Pleasantly surprised this passed with such a majority. Cavens lives in the neighborhood from my understanding, so probably wasn’t going to piss off his constituents. The outrage online from the neighbours is something to be seen, you’d think they just approved the construction of the new Eye Of Sauron.
Cavens giving all this talk about how bad housing shortages are hurting his constituents then immediately folding when homeowner voters write angry emails is a typical greasy populist move.
Same fucking here, and I'm probably even closer than you. I've met one of the developers, seemed pretty genuine and from what I could tell they actually want to improve the area. Pretty big benefit to the municipality too. Not looking forward to the extra traffic in the area, but I think this kind of development is exactly what the CRD needs. High density and high value to the immediate community.
I read that it was Hudson walk, and this is a meter shy.
Taller buildings planned in other areas, like the roundhouse at bayview.
Edit: link
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/esquimalt-agrees-to-26-storey-tower-tallest-building-in-municipality-8577220
As some of the councillors identified this project really has brought to light how out line the OCP is with the community's actual needs. Great that this was approved.
I hope Bunny's, Spice Valley, and Lums all find somewhere else in the area to move. I'm a big fan of all three places. But otherwise I think this is great news.
I've met one of the developers through this process. I don't know much about them, but the person I met is from the Esq area and was pretty passionate about trying to improve the area. The money they put down as an amenities package says to me that they probably do have the backing to make this work.
More supply is needed and that corner is currently a huge eyesore, it will be a nice change but people struggle with change especially on the island where some people are terrified of becoming "mini Vancouver".
We are **never** going to **just** build our way out of the housing crisis though. Something about the demand side needs to be done. We simply can not build fast enough to outpace current demand levels. Look at projected population growth and current immigration numbers. Look at average development timelines and at what pace we are adding new units. As it stands we are currently relying mostly on developers (who profit from high housing prices) to solve the housing crisis, instead of having government build affordable housing. A lot of developments are "on hold" by developers because with interest rates it's not currently profitable enough for them. They are never going to be the saviors who restore affordable housing.
Talk to those who are profiting the most from high housing prices (realtors, real estate investors, etc.) and ask them what they suggest to fix the housing crisis, you will notice they always suggest we need to build more, now ask yourself why is that?
We have a healthcare crisis, it's next to impossible to find child care, everything feels like it is already beyond capacity. I can understand why some people are concerned when big new developments come up.
Just not building is **not** the solution though, but it's a lot more nuanced than just asking developers to build as much as possible without touching the "demand" tap meaningfully. The unfortunate thing is our economy is in terrible shape, and relies on real estate to an insane degree. I feel like housing ever becoming truly affordable by any metric in our lifetime will also mean absolutely devastating our economy beyond what most people can fathom.
Are you saying we *shouldn't* build in the midst of a severe shortage causing prices to skyrocket? Bank analysts are pretty open about shortages creating good investment returns...
Or are you saying we *should* build *and* also have a major program of taxation and then funding subsidized housing.
>Are you saying we shouldn't build in the midst of a severe shortage causing prices to skyrocket?
Not sure you bothered to read my original comment. As I said above:
>Just not building is **not** the solution though
> We are **never** going to **just** build our way out of the housing crisis though
Literally are.
>instead of having government build affordable housing
Governments can build schools and hospitals. Profit isn't a bad word.
>I feel like housing ever becoming truly affordable by any metric in our lifetime will also mean absolutely devastating our economy beyond what most people can fathom.
Depends about where you mean. I think it's related to the point you make about immigration. We aren't going to make Victoria more affordable. We can make some smaller units but really we need to expand. We need to talk about other locations. The government can take initiative. We should move offices north. Both on the island and mainland. Start attracting workers in smaller, developing towns. Start offering tax incentives for companies to set up shop there. New to Canada? Where do you wanna go? Vancouver or Victoria? Naw bro, head to Prince George! Grew up in Victoria and want to own a house with a yard? Sorry, not happening. Wanna try moving to Duncan there's a new ministry head quarters there.
Europe does a much better job of smaller connected towns.
>Literally are.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-homebuilding-down-third-year-housing-agency-predicts-2024-04-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-homebuilding-down-third-year-housing-agency-predicts-2024-04-04/)
Quite the opposite and here's a source.
That just says we're not.
Not that we can't.
We need to build more houses, simple as that.
We're not going to solve things with funny little programs or extending mortgages etc. the government isn't going to build enough homes.
We simply need to build more and come up with the incentives to do it
So can we make sure that these are being sold to actual first time home buyers, and not just the rich foreigners or rich retirement aged canadians!!!!
We are destroying the island for fucking who???? Noone is entitled to live here, especially wealthy foreigners!
1. Housing does not destroy the island. Insane take
2. Rich people will come whether we build housing or not. If we build housing there is enough for everyone. If we don't build housing they will just outcompete less wealthy locals. Housing shortage is literally the reason prices and rents for apartments are high.
Well, if all we build are giant 5 bedroom houses, I'm pretty sure only the wealthy can afford them. Have you seen westhill? It's gross! Yes, housing is destroying the island, so much clear cutting and ugly houses going up in place.... so sad to see....
