Some rate relief, but damage is reverberating
The market has been primarily driven by rates in the last 18 months. Last year we saw a rapid price drop during the initial hikes followed by rate stability bringing back some exuberance in the spring, and recently depressed sales due to rising rates in the fall. That may be easing as the September rally in the bond market (which drives fixed rates) evaporated in the last couple weeks. The drop of about .4% should bring down fixed rates a similar amount if it holds.
Meanwhile the Bank of Canada extended their rate pause in October. While they are continuing their hawkish messaging and I doubt we will see rate cuts in the near future, it seems pretty clear that we are rounding out a top for this rate cycle. While we may not be quite at peak rates, we are also not likely to need another rate shock as real estate and the broader economy have weakened.
Economic data is deteriorating, which is signaling to the central bank that higher rates are working despite a longer than expected delay. Though inflation has remained stubbornly above the target rate (the Bank of Canada does not expect it to fall back to 2% until 2025) it has calmed down substantially. It all points to rates that are likely to be less volatile than what we’ve seen. That should be some relief to the ~2% of mortgages that renew every month, most at significantly higher rates even without further increases.
Early this year a stabilization in interest rates brought back buyers, swinging the market back in favour of sellers and quickly erasing about half of the preceding price drops. If we’re in for another rate pause, will it do the same thing next year? I doubt it, mainly because we have more inventory now.
In 2022 even though prices were dropping I repeatedly pointed out that this was a very fragile state of the market. Sentiment was in the toilet and sellers had pulled back, but inventory (and hence months of inventory) was still very low. A shock can drive down prices quickly, but as soon as things stabilize market conditions take hold again and prices bounce back. This year all it took was sales to increase by about 15% and the market swung back towards sellers and prices resumed their rise. The spring always brings some optimism (and most of the year’s price gains tend to happen then), but the market becomes less and less sensitive to changes in sales numbers the more inventory there is. In addition, continuous rate pressure and policy shocks that could free up some listings makes me doubt we will repeat the listings drought we saw this year.
On the development side we are starting to see cracks spread from higher rates. Though Westbank calls them malicious rumours, developers with reputations to uphold aren’t usually in the habit of not paying their contractors. Meanwhile for smaller developers that often operate on personal guarantees, the sudden deterioration of conditions can end tragically. Back in 2008 the financial crisis brought apartment construction to a grinding halt in Victoria. Though that was a unique shock that I doubt we’ll repeat, construction is a boom bust industry and that’s especially true for big projects.
If the government wants to keep building going, they will need to de-risk and accelerate market projects (a big component of the recent provincial land use reforms), while scaling up countercyclical non-market housing construction. There’s been a lot of discussion in the housing advocacy space that the provincial housing targets aren’t ambitious enough (especially for Vancouver), but given current conditions are a product of ultra-low rates, even keeping that pace through a markedly more challenging economic environment would be a big accomplishment.
Meanwhile the first few days of November hasn’t brought much change to Victoria’s sales activity. November through January is usually pretty sleepy, so expect sales to slide downwards from now until Christmas. The increase in short term rental units being listed is definitely noticeable though. Nevermind listing prices that don’t reflect the drop in values, at this point in the year a surge in listings in the niche of small downtown condos will quickly overwhelm the small and dwindling pool of buyers. I doubt any sellers of former AirBnB units will find success this year without major price flexibility.
New post: https://househuntvictoria.ca/2023/11/14/playing-with-affordability/
How does a high vacancy rate reduce supply? I don’t understand, as usual.
Started doing some reading on Real Page’s rent algorithm. Basically the algorithm creates a rent cartel with collusion among the bigger landlords to reduce supply by having a higher vacancy rate and by doing so the landlords accept a higher vacancy rate but still maximizes revenues. Works in a similar way as an Oil cartel that reduces supply and thereby creates a shortage but results in higher prices and higher revenues.
Definitely, I would agree that illegal e-bikes, scooters and other devices should not be used on multi-use trails, but should be driven exclusively on the road (where they are legal) or not at all.
Fortunately, I haven’t seen many of these illegal vehicles on my route, which until recently included most the Victoria portion of the galloping goose. I’m not sure if there might be more of these in other parts of the city or outside of 9-5 commuting hours.
Nice to know about the insurance and that inflation has been beaten. At least the price of groceries has gone down.
Which is great.
Not so great is the proliferation of illegally modified e-bikes that can easily attain speeds from the low 40s to the high 50s. Speeds that most of our bike infrastructure and multi-use trails aren’t really designed for. And of course there are a plethora of “e-bikes” sold that aren’t e-bikes at all because they don’t meet the legal requirements of e-bike (typically by having motors 50-100% more powerful than allowed by BC law). Enforcement of this is close to zero and I can’t see that changing given the limited enforcement of far more serious road (and non-road) offenses.
To make others feel better 😉 , below are our house insurance changes in recent years:
2020: +27.7%
2021: +25.2%
2022: +25.6%
2023: +20.7%
Same house (no structural change), same isurancer (for 14 years, no claim), and same policy (no earthquake, sit on bedrock). Tried to check with multiple other insurance companies, but they are even more expensive (probably due to new customer, could also because ours was too low pre 2020).
Yes – over the last ~year insurance rates are way up.
On a related topic, my house insurance with TD arrived and it is up 23%. The agent was saying that a lot of places are up even more? Anybody notice big hikes?
Is the increased inventory all airbnb or is it a greater trend?
Classic victim blaming.
Month to date activity:
Sales: 152 (down 3%)
New lists: 429 (up 14%)
Inventory: 2743 (up 25%)
Increase in inventory week over week in November is pretty surprising. Those AirBnB listings still coming, but not translating into a lot of sales yet.
LMAO, funniest thing I’ve read.
Hawk chose the wrong two weeks to abruptly disappear from the blog.
I guess you just forgot to change your name after suggesting a poster killed their children?
While we’re on the subject, for those who may not have been following along, Whateveriwanttocallmyself used to go by the handle Just Jack many years ago, and there were even a few other handles (that didn’t last long) in between.
Just Jack had a pretty good sense of humour, I remember. Couldn’t have been more wrong about where the RE market was headed, but quite funny.
I don’t really care so long as we don’t have a similar thing with that Rich Coleman dude
If I recall correctly, Ks112 was getting called out by some for his aggressive behaviour.
So, evidently, he decided to transition to VicREanalyst and turn the knob on the dickishness dial from 10 to 6.
Looks to be a good potential project for a contractor.
Yep, started at 1.7 dropped to 1.6 then 999 and held an offer day two weeks after the drop and sold for 1.3.
Wonder if one has to rewrite your agreement with the listing agent to ensure that commission is only due upon an accepted offer regardless of the asking price being met or not?
Not having sold RE in BC I am not familiar with the agreement with selling agents so maybe Marko or Leo can help here.
Is that the one that went for 1.3 after listing at 999?
Asked my insider contact about this listing, someone at the brokerage had seen the place. Apparently they started at like 1.4 or something and has been reducing prices for months. House is old and needs renos, bedroom windows are very small and strange. Plus side is that the suite has its own yard and the owner can enjoy their yard in private.
I thought the rhetorical questions were fairly obvious? But lmao thanks for letting me live rent free in your head :). I don’t think I have actually had many discussions because you don’t bring any value to the discussions other than posting google links which most times are “none-sense” in the real world.
How low can they go? This low:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-housing-minister-tells-people-not-to-help-desperate-scammers-with/
No special insights on that listing. Strategy wise, if they don’t get offers at that price, they kind of set a low and it makes it tough to relist a higher and wait it out. If they do get offers just at ask and they are in no rush to sell, they can always cancel an relsit at higher and settle in for a long wait, but the mindset is already locked in at the lower price in the market. Underpricing in the hot market we just had ended in bidding wars. Underpricing in the current market; I just think is “ballsy” because it might end up without an offer the seller likes or an offer at all. It really depends on the sellers situation if they are under pressure or not. The Falkland house that did it’s dramatic price cut ended up with 13 offers on offer day after sitting on the market for an extended period of time, but that place had an urgency to get it sold (the sellers situation plays a big roll). I tend to be looking at places that last sold in the 1980s/90s (some before that), usually in the downsize, pre-estate, or estate sale positions. You can usually spot the places by the last time they had furniture purchased, colour choices, age of electronics, etc.. Then it’s pretty easy to figure out why it’s for sale with just a bit more research.
To me the main point is that VicRE doesn’t simply deny that he is also KS112. If he denies it, I’d accept that. I just asked him if he was, and he won’t answer, and that’s how this got started. Since I’ve had likely 50+ discussions with KS112 in the past, and 50+ discussions with VicRE, it would be nice for him to give me the courtesy of telling me if he’s the same person. Or at least explain why he chooses not to answer that question.
Busy this weekend so I’ve missed the last 100 comments just catching up on the inquisition here haha.
Looks like the case has been cracked though.
Interesting. But the comparison would be more convincing with controls. What does the AI say if you feed it samples known to be the same author (say Just Jack and Whateveriwanttocallmyself) and known NOT to be the same author (e.g. Leo S and another poster)
Ummm…. (btw you and VicRE are my favorite posters on this blog). Why would it be ballsy? Assuming Angus and me bid $1.20M and there were no higher offers, the seller doesn’t have to accept. Or did something change in contract law? Or do you know something about this listing (distressed seller??).
Here’s some more spelling datapoints:
1) misspelling “a lot” as “alot”
2) “AirBNB” as “air bnb”
Sure other people make these typos, but it is definitely curious that both of these accounts seem to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fhousehuntvictoria.ca%2F+%22alot%22
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fhousehuntvictoria.ca%2F+%22air+bnb%22
Leo could compare the IP addresses of Ks112 and VicREanalyst. But I bet he has better things to do.
Yes, very interesting. Aint “AI” something else!
I just tried it (flintAI.com) , by grabbing and comparing some different sample HHV posts from VicRE and KS112 and got a “90-95% level of certainty”, which is even higher than you got.
Well, on the topic of VicRE and KS112 being the same author… when you add that AI analysis (90-95% certainty) to their same peculiar spelling of “nonsense” as “none sense,” it seems to me that this is a “case closed” and “thanks for the discussion” 🙂
Been seeing a few underpriced listings lately in attempts to get bids, a ballsy move in this market if they only get around asking… However, with that one, the lot is probably why it’s under what the comp sold. It’s a strange lot, no real backyard with most of the yard on the side sharing landscaping and a pond with the neighbour.
I’m interested
Abbey Rd looks good
The increase in the interest rate has had an effect on the number of homes being listed that are under probate. The heirs are less likely today to keep the home as a rental. There are 36 homes in the core that are currently listed that are under probate. That’s only around 3 percent of the total properties listed in the core.
