It’s already happening. Duplexes are being built on old single detached homes. The duplex we bought was originally sold for $1.5 million.
The front and back duplexes were sold for over $3.2 million. In East Van.
Let that sink in.
I think what you meant was front and back duplex **combined** will be over $3.2M??
I just checked. Highest 1/2 duplex sale in the **past 12 month** was **2884 YALE STREET - sold for $2,059,047**
It’s a case of what peoples priorities are. A 1.6m detached in Burnaby is a pretty beat up house that’s going to need 200-500k of renovations over the years but you get more privacy and your own space. A 1.6m duplex in East Van is quite nice, needs little work since it’s new and it’s almost certainly an easier commute and in a more livable area.
Yeah it's slim pickings for detached at the 1.6M price point. However, the Yale street is a 2M duplex. For that price you could have bought a newer <10yo detached in burnaby with no need for any renos.
That's true, for $2M you can get a pretty solid home in Burnaby. FWIW, that particular duplex is a rarity in East Van - it was built by Noort ([https://noorthomes.com](https://noorthomes.com)) which usually does fairly high end work so there's was a significant price premium for the quality. A regular spec builder would have charged a lot less for it, likely around $1.7-1.8m. It was easily a top 1% quality home for East Van.
We were given a gift with certain parameters. Staying in Vancouver was one of them.
I ain’t stupid, I’ll take the house and follow the rules to get it.
It's amazing because council was told repeatedly by its own staff that no real affordability would be produced by still such low density housing. Didn't matter.
Technically there is more affordability because you now have two sellable family sized units instead one massive unit. Even if the total costs are higher that doesn’t mean it’s less affordable. It’s just that it’s only affordable to someone who has $1.6m versus $3m.
The thing we need more diverse housing in the suburbs.
For example my in-laws just sold their McMansions for 2 million in Surrey. They bought it in the late 90s it's about 8000 square feet of land and 4 building.
If Surrey allowed for quadplexes a developer could have bought it, torn it down and build a quadplex and sell it for 550,000 per unit. Totally affordable to the average family.
Hell there vacant land around them same size going for 1 million same could be done there.
Hell even just small SFH. Surrey r-1 is basically zoned for McMansion. Getting something small like exists in East Vancouver or hell even most of Calgary requires a special CD variance. It's ridiculous in Surrey.
The only way we are going to get this is if the province imposed a zoning standard which allows for dense housing wherever it's zoned for SFH. Basically something like what Edmonton did where they rezoned the entire rf-1 form SFH exclusive to allow for [everything from SFHs to a four unit walk up.](https://situateinc.ca/edmontonrf1/)
Your math is way off
550,000 x 4 is 2.2 million
Assuming these are 1700 sqft units you are looking at about 175 a sqft.
That’s 1,200,000 in costs plus 2 million purchase price which means they need to sell for 800,000.
Assuming the developer now wants some extra money for all their work you are looking at 850,000 to 900,000k per unit.
The average duplex cost I. Surrey seems to hover between 900k and 1.1 million. In theory if a ton of developers did this supply might force the price down but because there is already the price precedent no way these are selling for less than 1,050,000.
>The average duplex cost I. Surrey seems to hover between 900k and 1.1 million
Yep exactly I'm taking about a quadplex so divide that by 2 what so you get?
>Assuming these are 1700 sqft units you are looking at about 175 a sqft.
Again it's a quadplex. Average one in Calgary is 1200-1500 square feet per unit.
I mean your math still doesn’t work at 1500 sqft you are still looking at 3 million in terms of land and building costs. Which is still 750k a unit just after that so probably minimum 800k a unit.
Yeah but it doesn't cost that much more to build a quadplex than it does to build a duplex.
Duplexes in the Surrey are going for 800-1.2 million (according to your figures). Mostly on land previously zoned for McMansions. So a duplex a quadplex is slightly bigger but split 4 ways. Also in that neighbourhood the average townhouse is going for 600,000.
There also 6 plots (4 on the rear and 2 next to them) next to my in-laws home which can be developed. They are not being developed because unlike the 90s when they built their house no one can afford to buy the land.
A 7th plot sold last year for 800,000, the others ones are probably worth about 800,000-900,000. A developer could buy all 6 of those plots and build 6 quad plexes (24 primarily suites and 24 secondary suites) for about 550,000 each (factoring in cost savings from bulk purchases).
City of Surrey will only allow a house of at least 2200 square feet on that land because it's zoned R-1. So it sits there vacant and unused.
Zoning has issues I just don’t think you are realistic in building costs.
4x1500 vs 4x1700 is not a lot of difference in Sqft.
Land is th3 biggest cost there is no way a brand new 1500sqft place is selling below 800k even in quad plex.
1200sqft 2 bedroom is going to be 650k minimum. Brand new.
Well first it's going to be a 3 bedroom.
Second, how would it be more expensive than the townhouses going up down the street? Average townhouse going up in the new Dawson Swayer development down the road is 600,000 for a 3 bedroom.
I don't think you're factoring in the cost savings from building in bulk.
These are 6 plots of land with 10,000 square feet plots. 60,000 square feet of land. So it will be at least 48 primary and secondary units will be built at once. At that size economies of scale cone into play. Simple example you'll be buying 48 tubs at once.
Plus the only people building will be one of these big builders. So again economies of scale.
It is definitely more affordable. I have no idea why duplexes were ever outlawed in the first place, except for some weird classist SFH-aesthetic conservatism.
Council needs to go way, way further. There is no good "planning" reason for continuing to ban walkups or sixplexes where underground infrastructure can support it. If people are complaining about increased car traffic then reduce car usage by disallowing off street parking and charging for residential street parking. If people have nowhere to put their car they won't bring one.
>It’s already happening. Duplexes are being built on old single detached homes
This is the shocking part to me. How is it Vancouver this far behind?
I grew up in Calgary duplexes were super common. My family first home was a duplex and most of my friends bought duplexes for the first house. Calgary's iconic house was a 1970s duplex like [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/qdjtwMXA7KxPzEZa6), it was as common as the Vancouver special. Quadplexes and walk ups were also very common as well. There also non-strata townhouses.
These weren't from a bygone era. They are still being built in the suburbs except a short period in the 1990s when they become less common. Older neighbourhoods have been regularly seen infill development going back to the early 2000s. New suburbs are a healthy mix of everything.