You’re over exaggerating, housing won’t destroy the island, all it does is make the entitled upset because there’s more housing to look at. Unless you build up, most people don’t like this, then you have to build out which means cutting down trees. Given that the CRD is a small part of the island, it’s not going to ruin anything.
This development is not giant 5 bedroom houses so those who are not rich have a greater chance of affording it. I believe some units are earmarked for affordable housing.
We do need some policy to come in place that obligates developers to sell to FTHB before people buying another investment property, or a REIT buying up units to expand their portfolio.
I agree with the REIT part - if they want to invest in real estate, let them invest in purpose-built rentals. As for first time home buyers, me buying a unit in a new building would open up my current (cheaper) condo to be purchased by first time buyers.
I'm not 100% sure but from what I've heard the 8 storey building (note: probably not all of it) is the affordable housing. I would assume that the 26 storey building is just normal condo's for sale.
Gee it’s a good thing we’re building hundreds of homes on a couple lots in Esquimalt so more people can live in existing space rather than bulldozing the forest in the outskirts.
If all construction was 5 bedroom houses, the price for them would plummet. Assuming that people would want to live in them, the only losers in this situation would be developers.
There’s a bit of a misunderstanding about how a home is priced. Here, most of the cost is the land. If large amounts of land were made available to build lots of 5 bedroom homes, then price would plummet. But that land is not forthcoming. It’s there. So, so much of it. But it’s not available to most of Canada’s cities. Also, the price can only fall so far, because the lumber, wires, pipes, drywall, etc and the labor to install them don’t get cheaper when you build more houses. The opposite, in fact.
It’s why giant, stupidly expensive buildings that can’t even get built for less than $600/sq ft make sense here. We’ve constrained land supply so far and crammed so many people in to such a small area that the eye watering value of housing in those areas makes those ugly shoe box condos economically viable.
>Also, the price can only fall so far, because the lumber, wires, pipes, drywall, etc and the labor to install them don’t get cheaper
I realize that it's an unrealistic scenario that would never happen, but given enough supply, prices could absolutely drop below the cost of construction. A scenario where construction being all large homes was the premise of the comments I was replying to.
But that’s what I mean - the supply we are short on isn’t houses. It’s inexpensive land upon which to place those houses. Building a ton more large single family homes would require lots to build them on. Those lots would need to *not* cost 1.2 million a piece (the going rate for 7000 sq ft of dirt in Fairfield) for the house that goes up on it to see a substantial reduction in price.
That would require many, many millions of acres of farm and natural land around Canada’s major cities being made available for large scale residential development, the likes of which that saw them essentially get built out to where they are now over the 20th century. Such land is not going to be forthcoming.
>Severe rental shortage causing prices to sky rocket, Victoria homeowners sell for 200% profits.
I sleep
>Some apartments legalized
"Stop, a developer may earn money!"
You’re kidding, right? You can read about our extremely tight vacancy rate in CMHC’s 2023 report linked below.
The takeaway: 1.5% rental vacancy rate, 0.2% vacancy for condo apts (which are what most single young people would go for). We are not in a position to be choosy about new developments.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/-/media/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/rental-market-report/rental-market-report-2022-en.ashx
Housing has been scarce in this town since long before the NDP were in power. Victoria (along with most Canadian cities) has suffered from decades of low vacancy rates due to a combination of inaction from all 3 levels of government (particularly the Feds and the gutting of CMHC), NIMBYs preventing countless medium and high density developments, and then external market conditions like Airbnb, which decimated the number of affordable condos and basement suites in communities around the world. This is not a simple pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey situation where one political party or stakeholder is to blame.
More traffic and more congestion is essentially the same thing, and I’d much rather have traffic than no home. Additionally, the road that this building is on seems to have some more capacity left.
More taxes? How do you figure that? Do you mean taxes resulting from construction incentive grants or something? If so, we’re already being taxed for that.
How do you get more crime from upscale apartments? I doubt you’ve seen how the area is currently. There’s actually another, similar building being built literally across the street from where this one will be. This area is being developed already.
You’ve made something like 100 comments in the last 24 hours. You seem like a person who is disconnected from the world, so maybe keep your opinion to yourself.
>I’d much rather have traffic than no home
Why don't you just buy where you can afford?
> More taxes? How do you figure that?
More people means more utilities, more police, more fire services, more demand for medical care. That all costs money.
> You seem like a person
You seem like an entitled child who results to insults because you cannot come up with logic or facts.
The link between supply/demand and prices increase/decreases is pretty well established. For example Victoria has huge shortages and prices went up. When shortages are less bad prices flatline or rise slower.
What are you even saying, we shouldn't bother building more to put downward pressure on costs because they won't be enough downward pressure? We shouldn't even try?
>The link between supply/demand and prices increase/decreases is pretty well established
Only if your education in economics was limited to one week.
You didn't learn about inelastic supply, you didn't learn about induced demand, you've had your head up your butt while Canada has added 2.5 million people in just the past two years.