My experience has been that homes that sell under probate sell for slightly less as the executors of the will just want it sold. This is where those 55 and over condo complexes as well as manufactured home parks are going to get hit hard. Another problem is that the homes have had little to none updating over the last decade or two and they are empty. Vacant homes tend to sell for a little bit less than occupied homes.
About 200 houses and stratas that are listed for sale in the core are being sold vacant. That’s not including new construction. This also seems to be more common than in past years.
Those ladies in their 80’s and 90’s are not boomers either. Their children are and are probably still working helping to support their children. Also the possibility of their children moving into the house either to take care of a parent or stay when they’re gone. Boomers will not be adding much supply to the current housing crisis. Find another solution.
Anyone been to this house?
https://realtor.ca/real-estate/26269903/983-abbey-rd-saanich-cordova-bay?utm_source=consumerapp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialsharelisting
Suited in cordova bay across the street from the beach asking 1.15. Neighbor just went for 1.3 without a suite but on a bigger lot.
Don’t forget about targeting a cashflow neutral rental in Maplewood 😉
More about what happened to the two SFHs left by these two ladies (hey, finally talking about housing 😉 ).
After the first lady (age 96) passed away, a Vancouver businessman bought the house, did a total reno with basement suite addition, and left it as a vacation home for his family and clients. After a couple years, he bought another SFH in GH area with ocean view, and let the inlaws (who used to have a condo) move into this house.
When the 2nd lady (age 98) passed away, the same businessman bought it also. He is planning to rezone the lot (the house is in very bad shape) to build a 7000 sq ft side-by-side duplex (with one basement suite on each side) for sale.
Some possibilities:
All the boomers have a surviving partner. There is no household with a “single” boomer.
The surviving partners live to infinity.
Under these assumptions, there won’t be any house for sale for the next few millennia 🙂
Interesting. Just an observation: in our little street with 13+1 families (SFHs plus one garden suite), we had 2 ladies who lived alone into their late 90s and died in their own homes in recent years. There are another 3 single ladies (ages 88, 85, 71) currently living alone in their own homes, and they are all relatively healthy.
I am going to have a staff of 4 care workers on rotation, so the burden isn’t on one individual and they start to get bitchy. In exchange they each get one 12′ x 12′ heated room with wi-fi and two full sized bathrooms to share between them, plus the kitchen. I have another kitchen down stairs if needed.
So $717.15 per month from cpp x 12 = $86058.80…This easily pays my property taxes and all the bills for the year ( I live in Langford and stews coming back).
Then $778.45 per month oas x 12 = $9341.40…This will easily feed me for a year.
I’m not even touching my savings here.
I will have a full functioning care unit in my own house, while living in an appreciating investment vehicle exempt from any capital gains tax and it will cost me nothing.
That’s the plan anyway.
Very interesting, I quickly grabbed about 2000 words from both KS112 and VicRE (only across a few posts, so not exactly scientific) and ran them through the first free Stylometry tool I could find (https://flintai.com/) and it’s estimation was that there was a 70% – 75% chance that the two authors were the same. I have no idea how common false positives are, so I tried again with Patriotz (first other poster that caught my eye) vs VicRE and it was only 40%. Easy for anyone else to try with larger samples or more authors. Not a slam dunk but doesn’t debunk the conspiracy theory either.
The samples I used are available here:
https://pastebin.com/tbayLFgK (KS112)
https://pastebin.com/hNXu52bv (VicREanalyst)
https://pastebin.com/xYbzSr1q (patriotz)
“Well sure if you pick 1000 boomers who all have partners who can take care of themselves.”
Rent the rooms…then it costs you nothing, with 3 or 4 bedrooms they will care for you. I’m gen x and that’s my plan. My care workers will live in my house and it won’t cost me a dime.
Average age of a male in BC is 79, women a few years more. The number who hit ninety and are not living in a home or with kids is pretty low.
I read the obituaries these days to see what my friends have been doing.
Well sure if you pick 1000 boomers who all have partners who can take care of themselves.
Barrister- 1000 boomers can die tomorrow and not one property come to market. Why? Because they have a partner that stays in their residence. Once a house is paid for, there is no cheaper place to live. $500 a month for taxes, $300 for utilities, $200 for insurance, $500 for food, maybe $1500-2000 a month. You can’t get an apartment for that. Care homes are $3000+. Many boomers will be living into their 90’s. We’re a hardy bunch.
Bragging about wealth, connections and investment prowess is not exactly rare in our culture or on HHV
Over the years we’ve had “400% annual returns” and “ my xxxxxxxx mansion on 26000 square feet is an insignificant portion of my net worth” among countless other zingers.
“What puzzles me is when one person uses different “names” posting at the same time, how and whom can/should I trust”
Gwendolyn: My ideal has always been to love some one of the name of Ernest. There is something in that name that inspires absolute confidence.
-The Importance of Being Ernest by Oscar Wilde
I found a picture of Patrick:
I have read that we have hit the baby boomer tipping point where they are either dying, moving into nursing homes or downsizing faster than they are retiring. In a few short years they will be dying faster than retiring. This might have a real impact in Victoria.
Some people have too much time on their hands, posting under different names, giving each other pats on the back (LMAO) and googling all day is one way to pass time.
I think there are people who might have changed “name” here (some might more than once). That is fine to me, as people can change and should be allowed to (I added my english name after I came to Canada).
What puzzles me is when one person uses different “names” posting at the same time, how and whom can/should I trust? 😉
If I am ever going to ride a bike in the city it’s going to have a hemi. See below.
I am relatively fit and still prefer an e bike. I even used one over a decade ago when I was very fit. I hate biking up hills – really truly hate it.
Why are some people so judgmental? What is it with people assuming that everyone else should be exactly like them or must be a non-functioning person?
I bike to work because I’m a fit, 30-something man with a short commute and who is okay sweating a bit before work.
Legitimately, 95% of the population is nothing like me.
E-bikes democratize cycling. They make hills, hot days and long commutes much more practical, especially for people who aren’t in excellent physical shape.
What’s so hard to understand about that?
Just be careful on the bicycles. There is a lot more gravity than when we were twenty.
Did you notice the difference in the hyphen in the example you’re trying to show 😉
I do love to boast about my “insider contacts” in RE and government ;), almost as much as calling out b.s. content in posts, I must be the only one who thinks many government union workers are not worth their pay. And when did I become a tenant in an apartment?
I looked and VicREanalyst appeared on the scene after Ks112 took a hike.
Nice work, Patrick.
VicRE,
Ever since you started posting on HHV, you’ve reminded me of a previous prolific HHV poster named ks112.
He’s left now. You might be interested in the similarities between the two of you.
Like you, he:
– worked in finance area in Victoria. And boasted about his financial friends
– Owned a full house that he rented out, but was also a tenant himself in a different apartment
– Loved to talk about salaries that other people make
– Picked on certain HHVers, and love to “LOL” posts. Like this one, where he complains about introvert posting too many links on HHV https://househuntvictoria.ca/2020/12/07/1981-anatomy-of-victorias-housing-crash/#comment-74680
–
Sound familiar?
Anyway, another funny “co-incidence” came to mind today when I saw you type the unusual misspelling of “nonsense” as “none sense”. I had to Google that.. forgive me as I know how much that HHVers “googling things” seems to bother you. Anyway, according to Google, there are very few hits on that peculiar “none sense” spelling.
But here’s the funny thing ….., one of those few “none sense” hits is from our own HHV, posted by this same KS112 (see pic)
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2020/12/21/where-would-we-be-without-dropping-interest-rates/#comment-74895
So I have to ask… VicRE are you the “second coming “ of our own KS112 from years ago?
Or is it all just a bunch of co-incidences and “none sense”?
Sorry I should be less judgemental towards people who aren’t as fit as me.
Pre-ebike time we normally drove with our bikes to Borden and biked from there to downtown, once every few weeks. With e-bikes (class 1, pedal assist), we bike from home to downtown 3 to 4 times per week in summer and 1 to 2 times per week in winter (when there is no snow). I think e-bikes make us more active instead of “lazy”.
One of our neighbours, parents (70+, live in the new garden suite) bought e-bikes recently to do the same as us (probably ride even longer distances), and their daughter also has a cargo e-bike to take her two young kids to/from school, and for grocery shopping.
BTW, class 1 pedal assist e-bike is not a motorcycle, it doesn’t move if you don’t pedal.
Same. I bike a lot on my non-e-bike but am reluctant to go to Hillside Mall or downtown, for example, because it’s too far. An e-bike would increase my range.
Have you used one? I bike mostly everywhere (non-ebike), but sometimes you’re just tired. electric assist is still work, it just allows you to go farther. I’d likely pull out the bike even more often if I had one instead.
Why are some people so lazy? You don’t need an ebike. Can’t stomach a commute on a pedal bike? What is the fanaticism with ebikes?
I don’t get it.
Okay. Then do you have a report or a study to support your claim that “Many of the injuries are innocent pedestrians getting hit (by bikes)”? Remember that “anecdote is not data”.
Dude sounds just like Marko!
I don’t need to present myself as anything on here, there is no need. Between your google links and Frank’s absolute none-sense, basic rational concepts will sound credible and ground breaking.
Seriously give your head a shake, you and Frank are arguing that E bikes are dangerous because they have the ability to go faster than peddle bikes, well shit don’t go so fast then when riding, what’s next? The earth is flat?
Freedom,
That study was about riders only. My comment was referring to the pedestrians that sometimes get hit or killed by these bikes. The study you refer to is irrelevant, as it contains nothing about pedestrian injuries.
Patrick, if you really want to know the facts, but have not bothered to read the report or the study in the links posted here wrt bike safety and injuries, here is the text from the report (link sent by Totoro):
“Overall, the report concludes that the main culprit in all bicycle (regular and electric) injuries was the rider’s own behavior (44 percent) — a steering error, for example — while 32 percent was road conditions. And the majority of these accidents affected only the rider . Two-thirds of the 110,000 traffic victims treated in Dutch hospitals last year were cyclists, VeiligheidNL says. The survey was conducted with hospitalized riders between July 2020 and June 2021.”
Many of the injuries are innocent pedestrians getting hit.
Is that due to the bike, or the rider? Edit: looks like freedom has some info on that. 🙂
If you want to credibly present yourself as the latest HHV expert on what constitutes “nonsense,” at least you should learn to spell it.
It’s one word… “nonsense.”
No I think he said he was an appraiser.