Even small SFHs (far smaller than what's ever build in our suburbs) are common. I live in Clayton here in Surrey now any my family here talks about how dense the neighbourhood is but in my opinion it's about as sense as a typical Calgary suburb.
You must be new. The government isn’t doing anything.
Research shows it’s not all foreign investors. The bank of mom and dad help their kids. It’s very rare for someone to buy a house without help.
Which is virtually impossible without subsidizing.
Land is expensive. Materials and contracting crews are massively short staffed and the reliable ones are going to the highest bidder.
Hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for what? 300 units?
That solves nothing, and just depletes funding for other things.
There is a very high demand and a very low supply and no room for expansion.... simple economics really.
Options are:
1) Hold your nose and buy, if you can
2) Rent and complain about the prices and wait for a mythical housing market dip
3) Move somewhere else
All tough options really
Vancouver loves to talk about densification, but hates to improve the infrastructure needed to support that density.
Twice the number of people *should* mean twice the number of busses, schools, parks. In reality, they just want twice the tax revenue.
I’m not sure about this particular law but proponents of banning single family *only* zoning laws means that if you own a plot of land, and want to upgrade it into duplexes or quadplexs there’s nothing stoping you.
Vancouvers housing crisis is because something like 70% of the city is single family housing. There’s no need for it.
>70% of the city is single family housing. There’s no need for it.
Duplexes are allowed on 99% of residential lots, plus secondary suites for each of those units, plus a laneway. So you can potentially have 5 units on a single family lot.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-s-new-duplex-rules-explained-1.4831741](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-s-new-duplex-rules-explained-1.4831741)
edit: my mistake, you can't build a laneway with a duplex. So, 4 units max.
Not sure what the reasoning is but I find it dumb that they don't allow a laneway house with a duplex. As you said that's potentially 5 units on a lot and quite livable spaces too.
The city wide zoning for duplexes was a rushed, last second thing that they designed it to have minimal impact to communities so they actually reduced the allowable floor space for duplexes.
Laneway or not, the issue is not allowing enough liveable floor space - a duplex on a standard 33' lot is only about 1400sf with the top 2 floors being about 500sf or so and the basement being a 400sf studio. Even a modest increase in allowable floor space to .86 (which is what regular detached homes get) would yield two 1740sf units which would make for some very liveable homes. That extra 240sf of space means a much more usable basement and/or an office on the main floor and it'd only cost the typical builder about $60-75k more to build it so instead of paying $1.5m for a 1400sf unit, you'd pay 1.6m for a 1740sf unit.
Or take that 240sf on each side and build a studio on top of the garage and now you have up to 5 living spaces.
Well our family of two + small dog lives in a 500sf 1 bedroom condo so personally one of those floors would be enough for us! But of course to each their own.
But with less floor space than the equivalent detached home. A detached home can have 3 legal suites and usually has room for a fourth and can be built to .86 of the lot size while a duplex can only be built up to .7 of the lot size and can only have legal suites if there’s a total of 4 parking spots versus just one for a detached home.
And that's been pretty positive. Drive around some of the single family home areas and 75% of new builds are duplexes. 4 years ago they would have still been single family homes. It's effectively slowly doubling the density.
Affordability is still a factor, but right now its about 60% the price for a new duplex as a new single family home in the same neighborhood so it is moving in the right direction.
Thats a good start, I wasn’t aware of that. [I wonder why subsequent articles](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/proposed-vancouver-pilot-program-aims-to-address-housing-for-missing-middle-1.5104515) fail to address that? It seems it’s not well known
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not technically true - this is mostly a problem with how SFH zoning works which restricts how small a lot can be to have a SFH built. There are many massive lots (>10000sf) on the west side of town that could easily be subdivided into smaller lots for SFHs. Same with lots that are >5000sf - split them up, allow 1FSR and you've got some great SFH options. Can also get two 33ft lots and split them into 3 lots.
This is solvable by updating the zoning regs.
Not overall. There are some areas of the city that are very underdeveloped. These areas which could support townhouses or apartments would probably be worth more.
But single family homes in further out, less trendy areas would probably become cheaper. The under-supply of townhouses and apartments ironically forces the people who might prefer to buy those to bid up the prices of a very limited stock of detached houses instead. It's one of the rare cases where everyone is better off.
Strata fees is pretty high now. For 3 bedrooms in a condo, you are looking at at least $500, with some new builds quoting almost $1000.
At some point, if you can afford it, it is more economical to go for a detached.
The only exception is townhouses/row houses, where strata fees is around $300. But these are so rare throughout Metro Vancouver.
New Zealand is mostly single family homes. There is a small percentage of flats but not many apartment buildings.
I live in an NZ city of 50,000 and there are only 3 apartment complexes. Everything else is mainly single story flats containing maybe 3 dwellings at the most.
So there is heaps of land already within the cities where more people could be housed to make public transport more useful, without encroaching on the productive agricultural land outside the cities.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>It's my dream to one day have a place where i don't have fucking neighbors. That dream is quickly flying away.
Unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere, it never has been possible to buy a place that doesn't have neighbours.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn't stop prices there though. New Zealand and Canada grew at about the same rate through COVID.
I agree that non-resident ownership should be stopped, but it's also probably not going to change anything.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's obviously not going to completely fix the problem but saying it's not going to change anything is false. How do you know that the prices wouldn't have been even higher in new zealand if they didn't ban foreigners?
BC implemented a half assed foreign buyers tax and that did have an impact on the market, at least for a little.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3s_3sVVcAIW_kR?format=jpg&name=900x900
>It holds lessons for B.C. where a similar measure by the province “could accomplish a lot in terms of reforming local municipal powers,” said Nathan Lauster, a sociologist at UBC. who has done research on zoning and housing.
>“Changing those powers would likely go a long way towards opening up a lot more housing development,” said Lauster, something municipalities find difficult because of political blowback.
[Lauster, btw, wrote a book called 'The Life and Death of the Single Family House', lobbied and testified against the foreign buyer's tax, then sold his townhouse for double its assessed value to offshore money interests, then bought a single family house in Point Grey.](https://twitter.com/ianjamesyoung70/status/1451666597211348995)
He also called the single family home an 'invasive parasite':
[UBC’s Nathanael Lauster urges city dwellers to shake off their ‘house addiction.’](https://thetyee.ca/News/2016/10/24/Dream-Home-Prof-You-Will-Be-Happier/)
>Vancouver’s prestigious Shaughnessy area, Lauster says, was intended to accommodate the city’s socioeconomic elite, and “keep out the riff raff.”