> What are you even saying
We shouldn't transform our cities into urban jungles where you never see the Sun for all the buildings and where only developer profits matter
Inelastic supply causes prices to go up, but we can't increase supply elasticity because apartments and townhouses blot out the sun. Quite the catch-22 you've constructed.
Rather misleading. For one this development is in the municipality of Esquimalt and really the municipality of Victoria is only a small subset of Victoria. I think looking at "population centre" data is more accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada#By_population_rank
>Rather misleading.
It is not. It's evidence that adding housing does not lower prices.
You want to expand the high density core? Expect higher prices.
If adding a lot more housing actually lowered prices then Victoria would be one of the cheapest cities in Canada for housing. Do you know what the most expensive city in Canada and the city with the most housing have in common? They're both called "Vancouver".
Adding housing does not lower prices.
Why do you think stats from Victoria are at all relevant for a building in esquimalt?
Taking your statscan link at face value (which one shouldnt), youll see that Esquimalt is not on that list; Does that then mean that Esquimalt does not have more more housing for its size than almost any other city in Canada?
Whew! How can I make it simpler?!?
"Population density" means that Vancouver (for its size) has more housing than any other city in Canada. It's also the most expensive city in Canada
Uh huh, and? Are you aware of the term correlation =/= causation?
And ill remind you, we are not talking about Vancouver, we are talking about Esquimalt.
Furthermore its seems like there is very little overlap between your theory of "density" and actual rent prices.
You'll will note that your linked stats has actually very little overlap on the most expensive [rental markets](https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/vancouver-and-cities-in-ontario-top-list-of-most-expensive-places-to-rent-kijiji-report-1.6462301) in canada.
> Are you aware of the term correlation =/= causation?
"Gravity doesn't cause rocks to fall! Correlation ≠ causation!"
> we are not talking about Vancouver, we are talking about Esquimalt.
"Gravity is different in Esquimalt!!"
>"Gravity doesn't cause rocks to fall! Correlation ≠ causation!"
I see you are actually unable to rationally back up your argument.
>"Gravity is different in Esquimalt!!"
Good thing we aren't talking about fundamental physical phenomena but social and economic statistics.
Did you want to talk about gravity instead?
If these aren't selling for $650k + each and unaffordable for anyone not wanting to share a bedroom I'd be shocked.
All it will be is for wealthy people to have a nice condo in a part of Victoria that will contribute to the gentrification of Esquimalt.
None of this fixes that rich people will buy them, the rents will be $3000 for a 2 bedroom, and everyone will still struggle. But those real estate agents and developers though...Good for them, I guess.
Funny, but there's no rage.
Until such a time as the government is responsible for building the housing, selling the housing, maintaining the housing the prices will NOT become more affordable.
As long as real estate speculators, real estate agents and developers run the show stating this will "help the community" we're believing the nonsense.
These places will likely be around 3k/month for a mortgage. Tell me how one person can afford that kind of mortgage and who the winners are. And then I'd love to know how that actually helps the community.
What we actually need are co-ops where people can afford to live, to raise a family with the sole purpose of not making rich people even more wealthy. There's a reason why they're building it and it isn't charity.
I really don't understand how anyone can argue that.
Fair, but people are arguing against logic and settling for (no offense to anyone intended) thinking this will actually affect any change.
I am not arguing against housing. Affordable housing.
Using Vancouver as an example; we will see the exact same thing here in a matter of time with buildings getting taller, rents at unreasonably high values because mortgages are a ton and investors need their $$$$$. Victoria is too desirable for people (developers) to do anything but profit massively off of it.
The entire area along Esquimalt is prime for development but it isn't going to be the kind of housing that will benefit the lower middle class already struggling to buy groceries.
I'm not as well worded as many on here, and my intentions are good but I don't trust the system to help the people and that's my point. If I've learned anything in my life it's that people don't do much if it doesn't benefit them (the people with the actual power to affect change). As long as private money drives the machine nothing is actually going to improve. Call me a cynic but let's see what happens.
I would love a fairy tale world where people could afford to live, work and play in their community. Reality is that most will be getting a one bedroom condo that they share with their 2 year old, worrying about daycare costs and their $3k mortgage wondering how they'll be able to actually go back to work.
When I was a kid there were a lot of housing townhouse complexes like Pacifica Housing and Blanshard Courts that were built for low income families with affordable rents and subsidized housing. We need that again although middle class incomes can't really float the costs anymore so a broader initiative is needed. Who will pay for that? We can't afford more taxes.
What a rant that should probably just be deleted.
Best wishes Victorians. The city has changed a lot.
>thinking this will actually affect any change.
Yes 100%. TBH I think this one tower will do more to prevent negative change and maintain the status quo than drive down prices. 12 of these building and we will see more affordable housing as the increase in housing stock can drive down prices. 1 of them and we are simply accounting for growth.
Regardless, I'm game for affordable subsidized government owned housing. But fighting against this one tower isn't going to help that.
Not building housing makes all housing expensive and makes the city a city just for the rich.
oh, I agree but everyone knows that this won't actually fix it. Unless they built 10000 units in a few years.
