They're a poor, poor residential municipality without the tax base of commercial and industrial property they would need to be able to operate well enough to approve much needed upgrades and development. Take pity on them in their sorrow and weakness! /s
If only there were some way they could collect more money by having more housing units in their municipality, some money collected from each owner based on the assessed value of their property - like a tax on property or something. Bah, ridiculous idea.
some dumb nimby was canvassing the neighborhood super fussy about a proposed new housing development trying to get neighbors to sign a petition. We told her no, that this area needs more housing and wouldn't sign. She seemed shocked which tells me most of my neighbors probably signed it too. She acted like it was about concerns for parking, like nearly every house near there has a driveway that'll fit three cars. it's asinine, and truthfully I have no doubt it's because they're racist and don't like the idea of "immigrants" moving in.
350 kids graduating highschool, countless Oak Bay seniors needing somewhere to downsize. 2 duplexes approved, apartments generally banned. makes sense!?! /s
Wasn’t Eby just complaining to the federal government that BC is getting 10,000 new people every 37 days? So with a low estimate of 50,000 newcomers in the 6 months the press release references, isn’t 4000 homes a drop in the bucket?
I guess we disagree on what constitutes a drop in the bucket. To me, bragging about your program putting you behind another 12,000 units is kinda odd. And what was built in these municipalities last year before the changes? I’d wager this program is doing almost nothing and they’re trying to spin things.
70% of new builds went to rich immigrants in Ontario, and i bet it's even more here... so Canadians are still not able to buy, and we are making the island ugly, claustrophobic, traffic is everywhere!!!
It takes 2 hours to get to sooke now, and it's on the way to be the next langford
We are destroying what makes the island nice, and it's so sad to see!!
I see Keycorp is operating in Sooke which is probably one reason why. They've made absolute boat loads of money rezoning properties to higher density. It helps that the owners son in law runs Verity who owns the second most valuable home in Langford. They also have Compass Electric and Island Earth under their umbrella not to mention a real-estate company as well.
It’s not about creating homes for the communities benefit, it’s about profit.
it is sad but these delusional people don't care, they think all this rampant building creating million dollar condos is somehow going to lower housing prices or rents lol
progress was always going to be a slow process, but yeah you’re right - this is effectively nothing. utterly meaningless numbers except for the arbitrary goal set by the province that was obviously going to be met so the headlines would be good-ish for the next couple of months heading into an election
and if it wasn’t met, the province has a built in an escape mechanism to pass blame onto the municipalities anyway. and as you noted, Eby has now turned his back on the unpopular Trudeau to attack Ottawa as well - effectively creating a protective PR bubble
NDP has no new ideas in the grand scheme of things, but the thousands of people working in communications know what they’re doing
Few. This is primarily because government makes it very difficult to build 3 bedroom units for a few reasons:
1. We don't have greenfield land in Victoria to build new detached houses on 6000sqft lots
2. Minimum lot size restrictions prevent lots from being split and building two detached houses.
3. Single family zoning prevents duplexes/triplexes/townhouses/etc from being built that are usually family sized.
4. Initiatives like Victoria's Missing Middle guidelines promising to fix the above but still too restrictive, so they make building quadplexes/townhouses more difficult than it should be, so we get fewer of them.
5. Restrictive zoning cuts down on apartment floor space via arbitrary restrictions on footprint, height, and site density, so the ones that get built are focused on maximizing the units in the building. If there was an abundance of housing the supply of small units would be less constrained and developers would target a greater variety of sizes.
6. Building code requirements for each bedroom to have a window make it difficult to fit 3 bed units into traditional dual-stair building layouts.
7. Single-stair buildings being banned under the building code make 3-bedroom units harder to build. Single-stair apartments in other countries often have bigger units because of ability to have skinny infill apartments that have say 2 units on each floor, with cross ventilation and windows in 3 directions.
Plus many other reasons. Developers would happily build 3 bedroom units if we let them, but we don't. We could change that if we wanted to. Victoria is making a good chunk of progress on a number of these initiatives, but other local municipalities are not and in fact are actively fighting the province's effort to get more housing built
>1. We don't have greenfield land in Victoria to build new detached houses on 6000sqft lots
True.
>2. Minimum lot size restrictions prevent lots from being split and building two detached houses.
False. This has been the case, but new provincial legislation requires local governments to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow for either secondary suites or an accessory dwelling unit on single family lots, or in many places in B.C, three to six units of housing on single family or duplex lots.
>3. Single family zoning prevents duplexes/triplexes/townhouses/etc from being built that are usually family sized.
False. Same reason as above.
>4. Initiatives like Victoria's Missing Middle guidelines promising to fix the above but still too restrictive, so they make building quadplexes/townhouses more difficult than it should be, so we get fewer of them.
See above.
5. Restrictive zoning cuts down on apartment floor space via arbitrary restrictions on footprint, height, and site density, so the ones that get built are focused on maximizing the units in the building. If there was an abundance of housing the supply of small units would be less constrained and developers would target a greater variety of sizes.
Fair points (although footprint isn't really arbitrary and should be addressed at local level.