Frank again is just spewing none sense, just because E bikes can travel that fast doesn’t mean you have to. Jesus christ, most cars can travel up to 200km/h, doesn’t mean you have to drive that fast. These comments are so stupid and pointless, much like some of the people listing their houses at peak prices expecting a miracle and wondering why their house is sitting.
Whateveriwant: You may have said before or not….are you a building inspector? You appear to have a good handle on what is going on so…. I was wondering if you know or could estimate how many homes in Victoria area still have PolyB plumbing? Maybe others here as well? Patrick? VicRe?
Whatever , that pretty much sums it up . I would also add that all this demand for housing people are pumping will quickly evaporate imo
Here you go freedom 2008.
Although, I would suggest those that are pro real estate take a diazepam before reading.
The average Canadian household now owes about $1.87 for every dollar of disposable income they have, whereas the U.S. owes $1.01, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The high debt in Canada largely stems from ever-growing home prices, driven by greater population growth here compared to the U.S. as well as less scarring from the 2008 financial crisis, resulting in greater mortgage debt.
The pandemic also saddled Canadians with even more debt, as interest rates sat at historic lows for two years, incentivizing tens of thousands of people to jump into the housing market, even though home prices had skyrocketed. As a result, people who bought in the pandemic are carrying massive mortgages and homeowners will be adjusting to much higher interest rates when they need to renew on a five-year cycle — with some households unable to afford their new mortgages.
We won’t escape the recession forever. When the housing market busts, there will be a significant price correction to bring it back to more normal levels. Followed by the better part of a decade deleveraging. Canada also has more of its economic activity wrapped up in housing, meaning that jobs in the housing sector, such as real estate agents and housing construction, will take a hit.
Often bubbles go on for longer than they should, but what we have in Canada is unsustainable. If the housing market falls, it might put Canada in a deeper recession. But one silver lining is it could create more affordable housing, helping prospective buyers who have been locked out of the market for years.
There’s a lot of options out there. I imagine physical stores are pretty upmarket when it comes to e-bikes but this article is relevant: electrek.co/2023/11/05/here-are-the-best-electric-bikes-you-can-buy-at-every-price-level/
From: https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/more-than-40-townhouses-under-construction-damaged-in-vaughan-fire-1.6633664#:~:text=Flames%20erupted%20around%204%20a.m.,
I wonder if these fires will become more prevalent in the coming months.
An e-bike would be fun and useful, but they’re still too expensive. I can’t stomach dropping two, three, four grand on one. Not at this point in my life, anyway.
Zach,
Frank isn’t “conflating” anything. He said some of them are traveling 40-50 (faster than the 32km/h) speed limit, which is absolutely correct. It is a trivial DIY project to de-restrict some e-bikes to travel faster than 32 km/hour. https://youtu.be/8feemzxKS1U?si=ZhK5dV_nNom8dmRT
btw) Winnipeg is proposing to lower the e-bike speed to 20km/h like Calgary has done . This article describes the speeding Winnipeg e-bikes like Frank has seen. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/2023/10/27/city-eyes-active-transportation-speed-limit
Totoro,
Actually, the 44% is for all, Not just e-bike. As the link you sent says:
“Overall, the report concludes that the main culprit in all bicycle (regular and electric) injuries was the rider’s own behavior (44 percent)”.
Below is the link of a scientific study on “ScienceDirect” about e-bike safety. It says:
“Conclusion
Our findings provide support that EB users have a poorer health status than CB users, while general health status is unrelated to the likelihood and severity of bicycle crashes. EBs enable more vulnerable groups to cycle or keep cycling but, after controlling for bicycle use, EB users are not more likely to be involved in a crash or to sustain severe injuries. As older females run a higher risk on an EB and are more likely to fall while (dis)mounting, we recommend to promote EBs enabling safer (dis)mounting such as by reduced saddle height.”
See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140520301651
Ebikes carry a higher risk of severe injury. You are more likely to end up in ER with an ebike than a pedal bike accident. Even in the Netherlands where there is very good, safe, bike infrastructure the rate of serious injury is much higher. In the Netherlands 44% of e-bike accidents are user error and 32% are road conditions.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/13/23023361/e-bike-injuries-increased-risk-netherlands
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ebike-injuries-idUSKBN1YT0MV
It seems to me that some people have a fixed opinion on everything, even the things they have never experienced and/or don’t have facts about. Haha.
Now let’s go back to housing 😉
I’d be super-happy to live in a situation where I could get around, or get around more, by bike or e-bike if one can do so safely. I think you sort of have to recognize though that you’re taking your chances when doing this in town, as there are so many inattentive drivers, and the whole thing with older drivers who just shouldn’t be on the road anymore (I think we need better rules/enforcement in this area), so I wouldn’t personally be comfortable with it unless the bike lane is physically separated, at least not on busier streets.
In a similar vein, I’d also be quite happy to drive a small car (would prefer it, actually), but not when I’m being bracketed/tail-gated by the workers trying to get home in their F150s.
It’s interesting when you see a city that’s really geared to biking, like Amsterdam, and you start doing it yourself & see it works very nicely there.
So probably just a question of enough public acceptance to actually change behaviours and getting to a certain tipping point. The bike lanes in Vancouver, for instance, are better & better utilized. So maybe that will come here too over time.
We live in North Saanich & drive large vehicles, so we’re part of the problem on multiple accounts.
You seem to be conflating bikes with motorcycles and mopeds. E-bikes do not travel at 40-50 km/hour without active tapering by the driver.
E-bikes sold in BC have a max speed of 32 km/hr. You have to actively break the speed limiter on the bike or buy an aftermarket battery/motor combination to to faster than this.
There is also no requirement to travel at the “max speed” on an e-bike, just as a car driver has control over the speed of their vehicle, so too do e-bike users. If you don’t want to travel at 32 km/hr on an e-bike, then drive slower.
Also recommend bone density scan for seniors and the like (covered by BC MSP for those over age 65) regardless what activity you do or not, as one can fall even walking.
Actually proper exercises can prevent bone density loss, and are one of the treatments for low bone density.
Frank – you are not safe if the environment is not safe.
I’ve encountered people riding their ebikes and a lot of them are flying down the street. One error and you are most likely in the hospital. We’re all well aware of the how dangerous motorcycles are, mainly because some of them are driving like maniacs. At 40-50 kph, any accident, and they will happen, is going to be life altering. I’ll stick to being protected by my gas guzzling van or suv thank you. My safety is more important than the environment.
If you are fifty, doing a bone density scan might be rather wise if you doing any activity that involves a potential fall. A friend of mine really shattered his hip skating in Oak Bay two years ago. .
Correct. My views on e-bikes are skewed because of an incident last year. My niece was visiting Victoria, and came by to see us on a rented e-bike. It was her first day riding it. While she was at our house it started drizzling rain. She left on the e-bike. At the first turn she must have hit a slippy spot due to the rain, and wiped out. She smashed her face causing lacerations and broken teeth. Nothing more serious than that, thank God.
Of course this can also happen walking or riding a regular bike, and it was her first day on an e-bike. If you read my message, I was just trying to be nice by reminding you to be safe because as you know these e-bikes can travel faster than regular bikes and harder to control. There are lots of concern over serious e-bike accidents https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/concerns-grow-over-safety-of-e-bikes-amid-reports-of-accidents-192619077845
So no e-bike for me. That’s because I’m a big chicken, and my only advice for others is to be safe and aware of the risks. Hiking up hills is enough for me.
Just finished looking at a couple of business reports and they seem a bit worrisome. Difficult as they say.
Hi Patrick, you sounded like you haven’t used an e-bike yet? We bought e-bikes to replace the regular ones because we are aging, and e-bikes give us a lot more miles and pleasure, especially with the improved bike lanes in COV. Below was I posted on local reddit a year ago about it:
“I love the fresh air, the birds’ singing, the wind on my face, and the wave and smile from neighbours when I pass them by, the sense of freedom, the good pace of not too fast and not too slow that I can look around to observe things and feel being part of the community. Whats not to love? Of course No1 thing is that we always follow the rules of the road to be safe.”
Just heard onni is also in trouble
This statement is a major misunderstanding both of how developers plan future builds, and of how free markets work.
Developers spend time to learn what local markets demand and they have better avenues than a “drive by” on the local street.
Free markets allow people who wish to purchase a unit with 0 or 1 parking space to do so, and others who desire 2 spaces to buy different units at a higher price point. This is what it means when we “let the market decide”.
I believe this is what is described as a “nanny state”. Are adult humans not capable of determining their own needs, and if those needs change in the future can they not sell and move to a different home without blaming the government for not “thinking for me”?
Also, I’d hate to live in a society full of people who blame the government for every life decision they made that later had to be changed when life circumstances change. That’s a pretty sad place to live if everyone thinks like that.
Are these selling at this price point? I guess this would be 1.4M at the peak?
I agree. However, allow street parking is a cash cow for the city because a portion of property tax include street parking (at least 20 years ago it was).
I’m against all on street parking, free or pay. There shouldn’t be street parking anywhere, and also get rid of planters and under use bike lanes.
During rush hours, bus and all emergency vehicles have 100% priority on 2 lanes if there are 4 or more lanes available full stop. And all bus stop shall be off to one side of the road if there is space to do so.
IMHO, by priority public transportation, get rid of on street parking and construction red tapes would automatically decrease unnecessary traffic and increase housing density in the core.
The real problem is market failure due to the city providing free parking on the street. If you want to let the market decide whether to include parking together with units the city should be charging an appropriate price for on-street parking IMHO.
Off-topic:
B.C. has added 600 family physicians in one year after implementing the new payment model.
https://cfjctoday.com/2023/11/01/one-year-after-it-was-announced-new-pay-model-for-b-c-family-physicians-showing-signs-of-success/
So if a developer drives the neighbourhood, and sees abundant available street parking, he might correctly conclude that his tenants can street park, and build no parking units.
So in 20 years, if you drive the Victoria streets and see every residential road crammed with street parking, are you going to blame the developers for not making parking spots? Of course not, you’ll blame bad city planning for not mandating for sufficient on-site parking. That’s why it’s the city responsibility to insure minimum parking , not the developers. Just like the city needs to make sure there other essential resources like water, heat and electricity available. City Planning for sufficient parking is important too.
Sorry, but we have been retired for 15 years (thus “freedom_2008”). Haha
Sure, but that’s what the townhomes planned for next door are for, right?
Have you driven past that stretch of McKenzie lately? Or checked it out on Google satellite? You’d be hard-pressed to convince me that what is there at the moment is anywhere close to the best utilisation of that land.
EDIT: This is the proposed townhome development.