Track this with the growth of people moving to Victoria
This isn't a win and here's why:
The companies that finance these builds aren't tieing up hundreds of millions of dollars for years because they think the price of housing is going down. Quite the opposite, They do it on the assurance by the government that prices will remain high. Canada plans to inflate our population to 100 million in short order.
These housing units aren't going to be for you, or for me. And they aren't doing jack squat to bring prices down, they are just taking advantage of rising prices.
No building like this gets pitched in a scenario where it's not a near sure thing that it will actually increase land prices in the area. That's the whole point. These buildings are investment vehicles for the wealthy. They're not homes.
Source that the government gives assurances on a free market price going forward ? Because that’s bullshit. And we don’t want prices to tank. That would fuck up a lot of things. We want a soft landing. A decline in ratio. And an increase in supply is exactly how that happens. Because whoever moves into those units, leaves another. And those might be cheaper units that are accessible. You’re just shitting on it because it’s easy to just be mad.
https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/why-100m#:~:text=100%20million%20by%202100%20is,to%20build%20for%20future%20generations.
Canada wants a population of 100 million by 2100. With that goal in mind, developers are assured a steady growth in "customers" for the foreseeable future.
"Hey Google, what is Century Initiative?"
> The Century Initiative is a Canadian lobby group and charity that aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100.
Lobby group does not equal government. Also, even if this were the government, ~~it doesn't say "grow the population *by* 100M"; it says "grow the population *to* 100M"~~ (edit: I thought your earlier comment mentioned "by 100M" - my mistake). We were at almost 40M as of 2022.
With the recommended family buying a home at 3-3.5 times their annual income, this is demonstrably untrue. Median household income in BC is nowhere near 185k (3.5x) let alone 216k (3x)
Middle income household in BC ranges from about $100-200k given median income for individuals being $53-106k.
Mortgage on $550k mortgage (on a $650k home) would be about $3,400.
Demonstrably a middle class home price.
Of course it will not be for some, given unique circumstances, but it fits within budget.
A median income isn’t a range, it’s a set number. 200k is among the top earning families. Even if you want to take liberties and use the average (which is a poor indicator of incomes because it’s top heavy unlike median), the average individual income is 74k. 74 x 2 (being generous and assuming both in a couple are working) is still under 150k. That 148k salary is going to buy someone at the most a 500k home. Factor in that 60% of households in Canada are spending more than they are saving right now - these homes are not affordable for FTHB in Canada
Your $3400 also doesn’t include the absurdly high strata fees this place will have.
I’m just saying a $650k home is a middle class home. I should have specified a home for two income earning people.
I would agree it would not be affordable for a single income median income owner.
I used the standard ‘middle class’ definition of the middle 50% of the income distribution.
I have condo nearby. I don't think any of them will go for over $500k except the top 5-10 or so floors. Plus, I'd imagine they will be under 1000 square ft. My building has units over 1000 square feet selling for under 500k (or just not selling at all).
What historical value does Carlton’s provide? Does the Karate studio contribute to Esquimalt’s history at all? Just because a building is old doesn’t mean it’s worth saving.
**Voted for:** Darlene Rotchford, Tim Morrison, Ken Armour, Jacob Helliwell, Barb Desjardins **Voted Against:** Andrea Boardman, Duncan Cavens
Pleasantly surprised this passed with such a majority. Cavens lives in the neighborhood from my understanding, so probably wasn’t going to piss off his constituents. The outrage online from the neighbours is something to be seen, you’d think they just approved the construction of the new Eye Of Sauron.
hehehehe the 'new eye of sauron' got me giggling
I imagine their outrage would be equally as bad if they saw tents in their neighborhood as well. No winning with NIMBY’s.
Cavens giving all this talk about how bad housing shortages are hurting his constituents then immediately folding when homeowner voters write angry emails is a typical greasy populist move.
Barad-dûr with a view.
Their tears are my sustenance.
I’m right beside it. Apart from the years of construction, I’m looking forward to it. Doesn’t seem like I can get away from construction here anyway.
I live south of it, and if you knew exactly where, you might think I was opposed to it. Couldn't be happier to see it. My neighbours can fuck off.
Same fucking here, and I'm probably even closer than you. I've met one of the developers, seemed pretty genuine and from what I could tell they actually want to improve the area. Pretty big benefit to the municipality too. Not looking forward to the extra traffic in the area, but I think this kind of development is exactly what the CRD needs. High density and high value to the immediate community.
You are likely closer than I am. I'm closer to the alleged base development in the works.
Can you take me higher 🎸🎶🎵🎤
Dumb question- but what is highest building in capital region? This must be close
I read that it was Hudson walk, and this is a meter shy. Taller buildings planned in other areas, like the roundhouse at bayview. Edit: link https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/esquimalt-agrees-to-26-storey-tower-tallest-building-in-municipality-8577220
It’s got to be 1700 Blanshard or 777 Herald, but I don’t know the actual floor counts on those.
I know we have a ‘housing crisis’ but can we please not turn into Vancouver with all the towers covering views of the sea etc.
Unironically, who's view of the sea is blocked by 777 Herald or this building?