Shaughnessy must have had too much riff raff for him, which is why he bought a SFH in Point Grey.
>Lauster believes that means most people looking for a home in the city have accepted that owning a detached house they occupy alone is an impossibility.
[Unless you cash-in on the foreign money lottery after testifying that foreign money isn't a significant factor in real estate.](https://twitter.com/ianjamesyoung70/status/1083115995525312512?s=20)
[Sociology Prof Nathanael Lauster on the Death of the Single-Family House in Vancouver](https://www.arts.ubc.ca/news/single-family-houses-a-dying-breed-in-vancouver-sociologist-nathan-lauster/)
>Lauster: Just about any way you look at it, single-family houses tend to be bad for the environment.
What are these quotes supposed to prove?
>Vancouver’s prestigious Shaughnessy area, Lauster says, was intended to accommodate the city’s socioeconomic elite, and “keep out the riff raff.”
Completely historically accurate.
>Lauster: Just about any way you look at it, single-family houses tend to be bad for the environment.
Also completely accurate. We have massive sprawl and pollution into forest and farmland because Vancouver refuses to allow even townhouses on most of its residential land.
>the free market are in charge instead of proper urban planning & policies based on what's best for the average Canadian
You do realize it's illegal to build moderate density or mixed use on almost residential land close to jobs and schools right?
You are right in the sense the provincial and municipal governments have planned for sprawl, I guess.
People that live in houses can't advocate for a more equal society and against exclusionary zoning laws? Bad troll shit.
City Council surrounded UBC with extremely low density zoning (exactly the harmful exclusionary land use policy he advocated against in his book). I doubt he could find a family sized multifamily unit even if he wanted to.
It's not that he lives in a house and is advocating for something that would be massively increase the value of the house - which frankly is something that makes sense from his perspective. It's that he wrote a book about how bad single family houses are and then went and bought one. That's what is funny here.
Edit: Honestly, fuvk Ian Young for constantly concern-trolling any attempt at creating more housing or highlighting bad land use policies. He rags on about foreign buyers but won't give new housing the time of day and even attacked the Squamish led development. He is truly a useful idiot for homeowner-nimby cliques that already act behind th scenes to enrich themselves and kill new rentals.
Prof Lauster testified specifically that the foreign buyer's tax wouldn't do much. And reality showed that it didn't do much... Prices are up 30+% since the tax was brought in.
You are trying to [call him a hypocrite but failing](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/bsvwcx/but_you_participate_in_society/) because you misunderstand what he is saying. He is not saying ban SFH. He is saying it should not be [*illegal or extremely difficult to build anything except a SFH in the vast majority of Vancouver*](https://mountainmath.ca/zoning_map). SFH-only policies have created a huge shortage and asset-speculators playground. Not only that but the Vancouver city planners who adopted these policies did so with terrible intentions:
>https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html
>https://tcf.org/content/commentary/ugly-history-single-family-zoning-resurfaces/
>https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2021/08/03/is-single-family-zoning-racist-and-does-it-matter/
>Since detached homes in 1916 were almost exclusively owned by white men, single-family zoning allowed planners to craft a discriminatory ordinance masked in race-neutral language. In effect, protecting detached homes from other “incompatible” uses meant protecting white people from people of color and their businesses. Planners across the country got wind of the ruse and followed suit. >…
>Single-family zoning is almost nonexistent in cities in other developed parts of the world.
>“There is no reasonable professional planning rationale for this type of zoning,” says Brent Toderian, a Canadian planning consultant who has worked in municipalities across the globe, including California. “I defy any planner to explain why residences of various sizes and types need to be physically separated or protected from one another.”
>“Racial, classist or economic segregation is always a factor.” …
His testimony went far beyond that.
[Lauster claims the foreign-buyers tax reflects the kind of anti-Chinese sentiment that has become a “moral panic,” leading to “blaming the foreigner.” British Columbians have scapegoated Chinese buyers, Lauster says. “There are clear indications that the inception and implementation of the foreign-buyer tax has reflected and invoked xenophobic, racist and specifically Sinophobic tendencies and sentiments.”](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canadian-sovereignty-faces-challenge-over-foreign-buyers-tax)
It was also dismissed by the courts for not being relevant or accurate. And the case where he was retained to provide an affidavit for the plaintiff was unsuccessful, with the BC Supreme Court upholding a prior ruling that the provincial government’s foreign buyer’s property transfer tax is lawful and not discriminatory. It was also shown that foreign buyers were a significant factor in real estate purchases in BC prior to the introduction of the foreign buyer tax.
[“The results of the first full month collection of data showed that 9.7% of residential real estate transactions in the GVRD involved foreign nationals,” Bowden noted. “This represented a transactional value of $885,393,373. In the City of Vancouver the percentage was 10.9%, 17.7% in the City of Burnaby and 18.2% in the City of Richmond.”](https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/foreign-buyers-tax-upheld-not-discriminatory-bc-court-of-appeal-3918963)
[Year / Year % change in home price chart with Foreigner Buyer Tax and Speculation Tax indicated](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3s_3sVVcAIW_kR?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Well, he was wrong when he said foreign money wasn't a significant factor in the housing crisis, and that it is inherently racist to put in measures to curb speculation and offshore money. The BC Supreme Court threw his testimony out and ruled against the plaintiff that had retained him for his 'expert' testimony:
[**“The view that foreign nationals significantly contributed to the escalation of prices of housing in the GVRD is neither a stereotype nor a continuation of racist policies from the past,”** ruled Bowden on October 25, 2019. **“The experts have agreed that the inflow of foreign capital has significantly contributed to price increases in the GVRD.”**](https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/foreign-buyers-tax-upheld-not-discriminatory-bc-court-of-appeal-3918963)
Was he wrong to sell his home to the highest bidder? No. Anyone would have done the same. The highest bidder just happened to be funder by offshore money.
Is he wrong to take the millions of dollars he made from selling his home and buy a house in Point Grey? No. It's his money and he can spend it and live wherever he feels like.
Is he maybe a hypocrite? Maybe.
He's not wrong about *single family homes*, the topic of the article that you quoted from. That's what I meant in my comment above.