6. Building code requirements for each bedroom to have a window make it difficult to fit 3 bed units into traditional dual-stair building layouts.
Agreed. A window shouldn't be necessary as long as there are at least two suitable means of egress. Fire safety code is somewhat dated.
7. Single-stair buildings being banned under the building code make 3-bedroom units harder to build. Single-stair apartments in other countries often have bigger units because of ability to have skinny infill apartments that have say 2 units on each floor, with cross ventilation and windows in 3 directions.
Banned due to antiquated fire safety codes. This could change.
Id argue 2/3 of the bedrooms should have windows, but if you're building a 3BR unit then maybe we don't require it for that last room. It's a silly notion that prevents building if that is a requirement.
Technically a window is not required under code. But the easiest way to meet the fire safety requirement is to put a window in that allows you to escape.
You could alternatively do something like fire sprinklers, more non combustible building materials as examples. They just cost more. Larger. Buildings like apartments don’t require windows in bedrooms. People just like them.
Nah, I'd rather a government declare we deserve a bedroom window rather than a developer decide we can't afford a unit with a bedroom window.
Even prison cells have windows. Let's not use this as an excuse to lower our building standards that much, shall we?
Reality is, restrictions like this make properties more expensive or non-existent to begin with.
You can choose what you feel is right for yourself if you feel every bedroom needs a window. But they don’t get built otherwise.
Supply is relative to demand.
Can't keep bringing in a million people a year, building 250,000 homes, and expect prices to go down. We literally cannot "out supply" our induced demand. 🤷
What we are doing right now is like trying to lose weight while eating 10,000 kcal a day. We keep running, and running and keep gaining weight, but when someone says "hey, maybe try eating less?" the response is "nah, we just need to run even MORE!"
Why are bedroom windows so important to you that you think that the government must mandate that everyone should have one? Aside from fire safety, ventilation and light which can be achieved by other means. Because otherwise, bedroom windows just seem aesthetic and even superfluous... like a nice green lawn, or plastic microbeads in hand soap.
I would argue fresh air and sunlight should be bare minimum requirements for living spaces. If we let the Market decide, what will happen is those will become a luxury, not the standard. The cost for what is normal would now not include bedroom windows, and you would pay extra for the luxury of being able to look outside or open a window, and that isn't a reality I'm willing accept so I would strongly oppose such a notion. As I said earlier, even prison cells have windows because to do otherwise is considered inhumane. Nobody ever in the world has said "man I wish this room didn't have so much natural light".
Regarding fire suppression, that is expensive to install and maintain, especially so for smaller buildings like multiplexes and townhomes with fewer units to spread cost across.
Taking this argument that they aren't necessary, why shouldn't we apply that to other things? Why should 8' ceiling heights be standard? We could build cheaper for 6'6". Why are high levels of insulation standard? These add cost and complication to buildings and houses made due without it for generations. Why have standards at all?
You're not making the argument that you think you are. Ceiling height, insulation and number of fire exits are quantifiable and are included in building code for accessibility, efficiency and safety purposes. Fresh air can be delivered without an open window.
Sunlight is not a necessity for a sleeping room. In fact, most people try to block it out when they sleep.
And what are you going oh about "luxury" of a window? How about we worry about the luxury of having enough bedrooms for family living. Seems like it's more important.
Your entire argument can be reduced to "I like to be able to look through bedroom windows". Hopefully you mean from inside, not outside.
All that said, I personally would not want a bedroom without a window either - i also enjoy sunlight. but if it's a choice between that or not having sufficient housing, give me the former.
Tldr incase you don't want to read and just skip straight to arguing.. all of the functionality of a window can be achieved without actually having one, so really it just comes down to aesthetics, which shouldn't necessarily be legislated.
>False. This has been the case, but new provincial legislation requires local governments to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow for either secondary suites or an accessory dwelling unit on single family lots, or in many places in B.C, three to six units of housing on single family or duplex lots.
Not at all false. The new provincial regs do not require munis to reduce minimum lot sizes and I don't know of any municipality that has reduced them in response. Many municipalities are doing the minimum to meet the letter of the law here but the reforms won't actually lead to buildable projects. Much remains to be done. The provincial action on this is a great step, but we are still years away from practical zoning code reform in many municipalities that will allow those missing middle forms to be built as easily as single family.
Victoria's missing middle reform is a good example here. It legalized small multifamily on paper but was so restrictive that it attracted basically no interest from builders. Reforms last fall helped, but there is still likely more to be done to make this policy result in a meaningful number of new homes.
>Banned due to antiquated fire safety codes. This could change.
Changing soon. Province and feds are looking into it now.
Yeah construction costs up a lot and municipalities are piling on with new fees and requirements that drive up costs even more. Not much to be done about the cost of labour and materials but I wish our governments weren’t making the situation worse
Oof. Not against seismic safety and accessibility but no one on the code committees ever considers the housing implications. I believe the implementation is at least delayed for a year
Yeah it is getting silly. It's like mandating that all cars must be to the spec of high end BMWs, then wondering why no one can afford a car.