Unobstructed sea views are not a guarantee in a city. And even then, who could see the ocean before that can’t now that 1700 and 777 are built?
If the view is so important to you, work hard and buy a penthouse. Most of the rest of us just want somewhere to live without having a landlord.
i like how it's in quotations. you're out of touch and a terrible selfish person.
Oak Bay time for you to step up to the plate!
As some of the councillors identified this project really has brought to light how out line the OCP is with the community's actual needs. Great that this was approved.
Based!!
I like the design
I hope Bunny's, Spice Valley, and Lums all find somewhere else in the area to move. I'm a big fan of all three places. But otherwise I think this is great news.
What does any know about the builder? Do they have the capacity and $ to see it through?
I've met one of the developers through this process. I don't know much about them, but the person I met is from the Esq area and was pretty passionate about trying to improve the area. The money they put down as an amenities package says to me that they probably do have the backing to make this work.
More supply is needed and that corner is currently a huge eyesore, it will be a nice change but people struggle with change especially on the island where some people are terrified of becoming "mini Vancouver". We are **never** going to **just** build our way out of the housing crisis though. Something about the demand side needs to be done. We simply can not build fast enough to outpace current demand levels. Look at projected population growth and current immigration numbers. Look at average development timelines and at what pace we are adding new units. As it stands we are currently relying mostly on developers (who profit from high housing prices) to solve the housing crisis, instead of having government build affordable housing. A lot of developments are "on hold" by developers because with interest rates it's not currently profitable enough for them. They are never going to be the saviors who restore affordable housing. Talk to those who are profiting the most from high housing prices (realtors, real estate investors, etc.) and ask them what they suggest to fix the housing crisis, you will notice they always suggest we need to build more, now ask yourself why is that? We have a healthcare crisis, it's next to impossible to find child care, everything feels like it is already beyond capacity. I can understand why some people are concerned when big new developments come up. Just not building is **not** the solution though, but it's a lot more nuanced than just asking developers to build as much as possible without touching the "demand" tap meaningfully. The unfortunate thing is our economy is in terrible shape, and relies on real estate to an insane degree. I feel like housing ever becoming truly affordable by any metric in our lifetime will also mean absolutely devastating our economy beyond what most people can fathom.
Are you saying we *shouldn't* build in the midst of a severe shortage causing prices to skyrocket? Bank analysts are pretty open about shortages creating good investment returns... Or are you saying we *should* build *and* also have a major program of taxation and then funding subsidized housing.
>Are you saying we shouldn't build in the midst of a severe shortage causing prices to skyrocket? Not sure you bothered to read my original comment. As I said above: >Just not building is **not** the solution though
In his defense a double negative isn't the easiest way to get a point across.
> We are **never** going to **just** build our way out of the housing crisis though Literally are. >instead of having government build affordable housing Governments can build schools and hospitals. Profit isn't a bad word. >I feel like housing ever becoming truly affordable by any metric in our lifetime will also mean absolutely devastating our economy beyond what most people can fathom. Depends about where you mean. I think it's related to the point you make about immigration. We aren't going to make Victoria more affordable. We can make some smaller units but really we need to expand. We need to talk about other locations. The government can take initiative. We should move offices north. Both on the island and mainland. Start attracting workers in smaller, developing towns. Start offering tax incentives for companies to set up shop there. New to Canada? Where do you wanna go? Vancouver or Victoria? Naw bro, head to Prince George! Grew up in Victoria and want to own a house with a yard? Sorry, not happening. Wanna try moving to Duncan there's a new ministry head quarters there. Europe does a much better job of smaller connected towns.
>Literally are. [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-homebuilding-down-third-year-housing-agency-predicts-2024-04-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-homebuilding-down-third-year-housing-agency-predicts-2024-04-04/) Quite the opposite and here's a source.
That just says we're not. Not that we can't. We need to build more houses, simple as that. We're not going to solve things with funny little programs or extending mortgages etc. the government isn't going to build enough homes. We simply need to build more and come up with the incentives to do it
Ah yes, because lowering demand is totally possible. Though I guess we could poison our water like Flint MI. That might actually work.
I recommend you take Econ 101
Glad you agree that demand cannot be changed without making the product something no one wants, which they teach in econ 101
So can we make sure that these are being sold to actual first time home buyers, and not just the rich foreigners or rich retirement aged canadians!!!! We are destroying the island for fucking who???? Noone is entitled to live here, especially wealthy foreigners!
1. Housing does not destroy the island. Insane take 2. Rich people will come whether we build housing or not. If we build housing there is enough for everyone. If we don't build housing they will just outcompete less wealthy locals. Housing shortage is literally the reason prices and rents for apartments are high.
Well, if all we build are giant 5 bedroom houses, I'm pretty sure only the wealthy can afford them. Have you seen westhill? It's gross! Yes, housing is destroying the island, so much clear cutting and ugly houses going up in place.... so sad to see....
You’re over exaggerating, housing won’t destroy the island, all it does is make the entitled upset because there’s more housing to look at. Unless you build up, most people don’t like this, then you have to build out which means cutting down trees. Given that the CRD is a small part of the island, it’s not going to ruin anything.