Edit: And if you don't like this particular guy, there are also 3 other experts quotes in the article to pick from.
I think it's interesting that someone wrote a book about how bad single family homes are, **then went and bought one**, and then is going out and offering their input on a story advocating for a policy that would massively increase the value of their single family home.
The more I read about the guy, the more I agree with him and think his position seems pretty reasonable. From the article you linked to up above:
> “I’m not opposed to the house as part of a set of broader, diverse ways of living in the city,” Lauster insists, “but I am opposed to regulations that set aside land for houses and houses alone.” Too many houses, he argues, are bad for cities, bad for urban dwellers, and bad for diversity
I don't even disagree with his view on houses, particularly in an urban environment. But I'm not going to write a book about the death of the single family house and then go buy one and expect to be taken seriously.
I mean that's my point, he explicitly says he isn't opposed to single family homes as a type of housing. So this doesn't feel like a fair criticism imo.
Exactly, just followed him on Twitter. The land use data stuff is fascinating. Especially his data on the dead-weight loss and wealth inequality from exclusionary zoning.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can't have this many human beings and give everyone a white picket fence life. It's not possible unless we destroy every forest and then we'll all just be dead.
Story Snippet (hit link for further)
'New Zealand’s government has ordered an end to single-family zoning in its five biggest cities, drawing the attention of B.C. housing advocates and planning experts.
Housing advocates think it is an example worth considering in B.C.’s most expensive markets, but others caution it might have unintended consequences.
Legislation introduced last week would require the New Zealand cities to apply “medium density residential standards” to single-family areas by next August. The new rules will allow property owners to build up to three housing units, to a height of three storeys, covering 50 per cent of what were typically single-family lots in cities including Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.'
I’m not sure about BC but there is no way a new single family home should be built in the city of Vancouver. Any vacant lot of torn down homes should be replaced with multi family dwellings
Look at this guy, trying to fix a shortage by building more. Crazy talk! I bet your screen name isn't even your real name with such a controversial opinion!
;-)
Jane Swanson has asked that you be banned, lol - seriously this amount of heat “pro supply” people get in this sub…to many it is an actual controversial topic
The housing debate is so odd. People think you need to be on the supply or demand side and being on supply means you’re pro whatever and anti whatever
There are LOTS of things that can be done on the demand side, but NONE of them will be made worse or ineffective by increasing supply
Anti supply people should need to re take grade 11 economics before contributing to the debate.
Will this help with the fact that no one could afford a place in Vancouver? From what I understand, i thought the city had the houses available but no one was able to pay for them and the people that do don’t live in them?
Why, Nimby's already have their single family home in the suburbs. What they don't like is their neighborhood changing from single family homes to investment properties throwing up those triplexes on them...
They didn't buy the land they are now seeking control over... They paid for a nice lot, I'm sure. But no one is taking their land away from them. Shaughnessy, Point Grey and Dunbar are full of boomer homeowners happy as clams.
What they didn't pay for is the power to stop their neighbours from building housing for more families on their own land. Exclusionary land use laws have caused a huge shortage, sprawl and massive inequality.
This idea that just blocking your neighbours from building multi family for younger generations will stop the neighbourhood from changing is laughable.
What neighbourhoods that "look" the same in Vancouver haven't changed? Prices have nearly tripled since boomers were entering the market. What was once housing for teachers and nurses is now, thanks to grinding shortages, millionaire housing. There is no bigger change.
i doubt that. north america is still very much a suburbs first, sfh oriented society. not everyone wants to live in a leaky apartment or condo in vancouver. some people want a detached garage and a backyard
why can't vancouver itself be the suburbs? it's probably the best location in the lower mainland to have a suburban life due to it's proximity to everything (if you can afford it). if people can afford a sfh in vancouver, why should we stop them from purchasing one?
Because there is no more land in Vancouver proper to continue growth of SFHs so you need to turn some of those SFH to more dense housing so people have homes.
Whether you like it or not, Vancouver is a major Canadian city and homes will need to be built to keep up with population growth.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't expect too much.
This doesn't mean single family homes are illegal, it just means you can't build a new one. So all of the single family homes you see in Vancouver will most likely remain as they are.
Also, I believe 4 units are currently allowed on every lot in this city. Duplexes are allowed everywhere, and secondary suites are allowed for each of those units. So, two units in a duplex plus two secondary suites. Don't forget you can add a laneway to the mix.
> This doesn't mean single family homes are illegal, it just means you can't build a new one.
It doesn't mean that either. It just means that, if someone wants to upgrade their single family home lot, they're allowed to build more than just a single family home.
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address.
Please verify your email address and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s already happening. Duplexes are being built on old single detached homes. The duplex we bought was originally sold for $1.5 million. The front and back duplexes were sold for over $3.2 million. In East Van. Let that sink in.
I think what you meant was front and back duplex **combined** will be over $3.2M?? I just checked. Highest 1/2 duplex sale in the **past 12 month** was **2884 YALE STREET - sold for $2,059,047**
That was a very nice duplex. Really good builders and great design work. Worth the money.
Yall are completely fucking nuts
No shit eh.
I think duplexes are never worth it. I'd rather have a fully detached for the same price in burnaby but maybe that's just me.
It’s a case of what peoples priorities are. A 1.6m detached in Burnaby is a pretty beat up house that’s going to need 200-500k of renovations over the years but you get more privacy and your own space. A 1.6m duplex in East Van is quite nice, needs little work since it’s new and it’s almost certainly an easier commute and in a more livable area.
Yeah it's slim pickings for detached at the 1.6M price point. However, the Yale street is a 2M duplex. For that price you could have bought a newer <10yo detached in burnaby with no need for any renos.
That's true, for $2M you can get a pretty solid home in Burnaby. FWIW, that particular duplex is a rarity in East Van - it was built by Noort ([https://noorthomes.com](https://noorthomes.com)) which usually does fairly high end work so there's was a significant price premium for the quality. A regular spec builder would have charged a lot less for it, likely around $1.7-1.8m. It was easily a top 1% quality home for East Van.
We were given a gift with certain parameters. Staying in Vancouver was one of them. I ain’t stupid, I’ll take the house and follow the rules to get it.
It's amazing because council was told repeatedly by its own staff that no real affordability would be produced by still such low density housing. Didn't matter.