I might have missed this debate earlier in this or other threads, but are there people actually arguing that we need housing to come with parking maximums, as opposed to separate argument that we could eliminate parking minimums?
Parking maximums would be an example of an unnecessary zoning ordinance that makes it harder for developers to build the homes that people want.
Whereas, eliminating parking minimums would allow developers to gauge the demand within a specific region for parking spaces and build the number that they determine prospective buyers of these units want. And then prospective buyers and renters can choose to live in a place with more or less parking available.
One is a market-based mechanism to offer more flexibility (removing parking minimums), and the other is just another variation on NIMBY zoning restrictions (adding unnecessary zoning restrictions like parking maximums).
If we’re only talking about 1-2 person households with no kids – there is already no housing “crisis” for them. They often don’t need (or want) space or a car, and have all kinds of affordable options. The crisis appears when it is a family with young kids. Families with kids need affordable big places, with parking spots and green spaces. You know – all the things you had as a kid. And when families can’t get that, that’s my definition of a “housing crisis” – and we have that problem now. Tearing down SFH, and weakening parking requirements will just make the family housing crisis worse. Governments should stand firm on mandating new builds contain family suitable housing (3+ bdr) with parking, and not just “hope” that it happens.
Will have to wait and see, because there are several layers of governing bodies applying their dictation on top of one another.
And, please wake me up when the government legislate land usage for housing in empty unused “farms” and “green space” on the Saanich peninsula and Sooke Hills.
Re: 600 sq ft apartments
The latest census for Saanich shows that the majority of households are 1 or 2 person. 600 sq ft is plenty for 1 person, manageable for 2.
The 801 McKenzie development says 1, 2, and 3 bdrm units. Depending on the ratios, that sounds about right, based on the census numbers.
Your statement is the typical example I’m talking about. You still own a car (2004 Honda) , and a parking spot. And good for you, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we are talking about people expected to be living with NO car, and NO parking spot.
Well let’s wait until you retire and you can tell us what you actually do. You may still have your car, and a parking spot. In the meantime, be careful out there. An e-bike accident is no joke for someone close to retirement age.
Sure. If you really want to get to personal level, our family has only one car since 2007 and it sits most of the time in the carport now, as we put more mileage in our e-bikes (than car) for the past 3.5 years. Eventually it (a 2004 Honda) will retire and we will be happily using car share then.
Gablecraft (the developer) is aggressive on the pricing currently – https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26058749/3433-trumpeter-st-colwood-royal-bay
It has slowed down re-sales for sure.
Removing the requirement for parking spots advocates for less parking spots. Just like removing requirements for single family zoning advocates for multi-units. In both of these examples, no one is suggesting that they are “forced ” to do anything. That’s why we use the word “advocate” which is to support, not “force”.
If you re-read the HHV messages, you will find that no one (including me) has claimed that the government is “ forcing anyone into anything”, so your comment above is groundless. If you’re going to accuse someone of saying something, you could at least confirm that they actually said that.
I live in a building with an older demographic that is behind the times and still drives Lexus, Mercedes, and even a few Cadillacs believe it or not with Frank Sinatra playing on the audio. As a result, at our last AGM we didn’t get enough votes to invest in upgrading our EV infrastructure so we are now up to five Teslas and two EV Hyundais in the parkade that don’t have charging. I’ve run into three of the owners and asked them how they deal with it.
One lady charges at work and said her employer will install more chargers if demand increases
One guy goes to a gym that is close to a charger and chargers there while he works out
One couple just superchargers once a week while they shop for groceries
You have EVs with over 500 km of range and this is steadily improving. You don’t have to charge every night. As far as fast chargers just let the market deal with it. In Europe I’ve already seen a few gas stations install Tesla superchargers + multiple other fast chargers, open a restaurant/caffe and they are crazy busy. Across the street the gas station that hasn’t adapted and only pumps gas is dead.
You’ve completely misread the B.C. regulations. They are removing the ability for governments to mandate parking near transit. That’s it. They are not forcing anyone into anything.
Developers will still build parking if they think that will sell better and the cost is worth it for the higher prices they can charge
Which rules specifically? All the recent zoning moves have been to relax government rules and let the free market work more effectively. Less restrictions on what can be built, and less restrictions on how much parking must be included
Not sure I’ve really seen this in practice too much. A lot of the density being built is ridiculously expensive; therefore, it makes the SFH next door look like a steal. Think Aryze building $2 million dollar townhomes in Fairfield. If you have an older house next door all of a sudden $1.5 million looks like a deal. Or the new Jawl building on Oak Bay Ave where they were pre-selling condos north of $2 million. If you have a house behind the building on Redfern or Davie once again you are asking less than a condo next door. Also, the vast majority of these stratas have professional gardening companies there on a weekly basis (nicely upkept) and if your SFH next door is a teardown then at least the builder or developer wanting to purchase it knows infrastructure is close by.
Sure a three story MMI might impact your quality of life psychologically if it is something that bothers you, but value, I don’t know.
I’ve already listed the various strategies to avoiding MMI next door….buy next to newer houses, on a bare land strata (government will have a tough time figuring this one out as it is very complicated), etc.
The objection isn’t “housing near transit”, it is advocating a separate eco-agenda for “housing without parking spots”.
——- Because removing requirements for car parking likely worsens the family housing crisis for the majority of families that require a car for work, daycare, school etc,
—— The solution is simple, mandate parking spots , as adding parking doesn’t cost that much “It is estimated that below-grade parking lots cost about $25,000 per space to build” https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/parking-requirements-apartments-housing-canada#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20below,a%20wrench%20into%20the%20mix.
car.
—— The typical “less cars” HHV advocate attitude is “well I do need a car for work etc., but I’m a special case . Others should take the bus”. These car-less future advocates should literally “walk their talk” and first get rid of their own car before shaping how others will live.
I am not an activist, but am curious and would like to know how you come to this conclusion and are there factual support? Thanks.
You mean nimbys? Exclusionary zoning is social engineering. They don’t look at it that way of course, since most people only apply the term to policies that don’t suit them.
I don’t disagree with housing near transit, but I disagree with activists that constantly want to social engineer how others shall live.
Victoria is not running out of land at anytime soon, and what we need is better infrastructure with growth instead of pushing purely density agenda. Why don’t we let the free market be the driving force?
The same people that put restrictions on growth now complaining that there is a lack of housing.
There is no problem with more property rights, but why can we let the free market does the heavy lifting instead of constantly adding more rules and regulations by social engineers want to be?
Sure. But that elsewhere is right here whether we like it or not. Thanks but sorry.
Goddamn lefties advocating for housing near transit
Increased property rights = communism. The logic is bulletproof
You realize that Pierre Poilievre is advocating for the exact same things when he says fire gatekeepers right?
how’s royal bay holding up?
Awesome!
Animal Farm — George Orwell
Definitely. But transit planning is land use planning and vice versa.
More density around transit stations supports better service, and allowing for more density elsewhere justifies transit expansions there.
With the last two bills, the province has directly linked transit expansion and housing expansion. That gives people who do use transit and other non-car means of getting around a more affordable place to live. Everyone who doesn’t want to take transit is free to live elsewhere.
I used to take the bus all the time in Vancouver. At that time, 5-6 years ago and pre-covid, it was still packed but the experience of decent bus and light rail infrastructure was worth it. In Calgary, bussing was just plain terrible so we drove everywhere.
In Victoria, I know it’s crazy to say but Ive never taken the bus in 3 years. And yet I’ll happily ride my bike in the rain on my way to and from work because the route next to my home has some of the best bike infrastructure in the city.
I think it’s pretty clear that any discussion around getting people to commute without a car has to start with better infrastructure, not just exhorting people to change their habits “to protect the climate and save the planet”.
At the end of the day, transportation for most people is purely practical. If you cannot get from point A to point B safely, reliably and conveniently with mass transit options, then it’s a non starter for most people.
It’s a pretty complex, but doesn’t address the missing middle home owner as it is mostly one-bedroom suites of around 600 square feet each. It isn’t impossible to raise a family of four in 600 square feet as the real estate agent on this blog iterates but it is far from ideal.
The problem is that while we have families in one-bedroom condos, just around the corner there are homes of 2,500 square feet with only one or two people living in them. What we need to address is that baby boomers are holding onto their properties longer and aging in-place. Many of these homes have basement suites that are not being rented as the house owners don’t have mortgages and don’t want strangers living in their home. Add to this the government program to defer property taxes so that the retirees don’t have to make a choice to downsize to a one-bedroom and we end up with a bottle neck in the supply of housing.
How housing is distributed is a major cause of the housing crisis at this time. It won’t be forever and in the next decade or so we may have a glut of housing as baby boomers will have to leave their houses due to physical and mental health reasons. That will free up single family homes of which some will have unoccupied basement suites that can house six or more people.
I think it was more about how he was getting a little swayed by the arguments of this one overzealous neighbour (more specifically about the trees), but not enough to actually advocate or take action against it. I’m actually surprised he would even have been approached considering where he lives. He’s quite a few blocks away and he wouldn’t be affected by this AT ALL. Perhaps the NIMBYs are casting a wide net to garner support. I’ll ask him when I see him next over the holidays. I’m thinking it’s more like this: one day you get a flyer in the mail or some neighbour knocking at your door or coming up to you while you are mowing the lawn and going, “hey did you hear what they are going to be DOING across from Rainbow park? Like, the streets weren’t designed for all those cars, and WHATABOUTHEGARRYOAKS?!” And you just kind of go, “hmm, yeah good point, I don’t know. That sucks about the trees.” Then neighbour goes, “hey would you be interested in helping us fund a lawsuit?” “Ummm, yeah, let me talk to the wife about it.” And then that’s it. Basically just being polite and saying anything you can to end the conversation. Though some people are really good at rallying the troops, and they think if they scream the loudest, they must be right, right?
I agree that the both the proposed condo building and the townhouse complex look really nice. The other side of Mackenzie is already apartments, so it makes sense to me to have the other side also be apartments with access from the side streets or behind. If the sewers and storms get upgraded as a result, then great. They probably are 50+ years old and need replacing anyways.
Had an interesting discussion with my next door neighbour who is a retired small house builder. He was pointing out that there is risk in buying a single family home in the city since you have to consider that a missing middle unit can be built besides it and that it might lower the value of your house. Worse still your house could end up close to a new density node. He also noted that these nodes are not linked to present day transit routes and you can run buses anywhere. Also the six and ten are minimums and either the city or the province can make those heights whatever they want without any public hearings or input. Interesting discussion.
