Task force recommendations can make housing less expensive

"Affordable" is a relative term when it comes to housing in Vancouver

This week, the Mayor's Task Force on Housing Affordability issued its interim report. The task force, co-chaired by Mayor Gregor Robert-son and Olga Ilich, was set up earlier this year and included a mix of real estate experts, housing developers, architects, and community representatives.

It was created to examine conditions in Vancouver that may act as barriers to the creation of affordable housing, the steps necessary to protect existing affordable housing and identify opportunities for increasing affordability.

I was invited to chair a separate Roundtable on Building Form and Design, to identify design and building-code requirements that are adding costs to the provision of quality affordable housing, as well as design changes that could increase the supply of affordable housing.

The report identifies a number of new steps the city can take to increase and protect the stock of affordable housing in. (Of course, "affordable housing" means different things to different people. For the purposes of this study, the task force set a range of $21,500 for an individual up to a combined annual household income of $86,500, and assumed people would pay approximately 30 per cent for housing. In other words, it was not addressing the needs of the home-less, but the needs of more "ordinary people" struggling to rent or buy a home.) Let's take a look at some of the recommendations.

The first is to increase the supply and diversity of affordable housing through density increases in large comprehensive developments like Marine Gateway and southeast False Creek, and in transit-oriented locations. I thought the recently approved 32-storey Marine Gateway development at Cambie and Marine was too large for its site, and feel the new development around the Olympic village is very dense. Therefore, I hope the task force is not advocating even higher densities in these areas.

However, I strongly agree with the recommendation to create "transition zones" between higher-density development along arterials or transit hubs and adjacent single-family housing. This was one of the recommendations of my roundtable and one that could result in significantly more strata-titled and "fee-simple" row houses and stacked townhouses. The latter can offer a more affordable alternative to apartment living, with each suite having its own entrance from the street.

Another recommendation is to enhance the capacity of the city and the community to deliver affordable rental and social housing. The task force proposes the creation of a housing authority with its own board and a mandate to develop social and afford-able housing on city owned lands. Whistler and Toronto have done this with some success. I support this idea in concept, but need to see which city lands will be offered for development and the financial implications of building primarily rental and social housing. Most of us do not want to see a repeat of the Olympic village scenario, where expensive social housing was built by the city on prime water-front sites.

The task force also recommends the creation of Community Land Trusts. These are non-profit corporations that acquire and manage land on behalf of community residents, in a manner that preserves affordability. While common in the U.S., there are not many examples in Canada. However CLTs could facilitate new community-based housing developments by lever-aging donations of land and funding from private and non-profit partners.

The report also addresses Vancouver's development approval procedures. Recommendations include increasing certainty, efficiency and transparency and clarifying regulations. I suspect that most people who have tried to obtain development and building permits from the city will agree with this recommendation. An interesting task force suggestion is to create a NEXUS pass-type system for applicants with a proven track record of successful projects. While intriguing, I will not hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

The task force also addressed my long-standing concern related to how the city determines Community Amenity Contributions to be paid by developers whenever they rezone land. Rather than continue the cur-rent "let's make a deal" approach, it recommends more certainty in what charges will apply. This could allow the "pre-zoning" of land, something I believe could increase the supply and affordability of housing.

However, this raises a key question that is on many minds. Will reduced costs for developers and home builders translate into reduced prices for renters and buyers?

It is my view that by increasing sup-ply and greater competition in the marketplace, reduced costs will ultimately translate into lower prices.

However, as long as Vancouver's land supply is constrained, and we continue to be an attractive place to live, homes here will never have the more affordable prices of those in other Canadian cities.

In other words, rather than title the report: Bold Ideas Towards an Affordable City, it might be more aptly titled Bold Ideas Towards a More Affordable City.

– post by Michael Geller, originally featured in the Vancouver Sun.

Vancouver City Clerk Marg Coulson stepping down
Let's get real - making energy always has an environmental impact

Broken image or link? Click here to report it or visit citycaucus.com/typo.

About The Author

  • T Clark

    This affordable City rant is a dog that don’t hunt!
    Like New York and other such cities the COV has to now accept what has been created. Giving developers breaks will only line their pockets further and my children will either have to rent apartments or move outside the city for a larger abode if in fact even then they can afford a house.
    The most dangerous part of the COV’s plan is to build on city property- including parkland which by law comes under the jurisdiction of the elected Park Board. Putting their sights on the three public golf courses ever so slyly will be the beginning of the end for this dream city once renowned for its parks and gardens.
    Under some make believe scenario we will have sacrificed affordability for what we already had so amazingly created- livabilty.

    • JJ

      100 % agreement T Clark!
      But what one can expect from a developer/ politician/ pencil pusher like Michael G?

  • Everyman

    Give developers access to build in newly created “transition” zones and make them subject to less oversight? Pretty to easy to see who is winning under this scenario. No wonder developers donate so much to civic campaigns.

  • becauseimintheknow

    Sooooo sick of the “stop lining developers pockets” rant. Stop the profits and developers develop in alternative cities. Simple. Cry me a river i’m sure most of you left wing tree hugging born again hippies will say… well you stop developers doing business in Vancouver you constrain supply. Constrain supply and you’re out on your ass or in a heat shelter…. A developer makes a dollar in Vancouver or he makes it in Abbotsford, Surrey, Langley, Seattle, Portland, etc. etc. instead. Pretty simple equation folks.

    wake up.