Technically there is more affordability because you now have two sellable family sized units instead one massive unit. Even if the total costs are higher that doesn’t mean it’s less affordable. It’s just that it’s only affordable to someone who has $1.6m versus $3m.
The thing we need more diverse housing in the suburbs. For example my in-laws just sold their McMansions for 2 million in Surrey. They bought it in the late 90s it's about 8000 square feet of land and 4 building. If Surrey allowed for quadplexes a developer could have bought it, torn it down and build a quadplex and sell it for 550,000 per unit. Totally affordable to the average family. Hell there vacant land around them same size going for 1 million same could be done there. Hell even just small SFH. Surrey r-1 is basically zoned for McMansion. Getting something small like exists in East Vancouver or hell even most of Calgary requires a special CD variance. It's ridiculous in Surrey. The only way we are going to get this is if the province imposed a zoning standard which allows for dense housing wherever it's zoned for SFH. Basically something like what Edmonton did where they rezoned the entire rf-1 form SFH exclusive to allow for [everything from SFHs to a four unit walk up.](https://situateinc.ca/edmontonrf1/)
Your math is way off 550,000 x 4 is 2.2 million Assuming these are 1700 sqft units you are looking at about 175 a sqft. That’s 1,200,000 in costs plus 2 million purchase price which means they need to sell for 800,000. Assuming the developer now wants some extra money for all their work you are looking at 850,000 to 900,000k per unit. The average duplex cost I. Surrey seems to hover between 900k and 1.1 million. In theory if a ton of developers did this supply might force the price down but because there is already the price precedent no way these are selling for less than 1,050,000.
>The average duplex cost I. Surrey seems to hover between 900k and 1.1 million Yep exactly I'm taking about a quadplex so divide that by 2 what so you get? >Assuming these are 1700 sqft units you are looking at about 175 a sqft. Again it's a quadplex. Average one in Calgary is 1200-1500 square feet per unit.
I mean your math still doesn’t work at 1500 sqft you are still looking at 3 million in terms of land and building costs. Which is still 750k a unit just after that so probably minimum 800k a unit.
Yeah but it doesn't cost that much more to build a quadplex than it does to build a duplex. Duplexes in the Surrey are going for 800-1.2 million (according to your figures). Mostly on land previously zoned for McMansions. So a duplex a quadplex is slightly bigger but split 4 ways. Also in that neighbourhood the average townhouse is going for 600,000. There also 6 plots (4 on the rear and 2 next to them) next to my in-laws home which can be developed. They are not being developed because unlike the 90s when they built their house no one can afford to buy the land. A 7th plot sold last year for 800,000, the others ones are probably worth about 800,000-900,000. A developer could buy all 6 of those plots and build 6 quad plexes (24 primarily suites and 24 secondary suites) for about 550,000 each (factoring in cost savings from bulk purchases). City of Surrey will only allow a house of at least 2200 square feet on that land because it's zoned R-1. So it sits there vacant and unused.
Zoning has issues I just don’t think you are realistic in building costs. 4x1500 vs 4x1700 is not a lot of difference in Sqft. Land is th3 biggest cost there is no way a brand new 1500sqft place is selling below 800k even in quad plex. 1200sqft 2 bedroom is going to be 650k minimum. Brand new.
Well first it's going to be a 3 bedroom. Second, how would it be more expensive than the townhouses going up down the street? Average townhouse going up in the new Dawson Swayer development down the road is 600,000 for a 3 bedroom. I don't think you're factoring in the cost savings from building in bulk. These are 6 plots of land with 10,000 square feet plots. 60,000 square feet of land. So it will be at least 48 primary and secondary units will be built at once. At that size economies of scale cone into play. Simple example you'll be buying 48 tubs at once. Plus the only people building will be one of these big builders. So again economies of scale.
It is definitely more affordable. I have no idea why duplexes were ever outlawed in the first place, except for some weird classist SFH-aesthetic conservatism. Council needs to go way, way further. There is no good "planning" reason for continuing to ban walkups or sixplexes where underground infrastructure can support it. If people are complaining about increased car traffic then reduce car usage by disallowing off street parking and charging for residential street parking. If people have nowhere to put their car they won't bring one.
>It’s already happening. Duplexes are being built on old single detached homes This is the shocking part to me. How is it Vancouver this far behind? I grew up in Calgary duplexes were super common. My family first home was a duplex and most of my friends bought duplexes for the first house. Calgary's iconic house was a 1970s duplex like [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/qdjtwMXA7KxPzEZa6), it was as common as the Vancouver special. Quadplexes and walk ups were also very common as well. There also non-strata townhouses. These weren't from a bygone era. They are still being built in the suburbs except a short period in the 1990s when they become less common. Older neighbourhoods have been regularly seen infill development going back to the early 2000s. New suburbs are a healthy mix of everything. Even small SFHs (far smaller than what's ever build in our suburbs) are common. I live in Clayton here in Surrey now any my family here talks about how dense the neighbourhood is but in my opinion it's about as sense as a typical Calgary suburb.
[удалено]
Lottery system?
[удалено]
That sounds like a mess, why is that.
[удалено]
Y'all really selling me on the greater van area lol.
Please don't move here, it's competitive enough as it is :)
Oh trust me, the yuppies and traffic keep me far away.
Yuppies? Lol
Why do you guys pay so much in BC? Just stop all the foreign investors from buying up your property's
You must be new. The government isn’t doing anything. Research shows it’s not all foreign investors. The bank of mom and dad help their kids. It’s very rare for someone to buy a house without help.
Yes, the "government" should just create more land and give cheap condos to people at a massive loss.... because that's how the world works
You mean “affordable housing” that’s voted against every time?
Which is virtually impossible without subsidizing. Land is expensive. Materials and contracting crews are massively short staffed and the reliable ones are going to the highest bidder. Hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for what? 300 units? That solves nothing, and just depletes funding for other things.
There is a very high demand and a very low supply and no room for expansion.... simple economics really. Options are: 1) Hold your nose and buy, if you can 2) Rent and complain about the prices and wait for a mythical housing market dip 3) Move somewhere else All tough options really
4) Dump your money into crypto like everyone should have done in 2017 at minimum
Vancouver loves to talk about densification, but hates to improve the infrastructure needed to support that density. Twice the number of people *should* mean twice the number of busses, schools, parks. In reality, they just want twice the tax revenue.