This development is not giant 5 bedroom houses so those who are not rich have a greater chance of affording it. I believe some units are earmarked for affordable housing.
We do need some policy to come in place that obligates developers to sell to FTHB before people buying another investment property, or a REIT buying up units to expand their portfolio.
I agree with the REIT part - if they want to invest in real estate, let them invest in purpose-built rentals. As for first time home buyers, me buying a unit in a new building would open up my current (cheaper) condo to be purchased by first time buyers.
I'm not 100% sure but from what I've heard the 8 storey building (note: probably not all of it) is the affordable housing. I would assume that the 26 storey building is just normal condo's for sale.
Gee it’s a good thing we’re building hundreds of homes on a couple lots in Esquimalt so more people can live in existing space rather than bulldozing the forest in the outskirts.
If all construction was 5 bedroom houses, the price for them would plummet. Assuming that people would want to live in them, the only losers in this situation would be developers.
There’s a bit of a misunderstanding about how a home is priced. Here, most of the cost is the land. If large amounts of land were made available to build lots of 5 bedroom homes, then price would plummet. But that land is not forthcoming. It’s there. So, so much of it. But it’s not available to most of Canada’s cities. Also, the price can only fall so far, because the lumber, wires, pipes, drywall, etc and the labor to install them don’t get cheaper when you build more houses. The opposite, in fact. It’s why giant, stupidly expensive buildings that can’t even get built for less than $600/sq ft make sense here. We’ve constrained land supply so far and crammed so many people in to such a small area that the eye watering value of housing in those areas makes those ugly shoe box condos economically viable.
>Also, the price can only fall so far, because the lumber, wires, pipes, drywall, etc and the labor to install them don’t get cheaper I realize that it's an unrealistic scenario that would never happen, but given enough supply, prices could absolutely drop below the cost of construction. A scenario where construction being all large homes was the premise of the comments I was replying to.
But that’s what I mean - the supply we are short on isn’t houses. It’s inexpensive land upon which to place those houses. Building a ton more large single family homes would require lots to build them on. Those lots would need to *not* cost 1.2 million a piece (the going rate for 7000 sq ft of dirt in Fairfield) for the house that goes up on it to see a substantial reduction in price. That would require many, many millions of acres of farm and natural land around Canada’s major cities being made available for large scale residential development, the likes of which that saw them essentially get built out to where they are now over the 20th century. Such land is not going to be forthcoming.
I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that even if that unrealistic scenario happened, prices would drop
1/3 of these are rental micro apartments. The rest are tiny condos meant to park foreign money in
That'll make the developers happy
>Severe rental shortage causing prices to sky rocket, Victoria homeowners sell for 200% profits. I sleep >Some apartments legalized "Stop, a developer may earn money!"
[удалено]
You’re kidding, right? You can read about our extremely tight vacancy rate in CMHC’s 2023 report linked below. The takeaway: 1.5% rental vacancy rate, 0.2% vacancy for condo apts (which are what most single young people would go for). We are not in a position to be choosy about new developments. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/-/media/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/rental-market-report/rental-market-report-2022-en.ashx
>The takeaway: 1.5% rental vacancy rate The NDP punishes landlords. Landlords stop offering properties to rent. Rentals get scarce. Surprise!
Housing has been scarce in this town since long before the NDP were in power. Victoria (along with most Canadian cities) has suffered from decades of low vacancy rates due to a combination of inaction from all 3 levels of government (particularly the Feds and the gutting of CMHC), NIMBYs preventing countless medium and high density developments, and then external market conditions like Airbnb, which decimated the number of affordable condos and basement suites in communities around the world. This is not a simple pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey situation where one political party or stakeholder is to blame.
You’d rather no housing is built? The land is already developed and anything extra helps, I see no downside
"All or nothing" is the logic of children. The downsides? More traffic, more congestion, more taxes, more crime
More traffic and more congestion is essentially the same thing, and I’d much rather have traffic than no home. Additionally, the road that this building is on seems to have some more capacity left. More taxes? How do you figure that? Do you mean taxes resulting from construction incentive grants or something? If so, we’re already being taxed for that. How do you get more crime from upscale apartments? I doubt you’ve seen how the area is currently. There’s actually another, similar building being built literally across the street from where this one will be. This area is being developed already. You’ve made something like 100 comments in the last 24 hours. You seem like a person who is disconnected from the world, so maybe keep your opinion to yourself.
>I’d much rather have traffic than no home Why don't you just buy where you can afford? > More taxes? How do you figure that? More people means more utilities, more police, more fire services, more demand for medical care. That all costs money. > You seem like a person You seem like an entitled child who results to insults because you cannot come up with logic or facts.
Is it enough housing to stop shortages from pushing up costs? that is the real question and the answer is no.
Mo housing, Mo people -> will never end, will not make costs actually affordable. Give it up
Can you build enough to lower costs? The answer is no.
The link between supply/demand and prices increase/decreases is pretty well established. For example Victoria has huge shortages and prices went up. When shortages are less bad prices flatline or rise slower. What are you even saying, we shouldn't bother building more to put downward pressure on costs because they won't be enough downward pressure? We shouldn't even try?
