The speed of unregulated development.🔥

you are pure human garbage pushing globalist agenda, FUCK YOU

There is so much wisdom here, how do I even begin to respond

its %100 TRUE you sonderkommando dweeb, FUCK YOU

Do you have a commercial relationship with Nch’kay, OPTrust or Westbank?

Nope. We represent small landlords sporadically spread out across the lower mainland Our average client has 1.2 rental dwellings.

You falsely claimed 20% is affordable housing. 20% (floor space, not units) are below market, which is not affordable housing. The city’s costs are not “the real reason” housing isn’t coming; it’s the cost of the dirt. I like you, but this isn’t factually correct.

Thank you. I like people who engage in respectful discussion. —- My view on housing supply: The cost of the dirt + taxes + construction hard and soft costs ≠ market Hard to change the cost of dirt. Much easier to change the taxes. Therefore…city’s costs are the problem. —- Affordable housing: Might want to tell that to the developer: 1,200 / 6,000 = 20%

Landlords and builders will always try for maximum yield. If the city drops fees, those savings are not passed down to end users. They will always charge what the market will allow. It might make their projects more viable, but communities lose CAC’s and money city needs.

City can increase property taxes. The owners of property significantly benefit from the increase in their asset value living in a growing city but don’t want the “burden” of paying for it. CAC’s are unnecessary. Sure, charge for the proportionate costs to upgrade plumbing, etc. also considering additional services to the rest of the area considering life time use, etc. CAC’s / Dev fees are mismanaged and borderline extortion IMO. — If the city drops fees, devs become more profitable…today. More developers enter as more projects pencil bringing up supply and reducing market prices while also increasing the quality of the average dwelling. Takes time for it to pass through the system, but thats the ultimate outcome. Make it easy to build with cheap money and the developers will always overbuild.

Before we continue this (honestly lovely) conversation. Have you read this: ?

Full commentary on the article: - wants more funding BC Rent Bank - wants permanently affordable housing This is all fine and good. I am all for government taking care of the less fortunate who actually need help. We have enough “free dirt” to make that happen AFAIK. Do it. My issue is that governments continue to be hard on landlords and developers when easing restrictions would bring more investment, more supply, and more competition. Governments are also awful at being landlords themselves. Rent control is an abomination. There are plenty of people who don’t need the support and benefit from it anyway while the government has no idea who actually needs it. The policy is lazy and disingenuous. Calling for vacancy control will further reduce available rental homes—especially in metro Vancouver where such a large amount of the supply is condos. Easy to sell and reduce the supply of rentals all together. Supporting the bottom of the housing ladder and letting developers and landlords run a business are not mutually exclusive scenarios. My final two comments: - we may want housing to be 30% or less of income, but very few people talk about income being 100% of income. Increase incomes and the economy, increase affordability - 30% of gross income is an harmful target. We only rent to households where their income is 3x the rent net of taxes. Significantly less than 30% of gross. If people were told that “affordable” was 20% of their income, then we would literally have a different definition and a better, more sustainable target. Personal finance is math. It has best practices. Best practices should be based on actual data, not a “finger in the air” metric like 30% of gross.

“Increase incomes” isn’t a silver bullet. Higher wages help renters, but small businesses are already squeezed by commercial rents, payroll, insurance, and taxes. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem 🐔🥚

Its not a silver bullet, but its another bit of hope for those who have little. I also don’t mean business increasing wages. I mean the government taking steps to increase earning opportunities rather than the opposite. More opportunity increases morale and sentiment. Even if you’re at the bottom of the ladder and people are getting jobs, you have a better chance of moving up as well.

these building are the worst decisions made. They completely block the view of the ocean. They are just product of corruption

They actually give more people a view of the ocean for much less than they would have had to pay otherwise.

these buildings won’t get approved if they were built just regular developers. they were only approve because David Eby colluding with indigenous groups. absolute corruption

Highly likely

It looks like shit.... but who cares.