The houses of our parents generation and before were laughably simple. But they worked and could be built inexpensively. We often rip apart houses with no footings , no rebar in the foundation and not a crack on the foundation at all. Been there for 70-80 years. Now we are building everything like it's fort Knox.
In Japan, another seismic zone, they build houses with the intention of a limited life span of around 30 years. In a way, their approach makes more sense.
Yeah good points. We're in a weird state where some stuff has changed but not really taken effect yet and it remains to be see what, if any, effect the recent changes will have. I think there are a lot of exceptions and possible loopholes that could be abused.
Stuff like different rules for different muni's and I think something like "you can build a multiplex, BUT it has to fit in the existing building footprint" or something like that. So like, sure, technically we made it not illegal to build a multiplex in more places, BUT...\*
*\* terms and conditions apply*
Yeah the building code really could use some updates. Would love to see single stair reform happen and other things that would make more designs for 3+ bedroom possible.
Part of the problem is you can sell 3 one bedroom units for a lot more than 1 three bedroom unit. You need a government requirement to include more bedrooms because they don’t follow the economics very well
I'm aware of those issues. I've worked in the construction industry for 20 years. I just wanted to hear how many useful units for actual families are being built straight from the councilor before they get too carried away patting themselves on the back.
Some of your points are incorrect though.
Also, I don't think it's as simple as "developers will build more 3 bed units if we let them". They will build what makes them the most money, and that's typically 1 bedrooms. The price they would have to sell a 3 bed units at would be prohibitive for most families.
Except we have plenty of examples of developers building 3 bed units when we let them.
1. Kelowna got a lot of family-sized 4-plexes when they changed single family zoning to allow them and make them dead-easy to build (pre-approved plans, building permits in weeks).
2. Auckland got a flood of townhouses as soon as they allowed them
3. Jurisdictions that allow single-stair apartments and make other reforms to allow bigger units get family-sized apartments in those buildings
4. Places like Houston with no lot size minimums get a lot of small detached houses on smaller lots.
Sure, developers will try to make the most money, like every other business under the planet. When there's a shortage of every housing type, they will build small units preferentially. But the market for small units isn't infinite. If we stop restricting supply so much then the market for small studios and such gets saturated and it becomes less profitable to build them, and developers start targeting other markets.
No doubt there is much more to do on housing reform, but 90% of the problem is us punching ourselves in the face on policy. First we have to decide to stop punching.
That would be a designation of a house.
Land to build new houses is at a premium. Can't build east or south bec of the ocean, there's Saanich, Esq. and westward. It's a tight market.
Unpopular opinion: people are going to need to change their definition of "home". You're never ever getting affordable traditional single family homes in Victoria again.
Not if 70% of new builds are going to wealthy immigrants
Why are building so fast just to supply foreign wealth to live here and destroy the natural beauty of the island?
Langford is unrecognizable from 5 years ago and sooke is getting uglier by the day
For someone that works in construction, these targets,will never be completed. Supplies/ workers/ etc are at a maximum / premium right now,and the delays are getting worse,by the day. I’ve seen 69- to 80 years old in the workforce, trying to help.
Most contractors cannot find the manpower to complete projects they already have in the pipeline.
Most municipalities will not reach the target set by the NDP.
And yet, my construction working friends keep getting laid off because there isn't enough work. They get picked up again pretty quickly by another company, but what I'm seeing doesn't match up well with what you're saying.
Construction is feast or famine.
One project gets done, another doesn't start for a month and you can't just magically find a month long project to fit that gap and you lay people off.
In fairness, and no offense to your friend, it's generally the low hanging fruit that gets laid off...
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-housing-starts-construction-worker-productivity
>According to a new report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the number of construction workers in Canada reached a record high of 650,000 in 2023.
>All the while, according to CMHC’s calculations, the number of housing starts recorded across the country in 2023 reached about 240,300 units, which is below the maximum potential of building well over 400,000 homes per year.
>CMHC suggests much of the declining productivity in the construction sector can be attributed to how municipal governments operate.
>“The discrepancy in housing starts production relative to population across Canadian cities hints that regulation plays a significant role in whether building activity can accelerate — especially municipal regulation,” reads the report.
What do you think of this? CMHC believes it's less about a labour shortage, but rather detrimental regulations.
Which is why the Province has pushed councils to clear the way with permitting. This all takes time but it’s start in to happen. Damned if you, damned if you don’t. At least they’re doing something.
All the more reason we shouldn't throw up unnecessary roadblock - make sure developers can build when they have the people to do it.
Although I'm not in construction, my understanding of the changes allowing more houseplexes is that these can be build by a different group trades - which may still be stretched to the max.
The ideal affordability for most DINKS (we’ll just start with them) is around $1700 for 2 bedrooms. However, this is laughable and will never ever happen.
The goals are questionable, they don't match up with CMHC's target of reaching a 2004 level of affordability by 2030 at all.