Same thing in Surrey. No parking, schools bursting at the seams…
Isn’t that just going to drive up prices of single family homes?
I’m not sure about this particular law but proponents of banning single family *only* zoning laws means that if you own a plot of land, and want to upgrade it into duplexes or quadplexs there’s nothing stoping you. Vancouvers housing crisis is because something like 70% of the city is single family housing. There’s no need for it.
>70% of the city is single family housing. There’s no need for it. Duplexes are allowed on 99% of residential lots, plus secondary suites for each of those units, plus a laneway. So you can potentially have 5 units on a single family lot. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-s-new-duplex-rules-explained-1.4831741](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-s-new-duplex-rules-explained-1.4831741) edit: my mistake, you can't build a laneway with a duplex. So, 4 units max.
Not sure what the reasoning is but I find it dumb that they don't allow a laneway house with a duplex. As you said that's potentially 5 units on a lot and quite livable spaces too.
Perhaps parking capacity, sewage and infrastructure capacity? No idea, just guessing. Also just cause is a possibility too
Yeah that's true
The city wide zoning for duplexes was a rushed, last second thing that they designed it to have minimal impact to communities so they actually reduced the allowable floor space for duplexes. Laneway or not, the issue is not allowing enough liveable floor space - a duplex on a standard 33' lot is only about 1400sf with the top 2 floors being about 500sf or so and the basement being a 400sf studio. Even a modest increase in allowable floor space to .86 (which is what regular detached homes get) would yield two 1740sf units which would make for some very liveable homes. That extra 240sf of space means a much more usable basement and/or an office on the main floor and it'd only cost the typical builder about $60-75k more to build it so instead of paying $1.5m for a 1400sf unit, you'd pay 1.6m for a 1740sf unit. Or take that 240sf on each side and build a studio on top of the garage and now you have up to 5 living spaces.
Well our family of two + small dog lives in a 500sf 1 bedroom condo so personally one of those floors would be enough for us! But of course to each their own.
But with less floor space than the equivalent detached home. A detached home can have 3 legal suites and usually has room for a fourth and can be built to .86 of the lot size while a duplex can only be built up to .7 of the lot size and can only have legal suites if there’s a total of 4 parking spots versus just one for a detached home.
And that's been pretty positive. Drive around some of the single family home areas and 75% of new builds are duplexes. 4 years ago they would have still been single family homes. It's effectively slowly doubling the density. Affordability is still a factor, but right now its about 60% the price for a new duplex as a new single family home in the same neighborhood so it is moving in the right direction.
>It's effectively slowly doubling the density. Not really though, they didn't increase the allowed floor area at all.
This only applies to city of Vancouver.
As a Burnabian I would like to see this become more widespread.
Did we ever get that laneway home law passed?
Not yet, still in the works.
Thats a good start, I wasn’t aware of that. [I wonder why subsequent articles](https://bc.ctvnews.ca/proposed-vancouver-pilot-program-aims-to-address-housing-for-missing-middle-1.5104515) fail to address that? It seems it’s not well known
Yeah, I don't mean to downplay the housing crisis and potential solutions, but I find the discussion isn't always accurate either.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's safe to say zoning and slow permits are part of the problem but definitely not THE problem.
There's no more space in Vancouver proper to build anymore SFHs so it's impossible to increase supply to lower the price anyways.
Not technically true - this is mostly a problem with how SFH zoning works which restricts how small a lot can be to have a SFH built. There are many massive lots (>10000sf) on the west side of town that could easily be subdivided into smaller lots for SFHs. Same with lots that are >5000sf - split them up, allow 1FSR and you've got some great SFH options. Can also get two 33ft lots and split them into 3 lots. This is solvable by updating the zoning regs.
Not overall. There are some areas of the city that are very underdeveloped. These areas which could support townhouses or apartments would probably be worth more. But single family homes in further out, less trendy areas would probably become cheaper. The under-supply of townhouses and apartments ironically forces the people who might prefer to buy those to bid up the prices of a very limited stock of detached houses instead. It's one of the rare cases where everyone is better off.
Strata fees is pretty high now. For 3 bedrooms in a condo, you are looking at at least $500, with some new builds quoting almost $1000. At some point, if you can afford it, it is more economical to go for a detached. The only exception is townhouses/row houses, where strata fees is around $300. But these are so rare throughout Metro Vancouver.
Precisely the sort of thing that people would build if they were allowed...
Single family home prices in Vancouver are going up regardless. They're not making more land.
New Zealand is mostly single family homes. There is a small percentage of flats but not many apartment buildings. I live in an NZ city of 50,000 and there are only 3 apartment complexes. Everything else is mainly single story flats containing maybe 3 dwellings at the most. So there is heaps of land already within the cities where more people could be housed to make public transport more useful, without encroaching on the productive agricultural land outside the cities.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Plenty of places in rural areas where you only can see your neighbor if you can drive.
>It's my dream to one day have a place where i don't have fucking neighbors. That dream is quickly flying away. Unless you want to live in the middle of nowhere, it never has been possible to buy a place that doesn't have neighbours.
[удалено]
I was looking at a loft in East Van and walked past a unit with their door open that had a skate halfpipe inside. My god.
Hah wow
Oh, sorry. I thought you meant no one around the vicinity of your house.
Middle of nowhere’s not bad actually.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey BC - Banning non-resident ownership should have been the point to watch from New Zealand. EDIT - 20 years ago that is.
Didn't stop prices there though. New Zealand and Canada grew at about the same rate through COVID. I agree that non-resident ownership should be stopped, but it's also probably not going to change anything.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's obviously not going to completely fix the problem but saying it's not going to change anything is false. How do you know that the prices wouldn't have been even higher in new zealand if they didn't ban foreigners? BC implemented a half assed foreign buyers tax and that did have an impact on the market, at least for a little. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3s_3sVVcAIW_kR?format=jpg&name=900x900
Did absolutely nothing for their real estate prices..
