Housing
Detailed Discussion
Increased density is a fact of life. Being bordered by the sea and Boundary Road, there is very little land left in Vancouver for low density housing such as our beloved single detached dwellings. Condo and town home living will become the primary way new housing can be built.
Because we are at the start of this change, we are in the unique position to manage it almost from the start. If we don’t manage it, we are open to urban sprawl, the destruction of farmland in the valley, and will impact air quality in Metro Vancouver.
A potential solution is the model is the “one-third model”. The principle is that in any new development or group of developments is that 1/3 of the housing units built are upscale market housing; 1/3 is mid priced housing or family friendly housing (3 bedrooms, costing around .5 million); and the remaining 1/3 is everyday housing suitable for first time single or couples just getting established (lower priced housing). This model is flexible, in that it can be adopted to specify one-third for social housing, one-third for market housing, and one-third for subsidized affordable housing in which the subsidized affordable housing would be protected in perpetuity through the use of re-sale price restrictions on new affordable strata-titled units. The concept has been proven at Whistler and UniverCity at SFU. This policy ensures that the original subsidy is passed on from each purchaser to the next.
A nice feature of this model is that it has already gained acceptance within the development community who were ready to implement it in South East False Creek for example.
Another solution is to look at creating a “third housing sector” or “revolving fund for middle income housing” as described by Larry Beasly at the Think City conference last year. This model is an innovative way European cities have kept housing prices down so people can get on with the business of living. Here is what he had to say:
“…In Madrid, for example, the government builds some housing, sells it to people, and then, if the owners want to sell it, they have to sell it back to the government at a pre-established rate, without the huge growth in value. And for some people who will forgo the investment side of things and want just great housing, this is a wonderful model. Not only that, but when government sells it to the next person the housing gets more and more affordable. What’s also great about it is that government investment is recouped right away. So it’s not like you throw that money and never see it again — because you are selling that housing to people but at a lower cost, more related to the actual cost of producing that housing.
I would dare say – and I know this is politically tough – but I would dare say we should use the great wealth in the city’s property endowment fund, in part to create a revolving fund for middle-income housing. We wouldn’t lose a penny.”
This approach offers some opportunity for people to enjoy affordable better quality and location, in exchange for those people not using that housing as an investment vehicle or a pension plan.
Another approach would be to protect the existing stock of rental apartments in the city from condo conversions. This is possible by lobbying for changes to the federal tax law to remove the parts that discourage construction of new rental housing, as well as facilitating housing co-operatives as a part of larger buildings and public projects, and support more “infill” housing such as laneway housing by relax the parking space by-law that requires housing for vehicles instead of people!
I am also in favour of encouraging the construction of affordable units in new developments by providing density bonuses and financing assistance for projects that include significant new affordable housing.