Napkin math here, it's obviously much more complex. The CMHC says we need to build 6.2 million homes across Canada by 2030 to reach the affordability level that we had in 2004. So if housing needs were equal across Canada (they aren't) BC would need to build 850k new homes by 2030, and the City of Victoria's share would be 14440. 2400 homes annually to reach 2004 levels of housing affordability. We're not even in the ballpark of what needs to be built.
For those kind of numbers you'll see most units in net new areas. Places where you can develop greenfield.
Victoria has none of that left and a tough geography in the surrounding areas.
If I were the province I'd be looking hard at the interior. Kamloops could be a half million person city in a decade. You'll build homes there a lot faster than Victoria simply by expanding the city. Don't just repeat the mistake and go SFH. But it'll be quicker none the less
This report of 4,000 completed units spans a period of 6 months.
So assuming that rate is upheld, we can assume BC is capable of completing roughly 8,000 new units per year.
At that rate we'll have built those 850k new homes by (double-checks calculator) the year 2130.
(Not the year 2030.)
Given the current rate of new builds, the BC govt's ETA for when we can expect housing to be affordable again is only off by exactly 100 years 😂
Not quite as bad as that. The 4k is just for the initial 10 communities on the housing naughty list, BC built 45,647 new homes in 2023. We'd need 141k annually to reach 850k, still, that's fucked and probably a lowball considering how much worse housing is in BC than the other provinces and only gets us to 2004 affordability level, 2004 wasn't exactly affordable either.
[Montreal becomes largest North American city to eliminate mandatory minimum parking spots](https://cultmtl.com/2024/06/montreal-becomes-largest-north-american-city-to-eliminate-mandatory-minimum-parking-spots/)
[City of Vancouver to eliminate minimum car parking requirements everywhere in all types of buildings this month](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-minimum-vehicle-parking-requirements-abolished)
Dave, we're next, right?
It's definitely not tired, as 70% of new builds get bought by immigrants and don't leave a lot left for Canadians
Why build and destroy the country for wealthy foreigners????
It should be housing approved or starting construction in the first six months, not houses people have moved into. Those were in the pipeline well before the government implemented these targets. There's a two house development being built a block from me that started construction in February. They don't expect they'll be completed until January. For the government to think anything that wasn't already approved in the autumn would have gone through the full process and been constructed by now is pretty disingenuous.
The province giving themselves a pat on the back with this report is hilarious. Houses are being built because through taxation, fees, red tape because it's still very profitable. They are not being built through targets set out by the government. If they really wanted houses in particular affordable housing built, they wouldn't be taking a 20 percent cut on new homes built. They are now even using the money to pay for the 100k per home that is needed in
The report, funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, estimated the average cost of infrastructure needed to support housing likely exceeds $100,000 for each newly built home. That includes funding for resources such as public transit, roads, water lines, schools, fire halls or recreational facilities.
4000 homes = $400,000,000 in infrastructure
50,000 homes = $5,000,000,000 in infrastructure
I move furniture for a living in Victoria and I’ve been seeing these new apartments need mobile phones to get inside on the app instead of keys. So dumb
Daily reminder for this sub that SFH are not the enemy and we have tons of under used rural land that should be subdivided into 4000 sw ft lots. Allow people to build suites and you still accomplish density.
If in Ontario 70% of new builds went to rich immigrants than why are we building so many houses??
We are destroying this island, langford is a complete shit show,. I have never seen so many shity apartments/condos go up so fast and sooooo expensive. And now sooke is becoming just the same and ruining what was great about it...
It's so sad
Check the thread on the Balmoral supportive housing building that just opened with 56 homes. And our recent vote to support 30 shelter rate homes at Village on the Green. More needed, and more coming.
56.... compared to 1000's for people with money is nothing to be excited or proud about.
There are 1000's of homeless and 1000's more that could become homeless at any moment because they are barely making their $1000 plus a month rent for a room... and this isn't a new problem
Oak Bay only need to make a measly 56 units and still falls flat at 12% of the target HAHAHAHA
“Or what” - the entire Oak Bay population
They're a poor, poor residential municipality without the tax base of commercial and industrial property they would need to be able to operate well enough to approve much needed upgrades and development. Take pity on them in their sorrow and weakness! /s
If only there were some way they could collect more money by having more housing units in their municipality, some money collected from each owner based on the assessed value of their property - like a tax on property or something. Bah, ridiculous idea.
All of the poor little orphans in Oak Bay who lived in their parents' homes long enough to inherit them.
some dumb nimby was canvassing the neighborhood super fussy about a proposed new housing development trying to get neighbors to sign a petition. We told her no, that this area needs more housing and wouldn't sign. She seemed shocked which tells me most of my neighbors probably signed it too. She acted like it was about concerns for parking, like nearly every house near there has a driveway that'll fit three cars. it's asinine, and truthfully I have no doubt it's because they're racist and don't like the idea of "immigrants" moving in.
56!!?! God help them.
350 kids graduating highschool, countless Oak Bay seniors needing somewhere to downsize. 2 duplexes approved, apartments generally banned. makes sense!?! /s
Wasn’t Eby just complaining to the federal government that BC is getting 10,000 new people every 37 days? So with a low estimate of 50,000 newcomers in the 6 months the press release references, isn’t 4000 homes a drop in the bucket?