801 Mackenzie seems like a perfect location for a large condo building.
Right next to a bus stop with regular service to downtown https://maps.app.goo.gl/yMpxUfZY48yGLmB1A
Plus another that services UVic https://maps.app.goo.gl/KPtTNHEdFPzriukK6
Park across the road, close to Saanich Plaza, a few schools nearby (elementary schools are a bit far though).
The new condo / townhouse building at 991 Mackenzie is nice https://maps.app.goo.gl/r9ZooFApNzEiinri8
I honestly don’t know what people are complaining about.
…
From: https://financialpost.com/real-estate/shorter-term-fixed-mortgage-rates-losing-appeal-cmhc
The hunt for cost certainty……
You want a deal on housing then go to Fort McMurray.
Compared to October 2022, the total residential average price in Fort McMurray went down by about 16 per cent, from about $336,000 in October 2022 to about $282,000 in October this year. The price of a single family home, which once was more than $700,000 about a decade ago is now $467,848. Some condo prices are as low as $35,000. Yet the rental market is still tight and rents are high.
I’ll take lower density and driving my ass to Goldstream Park, thanks very much.
Yep, street chargers will pop out of the ground like mushrooms. If only things were that easy.
James, are the street chargers metered? I assume we can turn a profit on them?
I’d take the backhalf and put a duplex on it. Or sell it off 1% at a time.
They install street chargers. They’ve got some in europe already.
Totoro, why this focus on a townhouse by the way. According to Marko your kids can live perfectly well in a condo and raise a small family. Lots of condos in town for them or out in the west shore.
Exactly what happens with street parking if most vehicles are electric. Huge demand for fast chargers?
Togetherness LOL
If anyone is interested in 50% ownership of a SFH -> https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26262185/3885-wilkinson-rd-saanich-marigold
27 Active listings at Mount Washington. That number got as low as 9 several times in the last couple of years. Circa 2012/2013 there were up to 90 active listings at times.
Not seeing much softening of listing prices yet, though.
That claim needs a reference, although note that the Expropriation Act already has pathways to dispense with a hearing.
@CuriousCat – A couple of things there. One – it’s troubling if your brother doesn’t seem that NIMBY always means roadblocks to construction, and that almost always includes parking. Leo has expounded on this before but it’s either too much parking or not enough parking. It’s always some BS about parking.
Second – they probably think they have a strong position with the Garry Oaks, and it’s definitely stronger than parking. However, there are Garry Oaks all over the south Island. I, for one, would rather that my children have a relatively affordable home than save a few Garry Oaks, and that’s coming from someone who really cares about the environment.
NIMBYs be NIMBYs. Any chance you can talk to your BIL and sort him out?
Of course there’s more people in parks in Zagreb. They live in apartments and don’t have their own green space backyards (with gardens) like Victorians with SFH have, so they gotta head to the Zagreb park for green space.
A rezoning was required before for a garden suite and you can imagine how those went.
weren’t they there before though, legal or otherwise?
https://househuntvictoria.ca/2023/11/06/some-rate-relief-but-damage-is-reverberating/#comment-107303
If the buildings are within the rules and the developer owns the land, it should be built.
The city will require changes to the infrastructure as required as part of the build.
At the end of the day what these people are arguing for is space for THEIR CARS instead of housing for PEOPLE. And unless we want to reduce immigration to zero and beyond (which I also want for now but that is another conversation) this position is just unacceptable to me.
We were talking about green space not loss of cars but if parking does become a problem people will have to adapt and use services like Modo or renting a car.
Not my experience. Even a place in a poor country like Zagreb has a modern tram that can take you from anywhere in the city to the base of a mountain/park about 100x the size of Mount Doug. Think a tram taking you from Vic West to Goldstream Park….if we had enough density it would work.
Kind of like Vancouver. It wasn’t difficult to get to the grouse grind from my place in Burbnaby without a car. Only made possible thanks to density.
I’m hoping the province’s middle income housing available only to bc residents plus new coops provide some affordable housing.
I was at dinner yesterday with family, and I was speaking with my brother in law about these changes. He brought up a proposed 6-story condo being proposed in his neighbourhood of Swan Lake https://abstractdevelopments.com/801-mckenzie-project-update/#el-220ae68e and also a townhouse project next door for 25 townhomes. https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/townhouse-project-narrowly-approved-for-swan-lake-area-6634904
I believe he said that Abstract already owns the 6 lots but the neighbours are fighting REALLY hard to block this. He said he was approached by one neighbour asking if he would go in on a lawsuit very recently because of the numerous Garry Oak trees on the lot. My brother-in-law said the issue isn’t NIMBY (haha) but that there wouldn’t be enough parking for the townhouses, therefore increased cars taking up street parking, and that the current infrastructure wouldn’t be able to handle all these extra homes. (I think he’s talking about sewer/storm/etc, not sure, the restaurant was loud.)
I don’t think that the location of the proposed development is within 400m of a transit hub, though maybe Abstract will pursue this option in order to get this pushed through?
Personally I’m hoping this new legislation helps to move along the proposed redevelopment of those boarded up houses on Tillicum.
I don’t remember this at all and I was over 25,000 steps a day average during covid. Even at the peak of covid Mount Doug was not crowded whatsoever. We use to walk around Elk Lake a few times a week and that was dead too.
The thing I actually like about parks in Zagreb where I spend a decent amount of time is they are vibrant, like you see people moving around.
OK, but keeping prices from increasing isn’t the outcome most renters and YIMBY-minded owners are hoping and expecting will result from increased density.
I’m pretty sure most are hoping and expecting that prices will decline, resulting in affordability the likes of which we had a number of years ago.
But you and Tom Davidoff agree that that degree of affordability isn’t on the menu. So…lots of people are going to be verrrry disappointed.
I think that is my point. I am not suggesting existing parks will disappear. I am saying that if you do not plan for them before you add the density you will not end up with a more dense city with better and more accessible parks. COVID was a good demonstration of just how busy our parks got when people were not leaving town for recreation. As you add more people and reduce private transportation the pressure on local parks will increase.
You probably have a car. Public transport is not ideal for this type of exploration and recreation. When I was in Europe, recreation was taking public transportation to a public beach. While enjoyable, there were more people than bears. If you want to bump into bears every now and then you will need to keep some of the greenspace and you should probably allow for people owning cars.
In terms of nodds, I think absorbing most of North Park for high density would be a good start. I believe that the new legislation allows for expropriation of houses as of right without a hearing. (correct me if I am wrong about that). It is a good location near to schools and parks.
Totoro, you might be moving sooner than you think.
I guarantee you that we will. The province is anticipating it that’s why they have ministerial override clauses on all this stuff. My bet is they will not wield those prior to an election, then push harder after.
I’m hopeful that we will see a lot of pushback at municipal level
I think the City of Victoria will adopt the provincial guidelines. The Council is strongly in favour of making things work for housing and their own missing middle program is flawed. If Marko’s views are that townhouses would be preferred for builders this is what is most likely to happen.
Nimbyville.
https://www.vicnews.com/news/utterly-irresponsible-view-royal-mayor-faces-criticism-for-motion-to-pause-new-development-654053
View Royal wants audit of province’s new housing legislation
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/view-royal-wants-audit-of-provinces-new-housing-legislation-7812889
Sounds like EV sales are going to tank if people won’t need a vehicle or have a place to plug one in. At least an ICE vehicle can sit somewhere on the street. Sales of horses might go up.
We are living in Europe and have been without a car for the entire time (left in summer 2023). We did rent a car once for a weekend to do a trip to a small town. Other than that there is so much density – and infrastructure to support it – even as a family with younger kids we don’t need it. In fact parking is such a shit show here that I feel bad for the people with cars. In addition to the expense it’s also a lot of responsibility/stress.
Meanwhile, in Victoria I try to take the bus with other folks my age. We are educated with good jobs. One friend literally said “I don’t do the bus.” Finally convinced another friend to take the bus (there were 4 of us going out for a Friday evening double date). Guess what? Bus too full and drove right by us. We took a cab. I’m now too embarrassed to go on about how awesome the bus is.
If we want massive density that is great but we really need more infrastructure. Dedicated bus lane? Try some kind of tram or something. Unfortunately no one is thinking that long term. We’re always fixing problems today that were caused by people decades ago.
Marko, correct if I am wrong but you are allowed to build two townhomes on a single lot. (technically a duplex but townhome style).
Actually, no they don’t have a choice otherwise they would build townhomes. It would make no sense to build a four unit condo-plex if you can build four townhomes. In the COV the missing middle is only allowing townhomes on extra wide corner lots, which don’t exist. On a non-corner lot you have to build a multi-plex, there is no townhome option.
Totoro: First we both agree that the ten story and six are only where they they decide to place a traffic nod. Can we also agree that they can place one where ever they want).
Were you seem to stuck is with the rest of the city under the missing middle. Yes, they could build townhouses BUT they can build four or sic plex condo boxes instead. They have a CHOICE. Condo boxes are almost always more profitable and easier for the developer. With the rare exception you are not going to get townhouses. Which part of this do you disagree with.
If the Missing Middle only allowed real townhouses I would be pretty supportive.
Missed opportunity imo, should have been 20 stories. When I lived in Vancouver for a yr I lived in a tower in Burnaby above a podium which featured a save-on. It was awesome, drop down to grab groceries. It was also on a skytrain line so took the skytrain to Royal Columbian Hospital and then if I wanted to go downtown took the skytrain as well. No need for a car it was pretty awesome.
High density development started there years ago (with planning first). It is basically a construction zone right now with destructions and constructions, and likely for the next two to three years. Too bad they only build 6 stories in height, it could be much higher for sure. Can’t wait to see it finished (so we will get our dear walking distance Save-On back).
Parks, playgrounds, and green spaces aren’t going anywhere.
Guess what happened when three buildings were built at Bayview in Vic West? A two acre city dog park came out of it that didn’t exist before.
I spend a decent chunk of time in a much denser city than Victoria and the parks are better and more accessible.
Every Sunday we go for a hike within an hr of Victoria and you are more likely to see a bear than a human. I don’t think we have to worry too much about lack of greenspace. I’ve never been to Beacon Hill Park or Mount Doug and felt like it was crowded.
Garden suites have been legal for a number of years now. Have they been built in mass and has anything really changed in terms of quality of life due garden suites popping up?
Secondly you have huge developments like Dockside and Bayview/Roundhouse that have had zoning in place for decades and they still aren’t even close to being finished.
Things move slowly in Victoria.