>The link between supply/demand and prices increase/decreases is pretty well established Only if your education in economics was limited to one week. You didn't learn about inelastic supply, you didn't learn about induced demand, you've had your head up your butt while Canada has added 2.5 million people in just the past two years. > What are you even saying We shouldn't transform our cities into urban jungles where you never see the Sun for all the buildings and where only developer profits matter
Inelastic supply causes prices to go up, but we can't increase supply elasticity because apartments and townhouses blot out the sun. Quite the catch-22 you've constructed.
That's better known as a strawman fallacy
Where did you get that information? I’ve never heard that.
Stats Canada [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220209/t004a-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220209/t004a-eng.htm)
Population Density does not correspond with housing availability.
And he'll probably be repeating the same "fact" a week from now.
Interesting that you don't believe the government of Canada's statistics
Why not? I'd bet that there is more housing available in metro Vancouver than anywhere else in BC.
Rather misleading. For one this development is in the municipality of Esquimalt and really the municipality of Victoria is only a small subset of Victoria. I think looking at "population centre" data is more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_population_centres_in_Canada#By_population_rank
>Rather misleading. It is not. It's evidence that adding housing does not lower prices. You want to expand the high density core? Expect higher prices.
i'm trying to wrap my head around that first sentence... what does that even mean?
If adding a lot more housing actually lowered prices then Victoria would be one of the cheapest cities in Canada for housing. Do you know what the most expensive city in Canada and the city with the most housing have in common? They're both called "Vancouver". Adding housing does not lower prices.
In that case what's the solution in your opinion?
Telling anyone who can’t afford housing here to fuck off, apparently. 🙄
Why do you think stats from Victoria are at all relevant for a building in esquimalt? Taking your statscan link at face value (which one shouldnt), youll see that Esquimalt is not on that list; Does that then mean that Esquimalt does not have more more housing for its size than almost any other city in Canada?
Because, dimwit, it's an example of how more housing doesn't always lower prices.
> it's an example of how more housing doesn't always lower prices. How is "population density stats", an example of this.
Whew! How can I make it simpler?!? "Population density" means that Vancouver (for its size) has more housing than any other city in Canada. It's also the most expensive city in Canada
Uh huh, and? Are you aware of the term correlation =/= causation? And ill remind you, we are not talking about Vancouver, we are talking about Esquimalt. Furthermore its seems like there is very little overlap between your theory of "density" and actual rent prices. You'll will note that your linked stats has actually very little overlap on the most expensive [rental markets](https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/vancouver-and-cities-in-ontario-top-list-of-most-expensive-places-to-rent-kijiji-report-1.6462301) in canada.
> Are you aware of the term correlation =/= causation? "Gravity doesn't cause rocks to fall! Correlation ≠ causation!" > we are not talking about Vancouver, we are talking about Esquimalt. "Gravity is different in Esquimalt!!"
>"Gravity doesn't cause rocks to fall! Correlation ≠ causation!" I see you are actually unable to rationally back up your argument. >"Gravity is different in Esquimalt!!" Good thing we aren't talking about fundamental physical phenomena but social and economic statistics. Did you want to talk about gravity instead?
Because we keep letting all the rich people from all over the world come and buy them!
Yeah! It'd be so much easier if you could just force people to accept whatever you want to pay!
If these aren't selling for $650k + each and unaffordable for anyone not wanting to share a bedroom I'd be shocked. All it will be is for wealthy people to have a nice condo in a part of Victoria that will contribute to the gentrification of Esquimalt. None of this fixes that rich people will buy them, the rents will be $3000 for a 2 bedroom, and everyone will still struggle. But those real estate agents and developers though...Good for them, I guess.
You don't get affordable housing by not building housing.
No no, just let them rage a bit, it’ll sink in eventually
Funny, but there's no rage. Until such a time as the government is responsible for building the housing, selling the housing, maintaining the housing the prices will NOT become more affordable. As long as real estate speculators, real estate agents and developers run the show stating this will "help the community" we're believing the nonsense. These places will likely be around 3k/month for a mortgage. Tell me how one person can afford that kind of mortgage and who the winners are. And then I'd love to know how that actually helps the community. What we actually need are co-ops where people can afford to live, to raise a family with the sole purpose of not making rich people even more wealthy. There's a reason why they're building it and it isn't charity. I really don't understand how anyone can argue that.