Pretty sure that's not the net gain on population. People do leave and die
Housing crisis solved boys, pack 'er up!
We’re only behind an extra 12,000 units in 6 months. Mission accomplished!
I mean more than one person can live in a house so it's not a drop in the bucket.
Average household size is 2.9 people in Canada. So, we built enough homes for just under 12,000 people. Where do the other 38,000 go?
I didn't say it was sufficient but I wouldn't call 1/3 a "drop in the bucket". Those are some big drops.
I guess we disagree on what constitutes a drop in the bucket. To me, bragging about your program putting you behind another 12,000 units is kinda odd. And what was built in these municipalities last year before the changes? I’d wager this program is doing almost nothing and they’re trying to spin things.
70% of new builds went to rich immigrants in Ontario, and i bet it's even more here... so Canadians are still not able to buy, and we are making the island ugly, claustrophobic, traffic is everywhere!!! It takes 2 hours to get to sooke now, and it's on the way to be the next langford We are destroying what makes the island nice, and it's so sad to see!!
I see Keycorp is operating in Sooke which is probably one reason why. They've made absolute boat loads of money rezoning properties to higher density. It helps that the owners son in law runs Verity who owns the second most valuable home in Langford. They also have Compass Electric and Island Earth under their umbrella not to mention a real-estate company as well. It’s not about creating homes for the communities benefit, it’s about profit.
it is sad but these delusional people don't care, they think all this rampant building creating million dollar condos is somehow going to lower housing prices or rents lol
Yeah but rich people and investors are 'people' too so it's not misleading.
progress was always going to be a slow process, but yeah you’re right - this is effectively nothing. utterly meaningless numbers except for the arbitrary goal set by the province that was obviously going to be met so the headlines would be good-ish for the next couple of months heading into an election and if it wasn’t met, the province has a built in an escape mechanism to pass blame onto the municipalities anyway. and as you noted, Eby has now turned his back on the unpopular Trudeau to attack Ottawa as well - effectively creating a protective PR bubble NDP has no new ideas in the grand scheme of things, but the thousands of people working in communications know what they’re doing
Another brilliant take. 🙄
tell me how I’m wrong
How many of those are 3+ bedroom units?
Few. This is primarily because government makes it very difficult to build 3 bedroom units for a few reasons: 1. We don't have greenfield land in Victoria to build new detached houses on 6000sqft lots 2. Minimum lot size restrictions prevent lots from being split and building two detached houses. 3. Single family zoning prevents duplexes/triplexes/townhouses/etc from being built that are usually family sized. 4. Initiatives like Victoria's Missing Middle guidelines promising to fix the above but still too restrictive, so they make building quadplexes/townhouses more difficult than it should be, so we get fewer of them. 5. Restrictive zoning cuts down on apartment floor space via arbitrary restrictions on footprint, height, and site density, so the ones that get built are focused on maximizing the units in the building. If there was an abundance of housing the supply of small units would be less constrained and developers would target a greater variety of sizes. 6. Building code requirements for each bedroom to have a window make it difficult to fit 3 bed units into traditional dual-stair building layouts. 7. Single-stair buildings being banned under the building code make 3-bedroom units harder to build. Single-stair apartments in other countries often have bigger units because of ability to have skinny infill apartments that have say 2 units on each floor, with cross ventilation and windows in 3 directions. Plus many other reasons. Developers would happily build 3 bedroom units if we let them, but we don't. We could change that if we wanted to. Victoria is making a good chunk of progress on a number of these initiatives, but other local municipalities are not and in fact are actively fighting the province's effort to get more housing built
>1. We don't have greenfield land in Victoria to build new detached houses on 6000sqft lots True. >2. Minimum lot size restrictions prevent lots from being split and building two detached houses. False. This has been the case, but new provincial legislation requires local governments to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow for either secondary suites or an accessory dwelling unit on single family lots, or in many places in B.C, three to six units of housing on single family or duplex lots. >3. Single family zoning prevents duplexes/triplexes/townhouses/etc from being built that are usually family sized. False. Same reason as above. >4. Initiatives like Victoria's Missing Middle guidelines promising to fix the above but still too restrictive, so they make building quadplexes/townhouses more difficult than it should be, so we get fewer of them. See above. 5. Restrictive zoning cuts down on apartment floor space via arbitrary restrictions on footprint, height, and site density, so the ones that get built are focused on maximizing the units in the building. If there was an abundance of housing the supply of small units would be less constrained and developers would target a greater variety of sizes. Fair points (although footprint isn't really arbitrary and should be addressed at local level. 6. Building code requirements for each bedroom to have a window make it difficult to fit 3 bed units into traditional dual-stair building layouts. Agreed. A window shouldn't be necessary as long as there are at least two suitable means of egress. Fire safety code is somewhat dated. 7. Single-stair buildings being banned under the building code make 3-bedroom units harder to build. Single-stair apartments in other countries often have bigger units because of ability to have skinny infill apartments that have say 2 units on each floor, with cross ventilation and windows in 3 directions. Banned due to antiquated fire safety codes. This could change.