I think you’re misinterpreting what he’s saying. Affordability improves for both rents and prices with more housing, we have lots of examples of this from various jurisdictions and of course within Canada as well. More building doesn’t happen quick enough to cause prices or rents to crash, but just keeping them from increasing while incomes grow would be a massive win
Density is already “unfolding”. As measured by the number of dwellings in Victoria, density increased by 16% in the “do nothing” ten years from 2011 to 2021 (from Canada census). From 153k to 177k dwellings in greater Victoria. Perhaps density growth is a little less if city limits have expanded, but not much. With the focus on density, and expectations of higher population growth, it would be reasonable to estimate that density increases by a further 20% in the next ten years 2021-2031. Thats 35,000 units added over the next ten years. That’s plenty of unfolding and consequential density growth. For example, those 35,000 units likely need about 20,000 parking spots, and if they only get 10,000, that means 10,000 extra vehicles may be parked cluttering up the streets or elsewhere.
Victoria’s population as of 2022 is 423,000 ! . Saanich is by far the biggest (130,000), well ahead of city of Victoria (90,000). Who knew? https://www.victorianow.com/watercooler/news/news/Greater_Victoria/Victoria_population#:~:text=With%202.19%25%20growth%20from%202021,census%20metropolitan%20area%20in%20Canada.
As you get older you will find 30 years goes by pretty quickly! I won’t be here to see it but I would rather a nice livable city with parks, playgrounds, green spaces and a decent selection of housing in 30 years than a mess that was rushed to the plate too quickly in a panic.
It’s pretty big news Marko. Doubled building rate in Auckland and they didn’t have node legislation. You know better than I do re timeline but it is going to change things near term too I’d think.
Two other excellent candidates are McKenzie and Quadra and McKenzie and Shelbourne.
Because it might happen sooner.
Yes the idea that u can build so many houses , for really the most part investors , won’t bring down prices. The used stuff that’s sitting with no buyers on the market today is the affordable homes everybody wants . Now I’m off to buy a new car cause it’s cheaper than a used car
Why are people so worked up about density that’s going to take 30 years to unfold.
https://www.viewroyal.ca/EN/meta/new/2023-latest-news/the-last-public-hearing.html
Check out the letter from the Mayor.
The Royal Oak exchange seems unsuitable. It’s literally only four bus stops on the side of a two-lane road.
Uptown and Tillicum are more logical areas for high density development.
OK that’s clear, and makes sense. Thanks.
Uh…that’s not what Tom Davidoff thinks:
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/housing-experts-question-why-smaller-municipalities-selected-for-the-naughty-list
And I’m not sure why I’m failing to communicate this clearly to you.
You CANNOT build multistory towers anywhere you want under the new legislation.
You can only build a 6 story (within 400 meters) or 10 story tower (within 200 meters) of a designated transit node.
There will be a lot of areas outside of these nodes.
In the areas more than 400 meters from a node you can build 3 or 4 units ONLY (not 6 or 10 story towers) on each SFH or duplex zoned lot. What happened in Auckland was two or more of these lots were purchased and townhouses were built – a lot of them.
Here is the background information: https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news_releases_2020-2024/2023PREM0062-001706.htm
Here is what happened in NZ: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/130959225/townhouses-apartments-drive-building-consent-growthst
Let me open up the floor, where in the City of Victoria should these nods be located and how many of them. Obviously they are going to exclude areas that already have a large number of highrises. (also exclude the Museum, the legislature and the hospital grounds as well as large parks)For those older folk we are talking about a circle half a mile across. (800 meters).
Totoro: Not sure why you keep bringing up townhouses when it appears no one is looking at building them. We are talking about buildings of ten or six stories. I dont see anyone building townhouses in the missing middle either.
Caveat: I would respectfully suggest that you actually missed the point that I was making. This is not about where the transit stops are today or even tomorrow. What they are designating is the areas they want to have high density development. Yes, the idea is to add public transit to those areas but that is secondary. The Vancouver skytrain is a bit different and not relevant to Victoria.
The bus routes and schedules as they stand today are really not relevant in so far as Victoria is concerned. My point is that this might have a lot more impact that many people assume. Certainly just one or two traffic nods in the City of Victoria is probably not earth shaking but if the number starts climbing higher it could have very serious implications.
Had very little kids. I’m not arguing against having a vehicle in Victoria – I have one. I’m for future parking for townhouses and against conditions that result in parking wars. I do see that if we really had transit hub mixed use with services that many people would not need a car nearly as much, perhaps at all, some of them families. If you can walk to daycare, rec center, grocery stores, pharmacies, work from home and have medical/dental nearby AND afford to live there, you might be okay with a carshare.
Depends if you had kids then or not. A single person can get around on a skateboard and have a great time. Not as easy for a family with kids though.
Earlier you described your family life in last 12 years in Victoria as having one car. There’s a big difference between one car and no cars. I don’t think there’s any concerns being raised here for a family that only has one car like you did. The concern is for families with kids that might have NO car and no parking spot. And I wouldn’t characterize that situation as being “great.”
Yup and with respect to the bus stop thing I expect the munis and the provincial government will be very judicious with designating/prescribing “transit stations” to which the new rules apply.
Notwithstanding Barrister’s scaremongering I don’t expect them to designate every piddly bus-stop that gets 1 bus every 45 minutes
Do you mean like we did when we lived overseas? Yes, it was good and considered normal. Or the two bed townhouse we lived in in Victoria and walked or took transit from, including for work, most of the time? Great.
Two bedroom stick built condo without good soundproofing and someone above and inconvenient area- no thanks with or without family. Hopefully there will be better options coming.
My guess is most munis will just do what the Province sets out for transit nodes/zoning/ocps and STRs. Easier, cheaper and Council can point to the Province as the bad guy.
While this question wasn’t aimed at me I will take a crack. When I lived in Vancouver (Kitsilano) I took buses all the time because the buses were so frequent that I rarely looked at the schedule. I wasn’t at a transit hub per se, but lots of buses were available within a few blocks.
Living in the extreme south end of Victoria I now rarely take the bus. I find I can get to most places within a 10-15 km radius faster and more enjoyably by bike. The one place i still take the bus from time to time is to Swartz Bay.
i do benefit quite a bit from the bus service as my kids (sub-driving age) take the bus not infrequently, saving me from having to drive them. if I lived in a neighbourhood better served by bus I am sure I would use it more, though maybe not that much more as my preference to bike for short and medium trips would remain.
For BC Builds that is the purpose.
As for the rest of the measures, availability leads to more affordability, but it’s a lag.
Yes. But it’s unclear as to how the provincial regulations will interface with the municipal ones. As far as I can tell the province hasn’t said they will interfere if municipalities do their own policy, but of course at some point they will need to set standards if a municipality passes something that is entirely unbuildable (like the initial version of Victoria’s policy).
Remember: affordability is not on the menu.
Under MMI in the COV isn’t there a requirement that at least two units are three-bedrooms? Which is pretty much a one level-townhome.
Are there going to be rent caps for building multi-family homes on single family lots?
I just don’t believe we have any evidence that we’ll have a shortage of family sized housing if we allow it to be built.
Looking at the current situation where we have literally prohibited it and extrapolating it to a scenario when we don’t doesn’t feel convincing.
Adding requirements to every project isn’t free. If we mandate every project includes family sized housing, then we lose other types of housing, and some projects become no longer economic. There is no free lunch. I believe we are better off aiming for an abundance of all types of housing.
So the idea is here seems to be, if we want developers to build family sized housing, we must stop insisting that they include even a small % of family sized housing in each of their developments. Hmmm….That’s still a head scratcher for me. Thanks, and I’ve enjoyed the discussion.
Honestly pretty skeptical about this. We can’t even manage to build remotely enough housing for lower income folks, now they want to build housing for middle income households? The opposition is right about their criticism that the promise to build 114,000 homes has been an abject failure. The NDP try to claim they’ve done a bunch of it but in reality it’s smoke and mirrors, counting homes freed up via Spec tax rather than actually building them.
If we don’t find a way to have the market build homes suitable for middle-income households we are screwed.
Can’t wait to see what this looks like. If we really improve the situation with housing in Victoria maybe as parents we’ll be relieved of the burden of seeing our children are adequately housed if we want them to be able to stay in Victoria.
Yup.
5 out of the 11 houses in my cul-de-sac are non-owner-occupied rentals, each tending to house 4-6 UVic/Camosun students. 80% of these students own a vehicle, which they don’t use to get to UVic (on-campus parking is too expensive). Those in co-ops use their vehicle. Most of the driveways are single-wide. Public transit is not well-used.
It’s silly.
Oak Bay could likely deal with housing needs/quota just by working with UVic re. the dog park lands and designating Fort/Foul Bay, in conjunction with the City of Victoria and Saanich, as a transit node – which would make sense imo. Already have rec center, schools, hospital, good transit and commercial and infrastructure upgrades would be shared.
I am guessing that most of North Park and Fernwood could be turned into high density just by designating a total of about four transit nods.
I am guessing four should do it for most of Fairfield.
By legalizing family sized multifamily we are allowing the demand for those homes to be met by the market. No one is naive enough to believe that developers will build family sized housing out of kindness. They will build them for the same reason that they build any other type of housing: because they can make money doing so. But that only happens if municipalities stop blocking them from doing it
100%. And I say that as someone with an “eco-agenda” of my own, but parking maximums are dumb.
I agree a lot of this is not baked in reality a bus is not a sky train can’t see how that’s a model for the future . If it’s like Van it will just be more 1 bedroom condos and. No missing middle, any who , I’m sure none of this will take flight anytime soon
Agreed. Parking maximums make no sense. I don’t think that’s a widespread thing, I only recall it in the Harris Green approval, and hopefully it’s been resolved. Seems like “parking maximums” are an eco-agenda item not even intended to help housing.
Agreed. And we have seen the opposite here on HHV. Namely people complaining where a city (Saanich) requires family housing in specific developments. And that we should “depend on the kindness of strangers” – namely developers in the aggregate will voluntarily build family housing, if we just leave them alone.
What i heard a lot of people here objecting to and what I object to, is when the city intervenes to prevent developers from building parking that they wanted to build. I am OK with no parking minimums as long as there are no parking maximums either.
Totoro: If the missing middle mandated only townhouses I would be far more supportive. A lot more profitable to build four one bedroom apartments on a lot. And why bother with parking when people can just park on the street.
Show me anything that has been passed that mandates the building of townhouses ONLY in Victoria.
So if you had to commute to work by transit and raise your family in a two bedroom condo would that still have been great for you?
Some, but not much in Victoria. I purposely built my life around being able to walk everywhere 95% of the time, including by choosing location and switching to work from home 20 years ago. However, when I lived overseas I took a lot of public transit because it made economic sense, was close enough to access on foot from start to destination, frequent enough not to be a PITA, and it was safe.
