is a contributor to the climate crisis.  As the climate crisis starts to ravage viable farmland to our south, rendering the farmland in current agricultural hotbeds as non-viable due to loss of topsoil from water-driven erosion due to flooding or air-driven erosion due to lack of moisture in the soil, or from climate-driven changes such as shortened viable growing seasons from insufficent sunlight or extended heat waves, the farmland we have in the ALR will become more valuable, partly because there won't be produce to import if those countries exporting to Canada can't or won't, and partly because the climate changes will make our agricultural land suited for other agricultural goods that we wouldn't normally have been able to grow.

 

Developing that agricultural land into housing is a one-way street.  Once that fertile land is built upon, you can't convert it back to be a productive fertile lot; it's gone forever.  There are many other ways to address housing, and particularly the kind of housing that's needed, which is public housing.  Developing on fertile agricultural soil should always be the absolute last resort, not the choice of convenience.

[moosehead]

19 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

 

I love how you used the non-lower mainland part of the ALR and used that as the justification for your assertion below:

 

when in your quote above, you state that the Fraser Valley only makes up 72k hectares.  

 

In addition to a housing crisis, we're also dealing with a climate crisis.  Sprawl is a contributor to the climate crisis.  As the climate crisis starts to ravage viable farmland to our south, rendering the farmland in current agricultural hotbeds as non-viable due to loss of topsoil from water-driven erosion due to flooding or air-driven erosion due to lack of moisture in the soil, or from climate-driven changes such as shortened viable growing seasons from insufficent sunlight or extended heat waves, the farmland we have in the ALR will become more valuable, partly because there won't be produce to import if those countries exporting to Canada can't or won't, and partly because the climate changes will make our agricultural land suited for other agricultural goods that we wouldn't normally have been able to grow.

 

Developing that agricultural land into housing is a one-way street.  Once that fertile land is built upon, you can't convert it back to be a productive fertile lot; it's gone forever.  There are many other ways to address housing, and particularly the kind of housing that's needed, which is public housing.  Developing on fertile agricultural soil should always be the absolute last resort, not the choice of convenience.

 

Thank you. Anyone suggesting ALR land in BC be rezoned into housing is out to lunch....

ALR land needs to be kept permanent as farm land for our future generations.

People in BC will have to learn to live the rest of the world.  - more density in urban core. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

26 minutes ago, moosehead said:

 

Thank you. Anyone suggesting ALR land in BC be rezoned into housing is out to lunch....

ALR land needs to be kept permanent as farm land for our future generations.

People in BC will have to learn to live the rest of the world.  - more density in urban core. 

 

butbutbut... why would people want to live more densely when we can just sprawl our way out of this housing crisis (earning developers a princely sum, and addressing nothing but profits for the developers, since it doesn't solve the core issue of affordable housing WHERE THE JOBS ARE).  

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

 

I love how you used the non-lower mainland part of the ALR and used that as the justification for your assertion below:

 

when in your quote above, you state that the Fraser Valley only makes up 72k hectares.  

 

In addition to a housing crisis, we're also dealing with a climate crisis.  Sprawl is a contributor to the climate crisis.  As the climate crisis starts to ravage viable farmland to our south, rendering the farmland in current agricultural hotbeds as non-viable due to loss of topsoil from water-driven erosion due to flooding or air-driven erosion due to lack of moisture in the soil, or from climate-driven changes such as shortened viable growing seasons from insufficent sunlight or extended heat waves, the farmland we have in the ALR will become more valuable, partly because there won't be produce to import if those countries exporting to Canada can't or won't, and partly because the climate changes will make our agricultural land suited for other agricultural goods that we wouldn't normally have been able to grow.

 

Developing that agricultural land into housing is a one-way street.  Once that fertile land is built upon, you can't convert it back to be a productive fertile lot; it's gone forever.  There are many other ways to address housing, and particularly the kind of housing that's needed, which is public housing.  Developing on fertile agricultural soil should always be the absolute last resort, not the choice of convenience.

 

What ways are those?  Also, public housing is only a small part of the housing problem.  Families need a place to live that they can afford.  They aren't interested in living in a hub by a skytrain station and a mall that is full of crime.  They need actual homes.  The only place to build those affordable homes is in the suburbs not the city.

 

The issue is not that we don't have any land, the issue is how that land is being used.  ALR is just one part of that.  I never said to convert every farm into housing.  There is alot of land in the ALR that is not used for farming, so the government can start with those parcels of land and go from there.  They also need to start rezoning areas with large swaths of land and small little bungalows and turn them into multi family sites.  This is already happening in Vancouver.  However, the average family cannot afford to live in Vancouver, so places like Coquitlam, PoCo, Maple Ridge, Surrey and Abbotsford need to get their municipal governments on board to start rezoning single family parcels into multifamily developments.

