If voters concerned about housing don’t reward this government, I honestly don’t know what more they were expecting. They’re doing every good idea out there. It will, nevertheless, still take years to fix this mess.
We do have a problem with the Municipal government refusing to do anything, but you’re right it’s hard to fault the BC NDP. They’re throwing things to see what sticks, and really that’s all we can do at this point.
There’s no perfect government but out current powers seem to have really been trying when it comes to housing and they deserve to be recognized for that. Everyone seems to have someone to blame but then shit on the people trying to give solutions that make everyone the least unhappy while still supporting those in need. And as far as I can tell, the least unreasonable solutions are coming from this government.
All of that is to say that I agree with you and it pisses me off when people bitch about a situation and then never recognize those trying to fix it because it wasn’t the solution they wanted.
Multiple good ideas here, but these solutions are not meeting the level of the problem. Transit adjacent development needs to be allowed even more density than this.
I agree that’s also good, but I’m in the camp that thinks we rely too much on big developers to build supply. Up to now, we only really allowed super tall glass towers or super low density detached homes. But these are the two most expensive forms of housing to build.
Instead, strategies like what the NDP are doing emphasize “missing middle” construction. Row houses, quadplexes, 4 story walk-ups, etc. That size also happens to be the most affordable to build and maintain.
Wow, I didnt know these are also cheaper to build and maintain!
Per capita yes. Obviously, a small bungalow is cheaper to build than a quadplex. But that quadplex shares the cost of the roof, walls, foundation, roads and utilities. You get diminishing returns with skyscrapers, which are complex technological marvels that take half a decade or more to build on average in Canada.
This is why all the cheapest rental and housing stock are those older 3 story apartments along arterial roads. They are the most affordable housing in the country, and we keep destroying them because it’s the only place density is “allowed”.
I remember growing up and thinking I’d see such varied environments: I would come across a skyscraper in an enclave in the forest, a lot of people living in a very small spot in the middle of nowhere because they all liked the natural environment and didnt want to spoil it with a huge town. Ha.
I can see it making a pretty big difference tbh. If developers are able to convert a sfh to a multiplex quickly and cheaply I can imagine a lot of them are going to jump on the opportunity.
This will be great for small towns and communities trying to grow into small towns. I live in Cowichan and while there are an insane amount of condos going in near the highways and Duncan itself, we could use a density bump everywhere. The newer (90s?) half of my neighbourhood is 100% duplexes and it doesn’t feel significantly more crowded than the older half (which are mostly SFH with basement suites anyways). As it is, the transit and roads aren’t there to handle major increases in density (cars or pedestrians) but a doubling or in some cases tripling would be viable and possibly attract that missing infrastructure.
The title makes it sound like more restrictive regulations, while this is actually pre-approved plans offered cheap in order to streamline projects.
Laneway homes and ghetto triplexes aren’t a fix. They’re not even a delaying effort given the numbers involved.
This is absolutely wrong-headed from the same government who nullified surrey’s right to vote.
We’re the alternatives not so much worse, I’d need to change my voting.
I lived in a quadplex on a corner lot in a nice neighbourhood, it was great. square building divided into quarters. 3 floors for each unit. Everyone gets a porch and bbq side deck, and detatched garage structure toward the alley side of property.
Why are they “ghetto”?
What is wrong with this streamlining of the process for property owners who have space and can afford to build?
What other solution do you suggest that would be better/faster/stronger?
Why are they “ghetto”?
Anything other than the “American dream” of a single family home with a huge ass lawn is associated with poor people and filth
You’re right, I sure hate my ghetto fourplex unit. For the price of a condo I have a small yard and garden that doesn’t take all my time looking after, three bedrooms, a garage, street level access, and all in an established character neighborhood close to bike lanes and breweries. I’d totally rather be living in a box in the sky with no space and be aspiring to one day own a suburban single detached home that I’ll probably never afford. Plus I hate that it offers density within the existing city footprint and infrastructure, I definitely prefer either concrete towers or massive homes sprawling out into nature. Affordable in between options that provide reasonable living situations utilizing resources we already have are definitely not a fix and should be banned!
/s on the hating it part if it wasn’t obvious, I love my fourplex unit. Sarcasm aside, in what way is this not at least working to part of the solution? It took decades of investment properties, corporate buying, speculation holding, population growth, with a dash of COVID inflation to get us in this mess. There’s no magic bullet solution, so anything that helps and without any apparent negatives can only be a good thing?
Edit: words are hard
