|
luxury handset posted:the problem with this argument is that it assumes people are looking to cash out their homes eventually and downsize. a ton of old people want to die in their homes and keep the homes within the family - this makes the whole "property value" aspect of NIMBYism fall apart. this argument is also in opposition to the gentrification of homeowners - wouldn't people like to be displaced by a mechanism that causes their equity to balloon in value? also when you look at mechanisms like prop 13 in california (an extremely bad idea) it torpedoes the incentive people have to sell their homes, making californian homeowners more agnostic to the value of their home as compared to the immediate environmental conditions around their homes (traffic, crowds, air quality, view etc.) IMO NIMBYism from Single Family Homeowners is less about valuations and potential income and much more related to the fact that in many places a fee simple detached property is the aspirational end goal of the property ladder and once people reach that status they're at the top and any sort of change to the neighbourhood doesn't seem to be beneficial (even though it may actually be). For example Vancouver recently allowed laneway/coach homes in all SFH zoned districts, which in effect upzoned the entire city. From a valuation point of view this was a fantastic boon to SFH owners, since they could now build more on their land and rent out another unit for extra income. In reality there was still substantial criticism and pushback from SFH owners because many SFH owners value unquantifiable things like privacy and gardens to higher valuations and income generating potential. The fact that downsizing has not become a trend is indicative of how strongly people value SFHs as a lifestyle choice. When you've reached your aspirational goal in life why detach yourself from your existing neighbourhoods social networks, give up the amenities of a SFH and downsize to an apartment if you don't badly have to? I think this points to a big failure of cities in not creating a scale of housing options in every neighbourhood. Ironically NIMBYism by single family homeowners has made the notion of downsizing extra punishing. Due to the fact that NIMBYs have kept out all new development, a potential downsizer will often have to switch neighbourhoods to find a different, smaller form of housing. If cities had been able to build every form of housing in every neighbourhood, then an elderly detached house owner could easily shift to a townhouse or apartment while not having to disconnect themselves from their neighbourhood social networks.
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
It's election day in Vancouver and the unabashed YIMBY party YES Vancouver looks to be headed to defeat. The Mayoral candidate leader of the municipal slate, Councillor Hector Bremner has been polling way down the pack in barely double digits. The Globe and Mail published two election round up articles, one focusing specifically on housing, and he wasn't even mentioned. If you want to see an example of what a real non-hypothetical YIMBY party platform looks like you can download a big policy PDF here https://yesvancouver.ca/letsfixhousing-action-plan/ Broadly what they're advocating is a city wide rezone to allow four story apartment buildings everywhere. In contrast other pro-development parties are more incrementalist in advocating studying how Vancouver could get to triplexes and fourplexes (The city just changed zoning to allow duplexes city wide). Unfortunately the defeat of this party will not likely give any indication of Vancouver's opinion toward the YIMBY ideas that YES is advocating for as Bremner himself is proved to be a rather polarizing figure. Bremner comes from the right of centre and previously worked for the deeply unpopular and recently ejected from provincial government BC Liberal party. It's possible that Vancouver is ready for the ideas that Bremner is proposing, but he's not the right man to usher in these changes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:It's election day in Vancouver and the unabashed YIMBY party YES Vancouver looks to be headed to defeat. The Mayoral candidate leader of the municipal slate, Councillor Hector Bremner has been polling way down the pack in barely double digits. The Globe and Mail published two election round up articles, one focusing specifically on housing, and he wasn't even mentioned. Update this guy got absolutely roasted in the election and came no where close to getting elected. Unfortunately it's hard to say whether this is because he used to work for an unpopular political party, or the public rejects market yimbyism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Vancouver BC doesn't have Row Houses effectively due to history and weird legal reasons. Developer and City lawyers weren't really convinced that the Province's various laws allowed for shared party wall agreements and so they shied away from risking building any row houses. Later on in the 60s the province created the Strata Property Act, which simplified condo and townhouse development and development of multi-unit property went in that direction. Recently I believe the province finally got around to clarifying some of the rules and Row Houses should be totally viable, but at this point, developers and buyers are more experienced and comfortable with townhouses using the strata concept, so those dominate in places where row houses could also be an option (that they're cheaper to build probably helps).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HenryKraemer/status/1211718232198893572?s=20 Why stop there? Let's put those Hong Kong sleeping cages on the table. Great for single people!