I’m such a fan of getting rid of the nimby input at the development stage. I cringe when I recall the save the trees and stop overdevelopment signs in Oak Bay and Fairfield. It is very clear that existing homeowners have a vested interest in status quo and these are the people showing up to “public consultation”. Have you ever been to these meetings? Insanity. And it doesn’t help that then these decisions are in the hands of a small number of untrained individuals elected to Council who represent only the interests of current residents and not future generations.
10 story within 200 meters of a transit hub and six story within 400 meters. There will be a lot of areas not within this catchment where you can only build up to four units. Likely result over time – lots more townhouses in these areas.
Totoro: I really doubt that anyone is seriously talking about building townhouses. There is no requirement for townhouses in the Missing Middle and building one and two bedroom apartments is more profitable. Nor are Six and ten story buildings townhouses. It is a matter of really lowering the middle class expectations and telling them they are more virtuous. You need to expect to have less than your parents did.
This is really not a transit plan, it is just a were can we dump high density plan and how to do it without the annoyance of too much public input.
Ya, I thought that place would just be listing again next week after the bottom price on the south Oak Bay area was reset after the house on Falkland had a mini bidding war on Tuesday after it’s 700k price drop.
The last housing plan I believed was the 2018 plan for the B.C. gov’t to build 114,000 homes. https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2018/homesbc/2018_homes_for_bc.pdf
That seems a dismal failure and forgotten, and so always we have a shiny new plan, these latest ideas seems to pass the buck to the cities and expecting zoning changes to do a lot. I’ll wait until I see some shovels in the ground on a few relevant projects before getting excited.
Yes, but if you read the plan for people transit hub materials there is going to be a focus on comprehensive mixed use neighbourhood development with walkable services including childcare, recreation, schools, commercial services and public housing – the NDP has introduced amendments to the transportation act to permit government purchases of land near hubs for housing and I’d expect zoning in these areas will permit mixed use eventually as part of the OCP process.
If this works as intended it could be good but the farther you get from a transit hub the less walkable neighbourhoods will be and there will still be townhouses going up and probably parking wars.
The more I read the more I suspect proximity to existing recreation centers and schools might be used to designate transit hubs – along with ease of densification which might mean existing SFH neighbourhoods nearby.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2022TRAN0030-000492
Sure, but that experience is living in a “walkable neighbourhood.” Where you don’t need to take buses, you walk. We are talking about living near a bus transit hub. How many bus trips have you taken in the last 20 years, and would it have been more if you lived close to a “transit hub”? It’s not like the Royal Oak transit hub has any facilities or even a coffee stand. It’s just a concrete loop. Not sure if there’s even a park bench. Who would get excited about living close to it?
I like a lot of the homes for people plan. If any NDP folks with sway are reading this blog, how about a similarly comprehensive and researched effective doctors/medical care for people plan next?
Man if some developers don’t get some sales they are not going to last past spring . Going to start to see alot of empty holes around town
Yes, I have no desire to live in a parking war environment and this is a foreseeable outcome based on densification in areas that are nodes without walkable services. Think cul de sacs in Gordon Head. Nightmare.
However, if we have transit node development I can see car reduced housing (possibly with ex. modo carshare spots) working within a shorter distance to what might end up being a much more effective transit system. And maybe a reduced need to use transit if these nodes are built as communities with services within walking distance. If you can get to childcare, groceries, dentist, doctor (assuming we address this), schools, and work on foot or to the universities by fast transit people don’t need cars as much.
I’m thinking about my own experience of living in this type of walkable neighbourhood for the past 12 years. I use my vehicle rarely. My kids walked or biked to school, sports, and lessons. However, I still needed a vehicle to effectively get to sports meets, for work as I travelled throughout the province, to get to our doctor who moved across town, hiking, road trips, and for our frequent visits to family in other areas of the Island and province. My husband needed a vehicle for his commute to work – transit was not an option. A car was also a godsend during covid. Transit system and doctor access improvements would take care of some of this use pattern.
I don’t know how this will play out. For families, I do believe parking is necessary – at least one onsite spot plus somewhere for visitors and hopefully the market responds with this because it will likely be hard to sell townhouses without this. I expect carshares will increase. I also think that we have to start paying for street parking to create a disincentive to multiple car households in transit node areas. It has got to become even more expensive to own a vehicle and effective to use transit to change use patterns.
Aren’t they like the “bank” who cried wolf on this issue? They’ve been way off on their “expect [lower/higher/stable] rates” predictions in the past, so I don’t expect many people take these predictions seriously.
Wow! That is weird. Can’t even make heads or tails of the post’s text. White plywood box? Printed door? They’re really selling it haha.
It was a pretty shameless flip. “Luxury” hollow doors etc and the poor plants outside were painted white because of the careless / rushed job.
The way it’s shaping up, I will have paid off my house from start to finish within the 15 years of lowest interest rates and be debt-free and saving during the next 15 years of relatively high interest rates.
Meet the new normal, a lot like the historical normal:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-bank-of-canada-says-era-of-super-low-rates-is-likely-over-warns-people/
While I agree that the government wants more family-friendly housing, this particular initiative for 10 story apartments doesn’t seem particularly family-friendly.
A key component of it is to “ remove restrictive parking minimums and allow for parking to be determined by need and demand on a project-by-project basis.” https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0063-001748
Some HHVers agree with the idea that families need parking spots, and this initiative prevents the cities from mandating them.
Anyway, I’m supportive of this idea, just not so sure why the government needs to add the “no parking” minimums to it. That seems to skew it away from being “family friendly”
If we expect these transit hubs to become busier, there needs to be MORE Street and other parking for them. As people in other cities drive to the transit hub and park their car and then take the bus (or train in other cities). There isn’t much of that now in Victoria, but we are talking about the future.
The government should be thinking BIGGER than this if they want to move the needle on public transport. Namely getting started on big projects like a rapid train from Victoria to Langford.
https://www.theorca.ca/commentary/rob-shaw-province-blankets-the-housing-sector-with-new-legislation-7807112
In thinking about transit hubs I can’t help wondering if a key metric for future transit node density should be walking distance to public schools. You can add childcare centers to these nodes but public school lands are already allocated.
I’d disagree.
The BC Homes for People plan is available online and is very clearly focused on creating a massive amount of missing middle townhouses, duplex, triplex, secondary suite and infill housing. It points to condos not being the optimum choice for families and single family houses being too expensive. The zoning changes allow for four units on every single family home zoned lot. As someone who did live in a townhouse when our kids were young I can say it was a good choice. Playgrounds and child care were on site and transit was nearby. Made many good friends. Would have been even better if there had been grocery stores and other services adjacent.
I really like the transit hub approach to higher density and I hope a ton of quality coop buildings, including for seniors and those with disabilities, get built in this zone. Coops are such a great model for encouraging both the sense of ownership and cost control and I hope there are new funding initiatives for this model.
Pardon the ignorance, but when were property assessments last revised? Just looked at one that’s up $290,000 (about 20%) from when I looked maybe half a year ago. Is there any real-world reason for that kind of jump?
Their vision is a lot of high density small condos where people mostly live in just walking distance of their fifteen minute villages. Great if you dont mind raising a family in a small but expensive condo. Actually, I suspect that mere lip service is actually given to the real needs of families.
It seems like city council can designate these without any pesky public hearings at all. There is not any requirement that
there is any actual public transit running either at present or in the future. I suspect a good section of Cook St will be declared a transit area.
Confirmed by someone who worked on this legislation.
If our trajectory follows Auckland’s it is probably going to be areas with a lot of mid/lower value (relatively) SFHs on larger lots that get the most attention from developers. Auckland is just now passing similar legislation on transit node developments. BC probably has an advantage in bringing this in in conjunction with SFH zoning reforms as we may get better transit earlier.
I don’t understand the economics of 6 or 10 story buildings enough to know where/when they make economic sense for developers, but I’d expect Hillside/Oaklands/Quadra/Tillicum/McKenzie and possibly Jubilee/Richmond might make sense for new walkable communities with good transit access. Langford sure could use some improved transit and purpose-built car-free neighbourhoods.
The advertisement
I suspect that it will be dictated by what a number of developers see as advantageous. There is a lot of money involved in the up zoning. Imagine there is a lot of money floating into many strange places.
This is weird… 824 Monterey, the flip that cancelled it’s listing last week has the kitchen for sale on Marketplace right now. Buyer to remove and disassemble.
1.3299
Can anyone tell me what 300 Linden sold for? It was a very quick sale.
From the act: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/4th42nd:gov47-1
Seems like municipalities will designate these as part of OCP planning and the minister can also mandate specific ones be included. And doesn’t look like it’s limited to BC transit exchanges. Any bus stop could do. We’ll have to wait and see.
If that is the case, then there’s limited impact from this. Basically just Royal Oak and maybe Colwood have real potential https://x.com/LeoSpalteholz/status/1722429653879750862?s=20
I don’t know about that. For example, Uptown has 14 buses stopping and the Legislature has 15, while Royal Oak only has 12 and probably less use. Oak Bay Junction has six. The metric should probably be based on utility for increased density and moving people around not whether it is currently a transit exchange as defined by BC Transit or perhaps the province would have already used this definition?
Literal interpretation then would be every bus stop as at any bus stop on any route I can get off one bus and get on another – albeit with a time lag.
Slightly less literal would be any bus stop served by two or more different routes as then I could legitimately transfer not just to a different bus on the same route but actually to a different route.
The likely actual meaning (pending the definition in the legislation) will be the major exchanges that BC Transit or Translink have actually designated as exchanges. Similar or identical to what was on the map posted earlier.
Does that mean everywhere were one rout crosses another or is a single location where all the buses pull into.(that would make more sense but government and common sense are rather rare.)
Seems like my list is too long – people are breathing a sigh of relief…. maybe. Bus exchange is defined as where you get off one bus and can get on another…. and all of the ones I listed def meet that definition if it ends up being what goes in the legislation. Does it really make sense to have transit hubs at Colwood and Royal Oak but not Hillside, Oak Bay Junction or Langford? And does this turn UVic into something like UBC with market and student rental towers?
There are specific guidelines for Victoria and Kelowna as medium-sized munis. Located here: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0063-001748
Basically the municipality has to permit the minimum and can zone other areas for this type of transit hub density. Within 200 meters and the far is 3.5 and minimum allowable height is 10 stories. 200-400 meters from the transit hub far is 2.5 and minimum allowable height is six stories.