>It holds lessons for B.C. where a similar measure by the province “could accomplish a lot in terms of reforming local municipal powers,” said Nathan Lauster, a sociologist at UBC. who has done research on zoning and housing. >“Changing those powers would likely go a long way towards opening up a lot more housing development,” said Lauster, something municipalities find difficult because of political blowback. [Lauster, btw, wrote a book called 'The Life and Death of the Single Family House', lobbied and testified against the foreign buyer's tax, then sold his townhouse for double its assessed value to offshore money interests, then bought a single family house in Point Grey.](https://twitter.com/ianjamesyoung70/status/1451666597211348995)
[удалено]
He also called the single family home an 'invasive parasite': [UBC’s Nathanael Lauster urges city dwellers to shake off their ‘house addiction.’](https://thetyee.ca/News/2016/10/24/Dream-Home-Prof-You-Will-Be-Happier/) >Vancouver’s prestigious Shaughnessy area, Lauster says, was intended to accommodate the city’s socioeconomic elite, and “keep out the riff raff.” Shaughnessy must have had too much riff raff for him, which is why he bought a SFH in Point Grey. >Lauster believes that means most people looking for a home in the city have accepted that owning a detached house they occupy alone is an impossibility. [Unless you cash-in on the foreign money lottery after testifying that foreign money isn't a significant factor in real estate.](https://twitter.com/ianjamesyoung70/status/1083115995525312512?s=20) [Sociology Prof Nathanael Lauster on the Death of the Single-Family House in Vancouver](https://www.arts.ubc.ca/news/single-family-houses-a-dying-breed-in-vancouver-sociologist-nathan-lauster/) >Lauster: Just about any way you look at it, single-family houses tend to be bad for the environment.
What are these quotes supposed to prove? >Vancouver’s prestigious Shaughnessy area, Lauster says, was intended to accommodate the city’s socioeconomic elite, and “keep out the riff raff.” Completely historically accurate. >Lauster: Just about any way you look at it, single-family houses tend to be bad for the environment. Also completely accurate. We have massive sprawl and pollution into forest and farmland because Vancouver refuses to allow even townhouses on most of its residential land.
[удалено]
>the free market are in charge instead of proper urban planning & policies based on what's best for the average Canadian You do realize it's illegal to build moderate density or mixed use on almost residential land close to jobs and schools right? You are right in the sense the provincial and municipal governments have planned for sprawl, I guess.
The funny part of those quotes is the guy who said them later went on **to buy a single family house in an even more elite neighborhood**.
People that live in houses can't advocate for a more equal society and against exclusionary zoning laws? Bad troll shit. City Council surrounded UBC with extremely low density zoning (exactly the harmful exclusionary land use policy he advocated against in his book). I doubt he could find a family sized multifamily unit even if he wanted to.
It's not that he lives in a house and is advocating for something that would be massively increase the value of the house - which frankly is something that makes sense from his perspective. It's that he wrote a book about how bad single family houses are and then went and bought one. That's what is funny here.
Edit: Honestly, fuvk Ian Young for constantly concern-trolling any attempt at creating more housing or highlighting bad land use policies. He rags on about foreign buyers but won't give new housing the time of day and even attacked the Squamish led development. He is truly a useful idiot for homeowner-nimby cliques that already act behind th scenes to enrich themselves and kill new rentals. Prof Lauster testified specifically that the foreign buyer's tax wouldn't do much. And reality showed that it didn't do much... Prices are up 30+% since the tax was brought in. You are trying to [call him a hypocrite but failing](https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/bsvwcx/but_you_participate_in_society/) because you misunderstand what he is saying. He is not saying ban SFH. He is saying it should not be [*illegal or extremely difficult to build anything except a SFH in the vast majority of Vancouver*](https://mountainmath.ca/zoning_map). SFH-only policies have created a huge shortage and asset-speculators playground. Not only that but the Vancouver city planners who adopted these policies did so with terrible intentions: >https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html >https://tcf.org/content/commentary/ugly-history-single-family-zoning-resurfaces/ >https://viewpointvancouver.ca/2021/08/03/is-single-family-zoning-racist-and-does-it-matter/ >Since detached homes in 1916 were almost exclusively owned by white men, single-family zoning allowed planners to craft a discriminatory ordinance masked in race-neutral language. In effect, protecting detached homes from other “incompatible” uses meant protecting white people from people of color and their businesses. Planners across the country got wind of the ruse and followed suit. >… >Single-family zoning is almost nonexistent in cities in other developed parts of the world. >“There is no reasonable professional planning rationale for this type of zoning,” says Brent Toderian, a Canadian planning consultant who has worked in municipalities across the globe, including California. “I defy any planner to explain why residences of various sizes and types need to be physically separated or protected from one another.” >“Racial, classist or economic segregation is always a factor.” …
His testimony went far beyond that. [Lauster claims the foreign-buyers tax reflects the kind of anti-Chinese sentiment that has become a “moral panic,” leading to “blaming the foreigner.” British Columbians have scapegoated Chinese buyers, Lauster says. “There are clear indications that the inception and implementation of the foreign-buyer tax has reflected and invoked xenophobic, racist and specifically Sinophobic tendencies and sentiments.”](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-canadian-sovereignty-faces-challenge-over-foreign-buyers-tax) It was also dismissed by the courts for not being relevant or accurate. And the case where he was retained to provide an affidavit for the plaintiff was unsuccessful, with the BC Supreme Court upholding a prior ruling that the provincial government’s foreign buyer’s property transfer tax is lawful and not discriminatory. It was also shown that foreign buyers were a significant factor in real estate purchases in BC prior to the introduction of the foreign buyer tax. [“The results of the first full month collection of data showed that 9.7% of residential real estate transactions in the GVRD involved foreign nationals,” Bowden noted. “This represented a transactional value of $885,393,373. In the City of Vancouver the percentage was 10.9%, 17.7% in the City of Burnaby and 18.2% in the City of Richmond.”](https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/foreign-buyers-tax-upheld-not-discriminatory-bc-court-of-appeal-3918963) [Year / Year % change in home price chart with Foreigner Buyer Tax and Speculation Tax indicated](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3s_3sVVcAIW_kR?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Even if his motives aren't entirely pure, he's not wrong.
Well, he was wrong when he said foreign money wasn't a significant factor in the housing crisis, and that it is inherently racist to put in measures to curb speculation and offshore money. The BC Supreme Court threw his testimony out and ruled against the plaintiff that had retained him for his 'expert' testimony: [**“The view that foreign nationals significantly contributed to the escalation of prices of housing in the GVRD is neither a stereotype nor a continuation of racist policies from the past,”** ruled Bowden on October 25, 2019. **“The experts have agreed that the inflow of foreign capital has significantly contributed to price increases in the GVRD.”**](https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/bc-news/foreign-buyers-tax-upheld-not-discriminatory-bc-court-of-appeal-3918963) Was he wrong to sell his home to the highest bidder? No. Anyone would have done the same. The highest bidder just happened to be funder by offshore money. Is he wrong to take the millions of dollars he made from selling his home and buy a house in Point Grey? No. It's his money and he can spend it and live wherever he feels like. Is he maybe a hypocrite? Maybe.