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:I'm curious if anyone knows about the relationship between upzoning and development. Like, just because a city changes the map to permit a dense building to be built doesn't actually mean anyone's going to come along and do it. Then, if they do, they still have to go through a review process even then, which always includes public feedback. There's a variety of areas where I live in Vancouver BC that have been up zoned already for substantially higher densities, often years and years ago, which haven't been touched. From a layperson's point of view it's sort of baffling since I hear in the news that we're in a "housing crisis" and there's opportunities to build that aren't being taken up. Meanwhile the developers that aren't building on these lands are agitating at council for more liberalized zoning in general. At the end of the day there's probably a complex basket of reasons. The up zoned areas aren't in hot areas, or the city has some strings attached. This is the problem with relying on for profit housing development to create housing supply. A developer is not going to build unless it's profitable so any reason that makes a project unprofitable could result in some up zoned land sitting idle for years. Cicero posted:Though I'm surprised how much leftists ignore the equity side of zoning, it's really just as important as price relief imo. For example, the reason the US can so often have such extreme inequalities in schools, especially within the same metro, is because schools get their pupils based on attendance boundaries, so if an area attached to a particular affluent school is nothing but single family homes on big lots, that makes it impossible for poor/working class families to attend. Whereas if townhomes/duplexes/fourplexes/etc are allowed, or especially the dreaded apartments, the rich can't really keep poorer people from attending anymore; some will definitely choose to move to a better school area even if it means living in a smaller home. "Neighbourhood equity" of up zoning is something that should probably be discussed more. It's much more common that all the areas selected for increased densities are not wealthy neighbourhoods, but relatively poorer ones. This is an area where Left YIMBYs occasionally run into trouble with their fellow progressives if they're so in favour of higher densities that they don't care who is affected. I've noticed that in Vancouver there's a new facet pushing back to the local YIMBY movement that are young, local, racialized people that are concerned about new development in traditionally ethnic minority neighbourhoods undermining local businesses that serve ethnic minorities. Not the usual white haired NIMBYs. Vancouver’s Little Saigon Facing Gentrification? Developers get density, city gets rentals. What could go wrong? ‘Upzoning’ Might Mean More Apartments — But It’ll Wreck Neighbourhoods Working-class, racialized people will be driven out by city-promoted gentrification. The local YIMBY movement sees all Single Family Homes as reprehensible things that must be up zoned and done away with, but there is increasing push back from ethnic minorities that are questioning why it is seemingly always their SFH 'hoods that are targeted for redevelopment and not others. It's a reasonable question. IMO we need to be pushing quite a bit harder to ensure that redevelopment is equitably occurring across the city and if anything weighted heavier to occurring in wealthy areas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Didn’t the housing bubble there pop? More of a "soft landing." Prices have come down 10-15% for typical homes, higher for the sort of extreme luxury products that were more influenced by foreign buyers. There's still near 0% vacancy, though apparently rental prices are levelling off and declining after having spiked in the last few years. The trend I'm talking about of up zoned land lingering empty was present all through the most intense last few years of the housing crisis though. quote:The reason why this happens probably has little to do with racial animus and more to do with the fact that poor people are worse at NIMBY-ing up than rich people. Also poorer areas have cheaper land values. Yeah sure I agree, though the disagreeable end result is the same. The impacts on various racial minorities is severe when the development is over concentrated into their neighbourhood instead of more equitably being spread throughout the city. The city needs to understand this and take this into account when planning if they care at all about not displacing businesses and services that serve a specific community. Neighbourhood equity concerns is one reason I haven't much supported YIMBY policies to implement broad city wide upzones. In practice I think what one would see is that developers would be most keen on areas where the land is cheapest (read: low income, racialized communities) and redevelopment would appear in these areas instead of the wealthier areas, maximizing displacement of low income persons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Not the USA, but Vancouver, British Columbia has some (not elected) regional government layers. There's Metro Vancouver quote:Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities, one Electoral Area and one Treaty First Nation that collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services. Its core services are drinking water, wastewater treatment and solid waste management. Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, plans for urban growth, manages a regional parks system and provides affordable housing. The regional district is governed by a Board of Directors of elected officials from each local authority. and Translink quote:TransLink, officially the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, is a regional transportation authority created by the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2021 06:45
|
|