Is there any possible way to throw the current Mayor of Langford and his counsel out now? 2026 is way too long. Can we all sign a petition and kick this guy out of of our city right now?
I am not sure that the bus company definition and the provincial definition are the same. I read the blurb that they put out but it is as clear as mud.
The map shows only three exchanges: UVic, Royal Oak, and Colwood. You have to look for the “X” that designates an exchange.
Royal Oak is the only one with a significant number of residential properties affected.
Is that 400 metres as the crow flies? I assumed it would be walking distance which would shrink the radius
For Victoria area the 10 storey allowance is within a 200 metre radius, “only” 6 storeys within 200-400 metres.
But the burning question remains unanswered. Can I now build a 10 storey SFH?
That’s a much smaller list than the one totoro posted, so maybe Oak Bay Junction is not an exchange? “where you get off one bus and onto another” is vague.
None of that is actually in Oak Bay though. Something around Camosun or UVic might fall into Oak Bay?
Looks like the only transit exchange in CoV is the Legislature
This map provides the location of transit exchanges in Victoria: https://www.bctransit.com/victoria/schedules-and-maps
400 meters
Covers a real chunk of Rocklands historic homes. Image all of James Bay would also be covered. Also there is a bus exchange at Cook and Fort.
Oak Bay: We are dismantling our bus station
400 meters is a lot. Covers quite a bit of some currently SFH areas around Oak Bay Junction.
Going to need a lot more buses in Vic , don’t c us building a sky train lol
UVic, Camosun Interurban, Tillicum, Hillside Mall, View Royal Exchange, Oak Bay Junction, HMC Dockyard, Langford Exchange, Sidney, McTavish, Royal Jubilee, James Bay Village, Colwood Exchange….
So where are the bus exchanges around greater Victoria.
https://twitter.com/RobShaw_BC/status/1722370306097205449
Reply to @Leo ” where did you hear it?”
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/posthaste-risk-forced-home-sales-130204849.html
Oh thanks I was going off Ira’s list which didn’t include that building. Looks like a good price too. I imagine short term rental premium is higher for small units
You missed my listing sale @ 27 Songhees.
I don’t have any data there, where did you hear it?
Population growth rate still rising though.
63 listings in short term rental buildings, 1 sale since the regulations (at a good price though, so well done seller).
Hi @Leo, it seems there is a big rise in the number of insured mortgages being refinanced with non-bank lenders, as many borrowers with default insurance are no longer able to pass the stress tests at their original provider. Are you aware of any data that shows the mortgage renewal flows from banks to non-banks? Thank you in advance
After a year on the sidelines, Stew Young considers comeback in Langford
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/after-a-year-on-the-sidelines-stew-young-considers-comeback-in-langford-7801365
Roughly the same percentage of immigrant that left Canada presently compare to 2017.
Thanks that’s interesting.
Some 22,371 people moved to British Columbia from other provinces in the second quarter of 2023, down 30.2% from a year earlier. A total of 22,671 people left the province for elsewhere in Canada in the second quarter, a decrease of 3.8% from the same period in 2022.
Sales are the lowest they’ve been in over 10 years so if it’s a red flag it’s late to the party.
Wonder if it is a red flag as to condo sales? One of the neighbours kids is moving to Calgary and I asked why expecting it to be a job thing. She said that they dont want their kids taught in our school system.
In other words all the units are condos. For the time being half of them are condos that are rented out.
I guess they can sell them in a few years if the market strengthens.
I looked into it and this is what it is….developer kept half the building for rent.
Why would I do that? That’s a Patrick move, please get on that Patrick so Introvert can stick it to Marko again.
Right….why don’t you leave all your information with Mike Stewart and report back with the pre-sale prices at this project since they are pre-selling.
Edit* Just read Mike’s project description and it isn’t correct in terms of number of buildings or number of stories. Seems legit.
Not sure why a rational developer wouldn’t use construction financing as their cost of equity is typically more than the cost of debt and then there is the interest deduction on the profit. looks like there were/are presales
https://www.mikestewart.ca/presale/oakwoods-esquimalt-victoria-presale-condos-and-townhomes-by-aragon-properties/#
Assuming the developer needs construction financing. You have some large condo developments being built with no pre-sales taking place. For example, this is huge (for Victoria) and well under way (some buildings in the complex already finished) and all they have on their website is coming soon -> https://aragon.ca/oakwoods/
Not sure what the deal is 180 units (and they appear to be large floorplans walking by the construction site) is a ton of inventory for the market to absorb all at once.
Requires a % of presales to get construction financing for a condo, will differ by lender but will be >50% regardless. Gearing is typically 20/80 min.
They had a couple of units on MLS but they were never reported as sold so not sure if they were able to sell any as a pre-sale. Condo+rented out (as in owned by developer) is something I haven’t seen very often but you never know. For the developer not an ideal setup due to strata fees, etc. Better to go purpose rental building.
Isn’t it usually the case that by the time the building is done most of it is presold? I guess they just had a pile of cash to not need that, or are some of the presold units going to be condos while others rented out?
DCC/CAC reforms out today. Seems generally reasonable, getting the toxic parts of CACs out (negotiated, applies on rezoning) while still allowing munis to get some amenity dollars.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0063-001737
i overheard it took cmhc 5 months to approve the loan…. not sure how that timeline works for a developer
I didn’t get the impression they tried a serious launch. CMHC is doing LTV ratios up to 95%….developer can pull out almost all of his or her $ and with a 50 year amort cash flow probably isn’t bad either.
Not saying they’re in trouble, just an indication that the launch was clearly not working as they expected it to. Wonder what rents are.
There is one developer in town apparently in trouble that has a few completed highrises downtown.
Looks like its Kang and Gill, likely better financing terms and longer duration loan switching over to rentals as there are programs available through CMHC, BC housing etc. Not really feasible for true luxury condos though which I doubt it is given its on Shelbourne. The westbank luxury condos were selling for over $2k/sqft, assuming 20% margin the cost to build would be >$1.6k/sqft and would not be feasible as a rental.
Maybe they obtained CHMHC financing and decided to keep it as a rental in their portfolio. Doubt that developer is in trouble, they had a string of well timed projects such as Haro in Cordova Bay. They also sold that Pandora property to the COV for an insane uplift -> https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/city-of-victoria-buys-pandora-land-for-9595m-has-housing-plan-4681255 and a few other smart transactions.
..
Speaking of apartment housing starts… RioCAN REIT, 2nd biggest reit in Canada (after car.un) presses PAUSE on all new construction.
https://www.thestar.com/business/riocan-reit-pauses-new-construction-starts-amid-high-interest-rates/article_e1230754-5c24-56c2-bad1-d2cdfd89f632.html
RioCan REIT pauses new construction starts amid high interest rates
“ – High interest rates and rising costs have pushed RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust to put a halt to starting any major new construction projects.
The company is pushing on with existing builds, but the timing isn’t right to put shovels in the ground on any new ambitious projects, said chief executive Jonathan Gitlin in an interview.
“We’ve made a decision that in the short term, starting construction isn’t the most effective use of our shareholders’ money.”
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Given high interest rates, and the variable debt that comes with a lot of construction financing, he said it makes more sense to pay down RioCan’s debt, which stands at about $7.3 billion.
“It becomes quite accretive, and quite productive, immediately.”
The shift means RioCan will continue building the 1.7 million square feet of space under construction, but a further 1.5 million square feet of “shovel ready” projects will have to wait until market conditions improve. The company will also continue to push projects through the development and permitting stages.
RioCan will likely have to wait until they get more clarity from the Bank of Canada on its rate trajectory before moving on those projects, said Gitlin.”
Great article Leo. Wow, that graph of Victoria apartment starts collapsing to near zero in 2008 is quite something.
Who is the builder that switched over to rentals? Wonder if the rents will actually carry any construction mortgage.
Auckland is also closer to the size of Vancouver and is New Zealand’s biggest city. We’re more like Christchurch, except with worse beaches.
Is the building complete?
Interesting project near me. New apartment building on shelbourne that was originally marketed as luxury condos, now switched over to rentals on short notice. They have a huge “now renting” banner but haven’t even updated the website properly which still references condos https://theaffinity.ca/ Seems like a decision made under pressure.
All the factors work independently. Zoning constraints, permitting constraints, rate environment, construction costs, labour shortage, etc. No doubt that all things equal similar relaxation of zoning constraints will have less immediate impact in a higher rate environment when builders are more cautious. But I think it’s important to consider that a big part of the reason big projects pull back is because the timelines, capital requirements, and risk is so large. Take out the risk of not getting approval and you make it easier to proceed. And even if the economics don’t work for a big project, someone can still find a teardown and turn it into a quadplex with limited capital. The planner in Kelowna we talked to said their upzoning was a game-changer for small builders that previously had neither the sophistication or the capital to navigate the process, but they could stomach a couple months to get a building permit for a quadplex and go.
I don’t think it’s much of a concern. Government should be tackling the problems under their control and not fretting too much about the things outside of their control.
Ellisdon is also the contractor on the oakridge project with westbank, they are the second or third largest contractor in the country. For westbank it is a rational move to ration the limited cash to condo projects closer to completion (e.g. Alberni) than rental projects.
Well happily we are in a recession , governments at all levels will start saying they don’t have any money . We need Toronto to tank and fast
My biggest concern right now is how interest rates will affect the housing situation. I think this is where we differ from the Auckland example. They had a building boom when zoning changed, but it was in a low interest rate environment.
There is a lot of debt associated with the rental property market – with both purpose built and small time owners. The STR rules will bring some more inventory onto the market, but not enough, and there are not enough affordable units for median earners even if some is freed up by move up renters taking former STR rentals.
I’m not boots on the ground and have no development experience so maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think it is a good time to build even if the zoning has changed. Maybe if you are a builder of government funded social housing, but for the private market?
There always will be some first time or move-up/down buyers, but the pool is shrinking for new and move-up due to the rates, reduced immigration, and what will certainly be a marked lack of interest from people buying second homes when they weigh interest rates, government intervention, new tax rules, and static or negative appreciation for an extended period of time. Easier to just buy a GIC and even if rates go down my bet is that money will go elsewhere.
Ultimately this will mean a large decline in tax revenues, both federal and provincial and a big hit to the economy and possibly a decline in construction unless the fed/prov fund affordable housing at a massive level. I wish we had access to the federal and provincial modelling on the long-term impacts – hopefully they are comprehensive and not tied to an election cycle.
For those hitting the paywall, here’s a PDF of the article:
https://docdro.id/f4CIPaZ
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-property-developer-westbank-faces-lawsuits-over-sprawling-mirvish/