Bedrooms shouldn't need windows? Cmon... That's insane.
Id argue 2/3 of the bedrooms should have windows, but if you're building a 3BR unit then maybe we don't require it for that last room. It's a silly notion that prevents building if that is a requirement.
Technically a window is not required under code. But the easiest way to meet the fire safety requirement is to put a window in that allows you to escape. You could alternatively do something like fire sprinklers, more non combustible building materials as examples. They just cost more. Larger. Buildings like apartments don’t require windows in bedrooms. People just like them.
Don’t need government to make that choice for you so long as it’s not a public safety issue.
Nah, I'd rather a government declare we deserve a bedroom window rather than a developer decide we can't afford a unit with a bedroom window. Even prison cells have windows. Let's not use this as an excuse to lower our building standards that much, shall we?
Reality is, restrictions like this make properties more expensive or non-existent to begin with. You can choose what you feel is right for yourself if you feel every bedroom needs a window. But they don’t get built otherwise.
Yeah the presence of windows and their design constraints isn't what's pushing the cost of building through the roof.
It certainly is for 3 bedrooms. When supply is low, prices are high.
Supply is relative to demand. Can't keep bringing in a million people a year, building 250,000 homes, and expect prices to go down. We literally cannot "out supply" our induced demand. 🤷 What we are doing right now is like trying to lose weight while eating 10,000 kcal a day. We keep running, and running and keep gaining weight, but when someone says "hey, maybe try eating less?" the response is "nah, we just need to run even MORE!"
Why are bedroom windows so important to you that you think that the government must mandate that everyone should have one? Aside from fire safety, ventilation and light which can be achieved by other means. Because otherwise, bedroom windows just seem aesthetic and even superfluous... like a nice green lawn, or plastic microbeads in hand soap.
I would argue fresh air and sunlight should be bare minimum requirements for living spaces. If we let the Market decide, what will happen is those will become a luxury, not the standard. The cost for what is normal would now not include bedroom windows, and you would pay extra for the luxury of being able to look outside or open a window, and that isn't a reality I'm willing accept so I would strongly oppose such a notion. As I said earlier, even prison cells have windows because to do otherwise is considered inhumane. Nobody ever in the world has said "man I wish this room didn't have so much natural light". Regarding fire suppression, that is expensive to install and maintain, especially so for smaller buildings like multiplexes and townhomes with fewer units to spread cost across. Taking this argument that they aren't necessary, why shouldn't we apply that to other things? Why should 8' ceiling heights be standard? We could build cheaper for 6'6". Why are high levels of insulation standard? These add cost and complication to buildings and houses made due without it for generations. Why have standards at all?
You're not making the argument that you think you are. Ceiling height, insulation and number of fire exits are quantifiable and are included in building code for accessibility, efficiency and safety purposes. Fresh air can be delivered without an open window. Sunlight is not a necessity for a sleeping room. In fact, most people try to block it out when they sleep. And what are you going oh about "luxury" of a window? How about we worry about the luxury of having enough bedrooms for family living. Seems like it's more important. Your entire argument can be reduced to "I like to be able to look through bedroom windows". Hopefully you mean from inside, not outside. All that said, I personally would not want a bedroom without a window either - i also enjoy sunlight. but if it's a choice between that or not having sufficient housing, give me the former. Tldr incase you don't want to read and just skip straight to arguing.. all of the functionality of a window can be achieved without actually having one, so really it just comes down to aesthetics, which shouldn't necessarily be legislated.
>False. This has been the case, but new provincial legislation requires local governments to amend their zoning bylaws by June 30, 2024, to allow for either secondary suites or an accessory dwelling unit on single family lots, or in many places in B.C, three to six units of housing on single family or duplex lots. Not at all false. The new provincial regs do not require munis to reduce minimum lot sizes and I don't know of any municipality that has reduced them in response. Many municipalities are doing the minimum to meet the letter of the law here but the reforms won't actually lead to buildable projects. Much remains to be done. The provincial action on this is a great step, but we are still years away from practical zoning code reform in many municipalities that will allow those missing middle forms to be built as easily as single family. Victoria's missing middle reform is a good example here. It legalized small multifamily on paper but was so restrictive that it attracted basically no interest from builders. Reforms last fall helped, but there is still likely more to be done to make this policy result in a meaningful number of new homes. >Banned due to antiquated fire safety codes. This could change. Changing soon. Province and feds are looking into it now.
We are also seeing costs go up tremendously on building requirements.
Yeah construction costs up a lot and municipalities are piling on with new fees and requirements that drive up costs even more. Not much to be done about the cost of labour and materials but I wish our governments weren’t making the situation worse
Foresight is the problem. The longer they delay infrastructure the more it costs later.