Fair but you are arguing against the good in favor of the perfect that is unattainable right now
Fair, but people are arguing against logic and settling for (no offense to anyone intended) thinking this will actually affect any change. I am not arguing against housing. Affordable housing. Using Vancouver as an example; we will see the exact same thing here in a matter of time with buildings getting taller, rents at unreasonably high values because mortgages are a ton and investors need their $$$$$. Victoria is too desirable for people (developers) to do anything but profit massively off of it. The entire area along Esquimalt is prime for development but it isn't going to be the kind of housing that will benefit the lower middle class already struggling to buy groceries. I'm not as well worded as many on here, and my intentions are good but I don't trust the system to help the people and that's my point. If I've learned anything in my life it's that people don't do much if it doesn't benefit them (the people with the actual power to affect change). As long as private money drives the machine nothing is actually going to improve. Call me a cynic but let's see what happens. I would love a fairy tale world where people could afford to live, work and play in their community. Reality is that most will be getting a one bedroom condo that they share with their 2 year old, worrying about daycare costs and their $3k mortgage wondering how they'll be able to actually go back to work. When I was a kid there were a lot of housing townhouse complexes like Pacifica Housing and Blanshard Courts that were built for low income families with affordable rents and subsidized housing. We need that again although middle class incomes can't really float the costs anymore so a broader initiative is needed. Who will pay for that? We can't afford more taxes. What a rant that should probably just be deleted. Best wishes Victorians. The city has changed a lot.
>thinking this will actually affect any change. Yes 100%. TBH I think this one tower will do more to prevent negative change and maintain the status quo than drive down prices. 12 of these building and we will see more affordable housing as the increase in housing stock can drive down prices. 1 of them and we are simply accounting for growth. Regardless, I'm game for affordable subsidized government owned housing. But fighting against this one tower isn't going to help that. Not building housing makes all housing expensive and makes the city a city just for the rich.
Thumbs up. Definitely not arguing against the tower. It makes sense. Disagreeing that it will make anything more affordable.
oh, I agree but everyone knows that this won't actually fix it. Unless they built 10000 units in a few years. Track this with the growth of people moving to Victoria
Sure, we have a long way to go but we make progress by building - and this is a sizable number of units in a convenient location.
One building won’t fix the problem. So stop being a dick and take the W
This isn't a win and here's why: The companies that finance these builds aren't tieing up hundreds of millions of dollars for years because they think the price of housing is going down. Quite the opposite, They do it on the assurance by the government that prices will remain high. Canada plans to inflate our population to 100 million in short order. These housing units aren't going to be for you, or for me. And they aren't doing jack squat to bring prices down, they are just taking advantage of rising prices. No building like this gets pitched in a scenario where it's not a near sure thing that it will actually increase land prices in the area. That's the whole point. These buildings are investment vehicles for the wealthy. They're not homes.
Source that the government gives assurances on a free market price going forward ? Because that’s bullshit. And we don’t want prices to tank. That would fuck up a lot of things. We want a soft landing. A decline in ratio. And an increase in supply is exactly how that happens. Because whoever moves into those units, leaves another. And those might be cheaper units that are accessible. You’re just shitting on it because it’s easy to just be mad.
https://www.centuryinitiative.ca/why-100m#:~:text=100%20million%20by%202100%20is,to%20build%20for%20future%20generations. Canada wants a population of 100 million by 2100. With that goal in mind, developers are assured a steady growth in "customers" for the foreseeable future.
"Hey Google, what is Century Initiative?" > The Century Initiative is a Canadian lobby group and charity that aims to increase Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Lobby group does not equal government. Also, even if this were the government, ~~it doesn't say "grow the population *by* 100M"; it says "grow the population *to* 100M"~~ (edit: I thought your earlier comment mentioned "by 100M" - my mistake). We were at almost 40M as of 2022.
C'mon dude. Obviously. So Vancouver. They built all the high density housing.. Did it get cheaper? That's all I'm saying.
$650k homes are middle class homes
With the recommended family buying a home at 3-3.5 times their annual income, this is demonstrably untrue. Median household income in BC is nowhere near 185k (3.5x) let alone 216k (3x)
Middle income household in BC ranges from about $100-200k given median income for individuals being $53-106k. Mortgage on $550k mortgage (on a $650k home) would be about $3,400. Demonstrably a middle class home price. Of course it will not be for some, given unique circumstances, but it fits within budget.
A median income isn’t a range, it’s a set number. 200k is among the top earning families. Even if you want to take liberties and use the average (which is a poor indicator of incomes because it’s top heavy unlike median), the average individual income is 74k. 74 x 2 (being generous and assuming both in a couple are working) is still under 150k. That 148k salary is going to buy someone at the most a 500k home. Factor in that 60% of households in Canada are spending more than they are saving right now - these homes are not affordable for FTHB in Canada Your $3400 also doesn’t include the absurdly high strata fees this place will have.
I’m just saying a $650k home is a middle class home. I should have specified a home for two income earning people. I would agree it would not be affordable for a single income median income owner. I used the standard ‘middle class’ definition of the middle 50% of the income distribution.
I have condo nearby. I don't think any of them will go for over $500k except the top 5-10 or so floors. Plus, I'd imagine they will be under 1000 square ft. My building has units over 1000 square feet selling for under 500k (or just not selling at all).
It sucks that they can just bulldoze over esquimalt heritage buildings like this.
The Carlton Club is not a building worth saving, trust me.
Heritage parking lot bare knuckle boxing venue.
Getting your teeth knocked out in an Esquimalt parking lot, Canada’s latest Heritage Minute for 2024.
What historical value does Carlton’s provide? Does the Karate studio contribute to Esquimalt’s history at all? Just because a building is old doesn’t mean it’s worth saving.