528, 533, 550 Lancaster St W | 10, 12, 18, 30, 30 fl | U/C

[Spokes]

And it has nothing to do with the fact that living here you're walking distance from the smokehouse. I swear.

Sure, we believe you.

Don't you lie to me Jeffster. I don't even believe myself!

[nms]

Unbelievably bad ideas.
<snip>
Limiting housing purchases to very specific groups of people who would have to be vetted by a whole new bureaucracy? Guaranteed mess. Look, if you’re a communist, just come out and say so. I don’t mean to be harsh, but what we need is fewer weird overly-specific rules about how people can use property, not more. What’s next, the local commissar will decide how many bedrooms you may rent/buy based on your family size?

I didn't say that they were good ideas, but they were the the only things that I could think of at the time.

The reality is that the current construction strategy is not working: no matter how many units are built, the price of accommodation does not come down.  This is not limited to Waterloo Region; one only needs to look to Toronto. If anything, the more units that have been built in Toronto, the faster the demand for affordable housing has grown.  I realize that correlation is not causation, but gentrifying formerly affordable units through a variety of methods (renovation, demolition or displacement) has failed to replace existing affordable units.

Developers need to get on board and provide affordable units on their new build properties. It should not be up to the neighbourhoods to be asked to make way for development because, "Trust us. As a developer, we only have the best interests of this community at heart. It's not about the money, but we need to double the allowable size of this development so all those poor people who want to buy a luxury condo have a place to live." 

Yes, I am cynical of the development industry and I will remain so until they have produced a meaningful contribution to the affordable housing crisis rather than simply tossing a few dollars into the pot and pretending that that will be enough.

[taylortbb]

The reality is that the current construction strategy is not working: no matter how many units are built, the price of accommodation does not come down.  This is not limited to Waterloo Region; one only needs to look to Toronto. If anything, the more units that have been built in Toronto, the faster the demand for affordable housing has grown.

I think we can all agree the current strategy isn't working. However, describing the current strategy as "no matter how many units are built" is a grave mischaracterization. The number of units per capita has been steadily falling, meaning every unit has ever more people competing over it.

The problem here is you're mixing up "number of units" and "number of units per capita". Number of units has been going up, but units per capita is going down. Price is determined by units per capita, as after all its the law of supply and demand, not the law of supply.

We are, on a per-capita basis, reducing the housing supply. When you look at it like that, it's no surprise that everything has gone to shit. People here are arguing that maybe we should increase the per-capita housing supply, which is something that hasn't happened in 20 years.

[jeffster]

The reality is that the current construction strategy is not working: no matter how many units are built, the price of accommodation does not come down.  This is not limited to Waterloo Region; one only needs to look to Toronto. If anything, the more units that have been built in Toronto, the faster the demand for affordable housing has grown.

I think we can all agree the current strategy isn't working. However, describing the current strategy as "no matter how many units are built" is a grave mischaracterization. The number of units per capita has been steadily falling, meaning every unit has ever more people competing over it.

The problem here is you're mixing up "number of units" and "number of units per capita". Number of units has been going up, but units per capita is going down. Price is determined by units per capita, as after all its the law of supply and demand, not the law of supply.

We are, on a per-capita basis, reducing the housing supply. When you look at it like that, it's no surprise that everything has gone to shit. People here are arguing that maybe we should increase the per-capita housing supply, which is something that hasn't happened in 20 years.

To add to this: families are smaller than they used to be, so larger population but smaller family units means we need that much more housing units. Older people are living longer, staying in their homes longer, which means that housing isn't coming on the market as quickly as it once did. So building unit on a per-capita isn't enough either, as we need to realize that we physically need more homes to allow these smaller households.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-6...08-eng.htm

We literally need 10's of thousands of units built just in Waterloo Region to satisfy the need. If we don't do it, then housing will continue to get more expensive.

It's interesting to see people complaining about 'us' becoming Toronto (like it's worse than cancer) but totally ignoring two facts, we will never be like Toronto any time soon, and we desperately need thousands of units.