 

Also, in terms of developers, it's not just the developer that is making money.  The municipalities make more money than the actual developer through development fees and taxes. 

 

An independent study conducted for the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade’s Housing Forum 2018 found that government taxes and fees account for 26.22% or $220,256 of the total $840,000 cost of a typical new apartment.

 

26% of the price of a condo is because of government fees and taxes.  Think about that.  So, it's not just the developer that is raking the money off the buyers.  The governments are doing it even moreso...

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

There is alot of land in the ALR that is not used for farming, so the government can start with those parcels of land and go from there. 

 

Of course the government needs to start with those lands that are underused or unused in the ALR - they should start by making sure the lands aren't left fallow and unproductive.  If the owner isn't making the land agro-production positive, then the landowner should be taxed for not using the land for its intended purpose, which is to produce agricultural products.  If the landowner doesn't want to produce and doesn't want to get taxed, then they should sell the and to someone who will, instead of sitting on it in hopes that some city administration or provincial government will allow them to move it out of the ALR and make a killing on a sale to a developer.

 

I'll be frank and open about my position on commercial developers - they're not friends of the people who need affordable housing, and they can never be friends of people who need affordable housing.  They're making products that won't benefit the majority of the people who need housing the most, instead creating product at a price range that benefits speculators, hoarders, and companies who will happily gouge the common consumer when they turn around and rent them out at inflated prices.  Fuck them.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

And you still haven't explained the discrepancy between your assertion of the Fraser Valley vs. the numbers you quoted.

I'm guessing you're just making assertions by pulling figures out of your ass.

[moosehead]

58 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

And you still haven't explained the discrepancy between your assertion of the Fraser Valley vs. the numbers you quoted.

I'm guessing you're just making assertions by pulling figures out of your ass.

 

Anyone that wants to use Fraser Valley ALR land for housing is clearly out to lunch.

 

Try to find single family housing in most European cities ....      People will be fine in high density urban housing near rapid transit.     We need to start reducing our carbon footprint.    Families on a half acre in the fraser valley driving a a mini van and a F 350. is not environmentally sound.

 

The future is high density housing.   We just need to leave some trees and green spaces nearby for people to enjoy.  It is done all over the world. 

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

And you still haven't explained the discrepancy between your assertion of the Fraser Valley vs. the numbers you quoted.

I'm guessing you're just making assertions by pulling figures out of your ass.

And you still haven’t explained how to solve the housing crisis other than don’t touch the ALR. As a real estate expert I deal with people like you every day who basically don’t have a clue on how to fix the housing crisis but like to chirp on how everyone involved with real estate are the boogeyman and are the bad guys. 
 

What was your comment?  Fuck the developers?  Why is that?  Do you even have a clue what they do?  How is it the developers fault that it takes 8 years to put up a hi-rise and over one year just to get a building permit?  Can you explain that?  
 

Why is it that the government feels the need to add over 26% to the price of a condo in order to get their cut?  How exactly does that help the housing crisis and how exactly does that help to keep prices down?  
 

Why are the developers the bad guys in all of this?  Can you explain that?  I’ve had this conversation with people for the last 20 years. I’d love to have you explain it to me so it makes sense. 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

4 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

And you still haven’t explained how to solve the housing crisis other than don’t touch the ALR. As a real estate expert I deal with people like you every day who basically don’t have a clue on how to fix the housing crisis but like to chirp on how everyone involved with real estate are the boogeyman and are the bad guys. 
 

What was your comment?  Fuck the developers?  Why is that?  Do you even have a clue what they do?  How is it the developers fault that it takes 8 years to put up a hi-rise and over one year just to get a building permit?  Can you explain that?  
 

Why is it that the government feels the need to add over 26% to the price of a condo in order to get their cut?  How exactly does that help the housing crisis and how exactly does that help to keep prices down?  
 

Why are the developers the bad guys in all of this?  Can you explain that?  I’ve had this conversation with people for the last 20 years. I’d love to have you explain it to me so it makes sense. 

 

Clearly, I'm not paid to come up with those solutions, and even if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't be sharing it with you.  Hint: I'd be sharing it with the government.

 

I'd be the first to admit that solving the great issues of our day is not my area of expertise, unlike how you seem to be an expert at putting assertions out there without supporting sources.