The new building code is estimated to raise framing costs by like 30%
Oof. Not against seismic safety and accessibility but no one on the code committees ever considers the housing implications. I believe the implementation is at least delayed for a year
Yeah it is getting silly. It's like mandating that all cars must be to the spec of high end BMWs, then wondering why no one can afford a car. The houses of our parents generation and before were laughably simple. But they worked and could be built inexpensively. We often rip apart houses with no footings , no rebar in the foundation and not a crack on the foundation at all. Been there for 70-80 years. Now we are building everything like it's fort Knox. In Japan, another seismic zone, they build houses with the intention of a limited life span of around 30 years. In a way, their approach makes more sense.
Minimum lot sizes might not be reduced but how many units you can build on a lot has, in many cases, been increased.
On paper yes. In reality? Remains to be proven
Yeah good points. We're in a weird state where some stuff has changed but not really taken effect yet and it remains to be see what, if any, effect the recent changes will have. I think there are a lot of exceptions and possible loopholes that could be abused. Stuff like different rules for different muni's and I think something like "you can build a multiplex, BUT it has to fit in the existing building footprint" or something like that. So like, sure, technically we made it not illegal to build a multiplex in more places, BUT...\* *\* terms and conditions apply*
Pretty sure I just heard that single stair buildings are now legal?
Yeah the building code really could use some updates. Would love to see single stair reform happen and other things that would make more designs for 3+ bedroom possible.
Part of the problem is you can sell 3 one bedroom units for a lot more than 1 three bedroom unit. You need a government requirement to include more bedrooms because they don’t follow the economics very well
Bonus density for developers if they build more 3+ bedrooms units.
I'm aware of those issues. I've worked in the construction industry for 20 years. I just wanted to hear how many useful units for actual families are being built straight from the councilor before they get too carried away patting themselves on the back. Some of your points are incorrect though. Also, I don't think it's as simple as "developers will build more 3 bed units if we let them". They will build what makes them the most money, and that's typically 1 bedrooms. The price they would have to sell a 3 bed units at would be prohibitive for most families.
Except we have plenty of examples of developers building 3 bed units when we let them. 1. Kelowna got a lot of family-sized 4-plexes when they changed single family zoning to allow them and make them dead-easy to build (pre-approved plans, building permits in weeks). 2. Auckland got a flood of townhouses as soon as they allowed them 3. Jurisdictions that allow single-stair apartments and make other reforms to allow bigger units get family-sized apartments in those buildings 4. Places like Houston with no lot size minimums get a lot of small detached houses on smaller lots. Sure, developers will try to make the most money, like every other business under the planet. When there's a shortage of every housing type, they will build small units preferentially. But the market for small units isn't infinite. If we stop restricting supply so much then the market for small studios and such gets saturated and it becomes less profitable to build them, and developers start targeting other markets. No doubt there is much more to do on housing reform, but 90% of the problem is us punching ourselves in the face on policy. First we have to decide to stop punching.
Can we also build 3 bedroom rentals. Not everyone will be able to buy, but families should have 3 bedroom rental options.
That would be a designation of a house. Land to build new houses is at a premium. Can't build east or south bec of the ocean, there's Saanich, Esq. and westward. It's a tight market.
Negative all of them, aka none of them. Oh, and you can’t even afford the smaller ones anyway, so who even cares at this point.
Do they count as homes when they’re like 200sf? 😂 they’re building people sized shoe boxes all over the place.
"build more homes" "K" "Not like that"
Would not consider those homes
Unpopular opinion: people are going to need to change their definition of "home". You're never ever getting affordable traditional single family homes in Victoria again.
Not if 70% of new builds are going to wealthy immigrants Why are building so fast just to supply foreign wealth to live here and destroy the natural beauty of the island? Langford is unrecognizable from 5 years ago and sooke is getting uglier by the day
Could you back that up with data?
For someone that works in construction, these targets,will never be completed. Supplies/ workers/ etc are at a maximum / premium right now,and the delays are getting worse,by the day. I’ve seen 69- to 80 years old in the workforce, trying to help. Most contractors cannot find the manpower to complete projects they already have in the pipeline. Most municipalities will not reach the target set by the NDP.
And yet, my construction working friends keep getting laid off because there isn't enough work. They get picked up again pretty quickly by another company, but what I'm seeing doesn't match up well with what you're saying.
Construction is feast or famine. One project gets done, another doesn't start for a month and you can't just magically find a month long project to fit that gap and you lay people off. In fairness, and no offense to your friend, it's generally the low hanging fruit that gets laid off...
They generally seem to be the newest guys on site, so last in, first to be laid off makes sense.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-housing-starts-construction-worker-productivity >According to a new report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the number of construction workers in Canada reached a record high of 650,000 in 2023. >All the while, according to CMHC’s calculations, the number of housing starts recorded across the country in 2023 reached about 240,300 units, which is below the maximum potential of building well over 400,000 homes per year. >CMHC suggests much of the declining productivity in the construction sector can be attributed to how municipal governments operate. >“The discrepancy in housing starts production relative to population across Canadian cities hints that regulation plays a significant role in whether building activity can accelerate — especially municipal regulation,” reads the report. What do you think of this? CMHC believes it's less about a labour shortage, but rather detrimental regulations.