We're short thousands of units, and that won't decrease at our current build rate.

[nms]

Thanks for the link jeffster.  This one bit stood out for me:

In the early 20th Century, families often had many children, resulting in large households. However, during this era, households were often flexible, expanding and contracting as the need arose. It was not unusual for households to include relatives, boarders or other individuals, either temporarily or on a longer-term basis.

I wonder how many "boarders or other individuals" are captured by households with multiple roommates sharing the rent.  It would also be interesting see the results of the 2021 census found an increase in larger families to capture those situations where families consolidated to save money.

Looking at the article above, using the statistics there, in 1941 there were 1.45 million households of 4 or more people (I consolidated the 4 and the 5+ categories); in 2011 there were 3.02 million households with 4 or more people.

In 2016, in the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge census area there were 516,085 people living in 200,495 units.  The overall average household size of 2.6 with a peak of 2.9 for single family homes and a lowest average of 1.7 for "Apartment in a building that has fewer than five storeys". (Which must include most seniors homes) (1 - see reference below)

Another interesting statistic was "Housing Suitability" which means: "whether the dwelling has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household". The full definition is:

'Housing suitability' refers to whether a private household is living in suitable accommodations according to the National Occupancy Standard (NOS); that is, whether the dwelling has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household. A household is deemed to be living in suitable accommodations if its dwelling has enough bedrooms, as calculated using the NOS.

'Housing suitability' assesses the required number of bedrooms for a household based on the age, sex, and relationships among household members. An alternative variable, 'persons per room,' considers all rooms in a private dwelling and the number of household members.

Housing suitability and the National Occupancy Standard (NOS) on which it is based were developed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) through consultations with provincial housing agencies.

In Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge here is what was found (the table generator defeated me, so sorry for the mess below):

                                     Total --- Owned ---    Rented
Suitable:                    191,550  --- 132,545 ---  59,015
Not Suitable:                 8,940  ---   3595  ---      5345
One Bedroom shortfall:   7240  ---   2890   ---      4355
Two bedroom shortfall:   1235  ---     515   ---       720
3+ bedroom shortfall:      465   ---    190   ---       270

When developers asked why they don't build larger units, the standard reply is "no one buys them". This table suggest that there are close to 9000 households that would happily buy a larger a unit.  Perhaps the developers actually mean "no one buys them at the price that we want to charge for them"?

To bring the discussion back to this development on Lancaster, there is a chance that it will address some of this shortfall as the urban design brief describes the project as, "1198 units with a mix of one bedroom units, two bedroom units and two bedroom plus den units". The brief didn't say how much of each were going to be in the development.  The project will likely not address any of the 3+ bedroom shortfall and possibly none of the two bedroom shortfall should the den in the plus den units be used for a den rather than a sleeping unit.

The reports that I looked at were: 
1. "Structural Type of Dwelling (10) and Household Size (8) for Occupied Private Dwellings of Canada, Provinces and Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2016 Census - 100% Data"
2. "Housing Suitability (6), Tenure (4), Number of Persons per Room (5), Number of Rooms (12), Number of Bedrooms (6), Household Type Including Census Family Structure (16) and Household Size (8) for Private Households of Canada, Provinces and Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2016 Census - 25% Sample Data"

[tomh009]

Families with a 3+ BR shortfall would likely need a 4BR or 5BR dwelling in order to address the shortfall. However, it may well be that at least some families are happy with fewer bedrooms than the CMHC standard.

As to the pricing of the (conceptual) 3BR units, if 1000 sqft 2BR units sell for, say, $500K ($500/sqft), do you expect 3BR units to sell substantially below $600K (the same price/sqft)? From what I have seen, larger units (penthouses notwithstanding) are generally NOT more expensive per sqft than smaller units.

[ijmorlan]

When developers asked why they don't build larger units, the standard reply is "no one buys them". This table suggest that there are close to 9000 households that would happily buy a larger a unit.  Perhaps the developers actually mean "no one buys them at the price that we want to charge for them"?

