,
16 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I'd like to share another tidbit I hear a lot from social housing/nonprofit developers that I find infuriating: the projects often lose units even before the public hears anything about the rezoning proposal. 1/N
So in the last thread, I talked about how every new multifamily development (including social housing) needs to apply for a "rezoning" because everything but single detached houses are banned by default in 76% of Vancouver due to zoning bylaws, right? 2/N
Well, during this process, the developers (again, including social housing ones) have a bunch of talks with city staff. Staff will guide the developers toward a proposal that has a reasonable chance of passing the public hearing and council vote. 3/N
The city staff know very well how the public hearings are and the kind of feedback they'll hear from practically every neighbourhood: less height/bulk (because views), more parking (so existing residents keep their free street parking), "character" (pointy roofs). 4/N
So the staff will, *even before the public hearing*, tell social housing/NP devs even to cut down on number of floors and increase setbacks, effectively lowering the size and number of units possible. You physically can't build more/bigger units with such floorspace limits 5/N
Since most social housing/nonprofit developments nowadays have ~70% market rate units to help subsidize the social housing, the floorspace limits are a strong constraint on delivering deeper affordability. There is a *tradeoff* here: less floorspace = more expensive units. 6/N
Then there's the added parking demanded by the neighbours. UGH. It costs $45k+ per stall in Vancouver to build these. If social/nonprofit, where does the $ for these come from? Of course, from future rents. There's no profit margin. And, y'know, climate emergency etc. 7/N
(So, if ever you hear certain speakers or even councillors demand BOTH bigger setbacks/less height/more parking AND MORE AFFORDABILITY before voting yes, question that! They know there's a tradeoff, especially in the case of nonprofit developments.) 8/N
The rezoning process is, as mentioned in my previous thread, multiple years long in most cases. This is only a fraction of the considerations and tradeoffs involved. After all this, it goes to public hearing and council vote. 9/N
So if you ever wonder why it seems like very few concerns are addressed after the public hearing, this is why. The council vote is a go/no go vote. Any major changes would make the project unviable and proponents are unable to reapply for a rezoning for an entire year. 10/N
A failed rezoning for a nonprofit can be excruciating for them. Again, there are *no profit margins* for them, and rezonings can cost hundreds of thousands~millions of dollars. Failed rezonings can mean downsizing, less capacity, fewer nonprofit projects in the future. 11/N
This is why I'm frankly at the point where I don't want mandatory public hearings or council votes on social/nonprofit housing in any municipality (cc: @selinarobinson). At the very least, I think we need to reform this ASAP. It's a housing crisis and we should act like it. FIN/N
@selinarobinson P.S. Social housing is often developed and delivered by nonprofits, not directly by government for a good, practical reason. We've all seen many public works deliberately defunded by right-wing governments, right? It's to put them at arms length from said gov'ts.
This is also why there are always market rate housing units built with social housing; for the cross-subsidy. The social housing would stay running fine because they're not dependent on continuous funding (that, again, could be taken away by future administrations.)
Fact checks always welcome by the experts, as usual! And again, I'm just relaying (quite possibly imperfectly) what I've learned from social housing/nonprofit developers kind enough to teach me about all this. Thank you all.
One last note - parking can be $50-70k per stall due to high water tables in Van. This adds WAY more cost than high-end finishings do to “””luxury””” apartments. Let’s stop mandating parking minimums ASAP, @PtFry