Which is why the Province has pushed councils to clear the way with permitting. This all takes time but it’s start in to happen. Damned if you, damned if you don’t. At least they’re doing something.
All the more reason we shouldn't throw up unnecessary roadblock - make sure developers can build when they have the people to do it. Although I'm not in construction, my understanding of the changes allowing more houseplexes is that these can be build by a different group trades - which may still be stretched to the max.
Hopefully some are affordable enough and rental units for the average person in the city to actually live...
The ideal affordability for most DINKS (we’ll just start with them) is around $1700 for 2 bedrooms. However, this is laughable and will never ever happen.
This is still way off the pace we need to keep up with population growth. Hence, this isn't going to help affordability.
Doesn't matter who lives there, there will always be an average.
The goals are questionable, they don't match up with CMHC's target of reaching a 2004 level of affordability by 2030 at all. Napkin math here, it's obviously much more complex. The CMHC says we need to build 6.2 million homes across Canada by 2030 to reach the affordability level that we had in 2004. So if housing needs were equal across Canada (they aren't) BC would need to build 850k new homes by 2030, and the City of Victoria's share would be 14440. 2400 homes annually to reach 2004 levels of housing affordability. We're not even in the ballpark of what needs to be built.
For those kind of numbers you'll see most units in net new areas. Places where you can develop greenfield. Victoria has none of that left and a tough geography in the surrounding areas. If I were the province I'd be looking hard at the interior. Kamloops could be a half million person city in a decade. You'll build homes there a lot faster than Victoria simply by expanding the city. Don't just repeat the mistake and go SFH. But it'll be quicker none the less
This report of 4,000 completed units spans a period of 6 months. So assuming that rate is upheld, we can assume BC is capable of completing roughly 8,000 new units per year. At that rate we'll have built those 850k new homes by (double-checks calculator) the year 2130. (Not the year 2030.) Given the current rate of new builds, the BC govt's ETA for when we can expect housing to be affordable again is only off by exactly 100 years 😂
Not quite as bad as that. The 4k is just for the initial 10 communities on the housing naughty list, BC built 45,647 new homes in 2023. We'd need 141k annually to reach 850k, still, that's fucked and probably a lowball considering how much worse housing is in BC than the other provinces and only gets us to 2004 affordability level, 2004 wasn't exactly affordable either.
2004 was actually pretty affordable. I remember right around 2004 I rented a 1br apartment in a decent location for $550/mo
[Montreal becomes largest North American city to eliminate mandatory minimum parking spots](https://cultmtl.com/2024/06/montreal-becomes-largest-north-american-city-to-eliminate-mandatory-minimum-parking-spots/) [City of Vancouver to eliminate minimum car parking requirements everywhere in all types of buildings this month](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-minimum-vehicle-parking-requirements-abolished) Dave, we're next, right?
A fart in a windstorm. We have 10k new Tim Hortons donut makers arriving just today!
Another million arrivals on the way.
Can’t you find another narrative? Isn’t it tired by now?
It's definitely not tired, as 70% of new builds get bought by immigrants and don't leave a lot left for Canadians Why build and destroy the country for wealthy foreigners????
Whats 2 + 2? And no don't tell me 4 I want a good answer
It should be housing approved or starting construction in the first six months, not houses people have moved into. Those were in the pipeline well before the government implemented these targets. There's a two house development being built a block from me that started construction in February. They don't expect they'll be completed until January. For the government to think anything that wasn't already approved in the autumn would have gone through the full process and been constructed by now is pretty disingenuous.
The province giving themselves a pat on the back with this report is hilarious. Houses are being built because through taxation, fees, red tape because it's still very profitable. They are not being built through targets set out by the government. If they really wanted houses in particular affordable housing built, they wouldn't be taking a 20 percent cut on new homes built. They are now even using the money to pay for the 100k per home that is needed in The report, funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, estimated the average cost of infrastructure needed to support housing likely exceeds $100,000 for each newly built home. That includes funding for resources such as public transit, roads, water lines, schools, fire halls or recreational facilities. 4000 homes = $400,000,000 in infrastructure 50,000 homes = $5,000,000,000 in infrastructure
I move furniture for a living in Victoria and I’ve been seeing these new apartments need mobile phones to get inside on the app instead of keys. So dumb
Daily reminder for this sub that SFH are not the enemy and we have tons of under used rural land that should be subdivided into 4000 sw ft lots. Allow people to build suites and you still accomplish density.
If in Ontario 70% of new builds went to rich immigrants than why are we building so many houses?? We are destroying this island, langford is a complete shit show,. I have never seen so many shity apartments/condos go up so fast and sooooo expensive. And now sooke is becoming just the same and ruining what was great about it... It's so sad
Y'all are fools
And none of them for the poor.... As the homeless population grows
Check the thread on the Balmoral supportive housing building that just opened with 56 homes. And our recent vote to support 30 shelter rate homes at Village on the Green. More needed, and more coming.
56.... compared to 1000's for people with money is nothing to be excited or proud about. There are 1000's of homeless and 1000's more that could become homeless at any moment because they are barely making their $1000 plus a month rent for a room... and this isn't a new problem