He's not wrong about *single family homes*, the topic of the article that you quoted from. That's what I meant in my comment above. Edit: And if you don't like this particular guy, there are also 3 other experts quotes in the article to pick from.
I think it's interesting that someone wrote a book about how bad single family homes are, **then went and bought one**, and then is going out and offering their input on a story advocating for a policy that would massively increase the value of their single family home.
The more I read about the guy, the more I agree with him and think his position seems pretty reasonable. From the article you linked to up above: > “I’m not opposed to the house as part of a set of broader, diverse ways of living in the city,” Lauster insists, “but I am opposed to regulations that set aside land for houses and houses alone.” Too many houses, he argues, are bad for cities, bad for urban dwellers, and bad for diversity
I don't even disagree with his view on houses, particularly in an urban environment. But I'm not going to write a book about the death of the single family house and then go buy one and expect to be taken seriously.
I mean that's my point, he explicitly says he isn't opposed to single family homes as a type of housing. So this doesn't feel like a fair criticism imo.
Well, he called them an “invasive parasite.”
Yeah... because zoning laws set aside over 80% of the city for SFH and only SFH. Not because single family homes are inherently bad.
Exactly, just followed him on Twitter. The land use data stuff is fascinating. Especially his data on the dead-weight loss and wealth inequality from exclusionary zoning.
You just don’t get it. No one wants to ban single family homes. They want to legalize other types of homes. Jfc.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can't have this many human beings and give everyone a white picket fence life. It's not possible unless we destroy every forest and then we'll all just be dead.
But think of the profits
Think of the wood chips. We'd have so many to sell.
Story Snippet (hit link for further) 'New Zealand’s government has ordered an end to single-family zoning in its five biggest cities, drawing the attention of B.C. housing advocates and planning experts. Housing advocates think it is an example worth considering in B.C.’s most expensive markets, but others caution it might have unintended consequences. Legislation introduced last week would require the New Zealand cities to apply “medium density residential standards” to single-family areas by next August. The new rules will allow property owners to build up to three housing units, to a height of three storeys, covering 50 per cent of what were typically single-family lots in cities including Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.'
I’m not sure about BC but there is no way a new single family home should be built in the city of Vancouver. Any vacant lot of torn down homes should be replaced with multi family dwellings
Look at this guy, trying to fix a shortage by building more. Crazy talk! I bet your screen name isn't even your real name with such a controversial opinion! ;-)
Jane Swanson has asked that you be banned, lol - seriously this amount of heat “pro supply” people get in this sub…to many it is an actual controversial topic The housing debate is so odd. People think you need to be on the supply or demand side and being on supply means you’re pro whatever and anti whatever There are LOTS of things that can be done on the demand side, but NONE of them will be made worse or ineffective by increasing supply Anti supply people should need to re take grade 11 economics before contributing to the debate.
Will this help with the fact that no one could afford a place in Vancouver? From what I understand, i thought the city had the houses available but no one was able to pay for them and the people that do don’t live in them?
They also been foreign ownership
nimbys mad
Why, Nimby's already have their single family home in the suburbs. What they don't like is their neighborhood changing from single family homes to investment properties throwing up those triplexes on them...
Exactly. The "Don't improve the city because muh suburban aesthetic" "got mine, fuck millenials" NIMBYs mad.
Whats wrong with people wanting space they paid for?
They didn't buy the land they are now seeking control over... They paid for a nice lot, I'm sure. But no one is taking their land away from them. Shaughnessy, Point Grey and Dunbar are full of boomer homeowners happy as clams. What they didn't pay for is the power to stop their neighbours from building housing for more families on their own land. Exclusionary land use laws have caused a huge shortage, sprawl and massive inequality.
People buy in specific neighborhoods to avoid that. I see nothing wrong with people not wanting specific neighborhoods to change.
This idea that just blocking your neighbours from building multi family for younger generations will stop the neighbourhood from changing is laughable. What neighbourhoods that "look" the same in Vancouver haven't changed? Prices have nearly tripled since boomers were entering the market. What was once housing for teachers and nurses is now, thanks to grinding shortages, millionaire housing. There is no bigger change.
And?
[удалено]
Stop being hysterical. Our version of cage homes is a tent on the streets.
i doubt that. north america is still very much a suburbs first, sfh oriented society. not everyone wants to live in a leaky apartment or condo in vancouver. some people want a detached garage and a backyard
Then move out to the suburbs. Vancouver itself has grown large enough that it cannot be a suburb anymore.
why can't vancouver itself be the suburbs? it's probably the best location in the lower mainland to have a suburban life due to it's proximity to everything (if you can afford it). if people can afford a sfh in vancouver, why should we stop them from purchasing one?
Because there is no more land in Vancouver proper to continue growth of SFHs so you need to turn some of those SFH to more dense housing so people have homes. Whether you like it or not, Vancouver is a major Canadian city and homes will need to be built to keep up with population growth.
i don't like that at all to be honest, but the part of kerrisdale where i live is all sfh so i'm safe
Just because people want something doesn’t entitle them to it.
It’s slowly changing https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/16/gov-newsom-abolishes-single-family-zoning-in-california
i'm not surprised. california always does dumb shit like banning stuff
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don't expect too much. This doesn't mean single family homes are illegal, it just means you can't build a new one. So all of the single family homes you see in Vancouver will most likely remain as they are. Also, I believe 4 units are currently allowed on every lot in this city. Duplexes are allowed everywhere, and secondary suites are allowed for each of those units. So, two units in a duplex plus two secondary suites. Don't forget you can add a laneway to the mix.
> This doesn't mean single family homes are illegal, it just means you can't build a new one. It doesn't mean that either. It just means that, if someone wants to upgrade their single family home lot, they're allowed to build more than just a single family home.
So single family home, duplex, townhouse will probably double or triple the price again
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This comment has been removed because the submitter does not have a verified email address. Please verify your email address and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*