Its shiny at least

The architect should be behind bars. And you don't have to fret about speeding up the permitting because the liberals gave Vancouver to the indians.

Did they design a building that is unsafe?

I sure hope not. The indians have different rules than the rest of us thats why it was built so quickly. As I said future permitting will likely be just as fast because the liberals gave Vancouver to the indians. No one in government wants to upset the grifting class. My gut tells me you're profiting or will be profiting from this eye sore, are you?

If this development does anything to my business, it makes it harder as its a huge number of units in a very desirable area. I am interested in real estate in general. No affiliation to the project.

Exactly. It’s amazing what can happen when developers are allowed to actually build things without drowning in regulations and wait times

Senakw will be interesting to watch. Regardless of how it came to be, it will be an interesting experiment for the market and the city.

My personal feelings for the building (and the racism built into their pricing scheme) aside, it’s useful as a proof of concept. You can almost picture Ken Sim watching this and taking notes.

Thankfully agreeing with the development at all and it being interesting are not mutually exclusive. Borderline insane project IMO but I’m just a small business owner / real estate pro

Agree with you bro. Agree with everything you said and just to add all that income produced is going to 1500 person tribe member. The best passport in the world is Musqueam. I want that passport!! I wanna marry in!!!

Any single ladies in the Squamish Nation looking to settle down with a rando on twitter hmu

That’s me bro. I don’t trade crypto. I donate my body for Musqueam expansion I wanna be 1501

🤣 These are the best—most sensible replies in the entire thread. Rooted strongly in reality.

Amazing addition to Kitsilano 🤣 @SteveSaretsky

@SteveSaretsky Steve-o loves a good development story

@SteveSaretsky These monstrosities are blocking his view! Less sunlight for Steve 😞 Not to mention the traffic is going to be an absolute disaster in this area.

I agree and credit is due for the speed of construction. I think the larger question is what does this do to the floor/discovery of CoV affordable and market rental rates. Do future phases get built as fast?

We’ll see how quick absorption is on the lease up. The affordable section has thousands of applicants but thats obvious. The market section I expect will be overpriced and fun to talk about😉

@Fishferbrains Please stop calling BMR affordable housing, they are not the same thing.

@Fishferbrains I’m just referring to the developments marketing. What is the definition of affordable housing you understand?

@Fishferbrains The CoV generally considers housing "affordable" if it costs less than 30% of a household's gross before-tax income. Renter households: $67k median regionally. Affordable at $67k: $1,675/m, using 30% of income. This is absolutely marketing spin. Let’s call it that 😁

Personally I think using the term “affordable” at all when marketing housing is manipulative. Below market can be measured against the entire market and shown scientifically. “Affordable” changes drastically person to person. Its useless for marketing purposes unless housing is going to be offered as a % of income exclusively—which is an untenable concept without significant subsidies.

@Fishferbrains The City and developers often blur the distinction on purpose in public communications. The average person hears: “20% affordable housing” …when the actual policy: “20% of floor area rented at 20% below CMHC average rents.” Those are very different. It’s why I speak up!

Important distinction! Shouldn’t be able to include that wording in marketing unless that is whats actually happening. The landlord would of course call for higher allowances on screening (if you have a net worth of $5M but only claim $30k a year in income, the measure must be adjusted for example). Ultimately you cannot game markets, you can only complicate them.

How do I get in on the 3 bed for 500$/month

3 bed @ $785 per month available to members of the Squamish Nation.

@WhyWouldICare5 😅 there it is - when are you going to create a building with the same rent for a caucasian family? Oop.. bc it’s not required or a loop hole for faster construction.

@WhyWouldICare5 Yeah—not sure how this is permitted—but it is their land apparently.

Foundation takes the longest, but actual floors goes fast

City approvals take the longest.

I cant wait for the stories from non indigenous people living on indigenous reservations. This will be an eye opening experience for many

We wont know until they start renting units

It’s because it’s Squamish nation land. They don’t have the same regulations.

How much are the market rents and why not list those?

Not listed yet. Waiting for pricing.