Of course that’s what they mean. How could they mean anything else? Everything is like that: who doesn’t want more and better goods and services for a lower price? This isn’t because of “capitalism” or “greed” or whatever; it’s just a natural consequence of the fact that some of the things we want take a lot of work to provide.

[nms]

I don't know the answer, but it seems to be a pickle. If it is not an option to build more suburbs to provide a an equivalent sized living unit that offers the same size as a 1500 square foot penthouse at a similar price, and nor an option to build a 1500 square foot apartment to accommodate the size of family unit that is currently not served by the available housing in Waterloo Region, what's left? Surely, in the 2000+ years of urban living, there are creative solutions out there.

Short of pushing those families into either inadequate housing, or housing that is too far away to be useful for their other needs and tasks, are we willing to say, "Sorry, but your family unit or needs are not welcome in this community?" This is not a natural consequence that I like. Are developers willing to do some of the work to provide those needs? (I might ask the same question of the other players in this equation too, but my understanding is that staff and politicians don't have much power to drive this kind of change, nor do those who don't happen to own an acre of property and/or have deep pockets to finance such a project have much power either)

[plam]

Short of pushing those families into either inadequate housing, or housing that is too far away to be useful for their other needs and tasks, are we willing to say, "Sorry, but your family unit or needs are not welcome in this community?" This is not a natural consequence that I like. Are developers willing to do some of the work to provide those needs?

The NZ context is very different, but sometimes the problems are the same. Waterloo has been building a heck of a lot more than NZ though. Options For Homes was doing some low-cost housing and our first place was built by them, but I haven't heard much from them lately. Here's a developer that is actually trying to build units more efficiently:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/16-11-...e-rentals/

I think Canadian builders are more efficient than NZ builders already, but I'm sure they're not optimally efficient.

[tomh009]

We have 100K+ single-family houses and townhouses that are larger. And not every family needs three bedrooms.

Incidentally, you said that "This table suggest that there are close to 9000 households that would happily buy a larger a unit" but the table doesn't say that there are 9000 households that want to buy a 3BR condo. What it does say:

• 3600 own an undersized unit (the other 5400 rent)
  
• Some portion of those live in houses or townhouses -- likely more than half given the region's housing stock
  
• Of the portion living in condos, some are in 1BR units and would like to be in 2BR
  

The number of households looking for a 3BR condo might well be less than 1000. And, for those households, there are other forms of housing available with three or more bedrooms.

I don't see the number of bedrooms as a critical part of our housing crisis.

[ZEBuilder]

Vive resubmitted site plans for this in May, they have changed the heights of the buildings to 10 floors (completed), 12 floors, 18 floors, and 2 towers at 30 floors. The new site plan adds 83 more units (1281 in total) as well as adding 1162m2 of commerical space (1412m2 total), it says that this is including live/work units so I'm unsure of the actual breakdown of commerical is.

[Lebronj23]

Elevation drawings

https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenDa...awings.pdf

[westwardloo]

I like the project, Phase 1 is one of the nicest pre-cast projects I have seen built in the region. I just wish they had somehow extended Langs crescent to the River bend drive cul-de-sac. The way the site plan is set up all traffic will need to go through Lancaster, making that intersection even more hostile to pedestrians.

[SF22]

I like the project, Phase 1 is one of the nicest pre-cast projects I have seen built in the region. I just wish they had somehow extended Langs crescent to the River bend drive cul-de-sac.  The way the site plan is set up all traffic will need to go through Lancaster, making that intersection even more hostile to pedestrians.

I actually reached out to the City of Kitchener just recently, asking about the possibility of additional bike/people bridges over the Grand to help link neighbourhoods together, namely connecting the tail-end of Riverbend across to the Bridgeport Sportsfield, and then another bridge crossing from Schaefer Park over to the Bridgeport North neighbourhood, so that pedestrians/cyclists could navigate the Lancaster/Bridge area without having to actually travel on those streets. (I was told that, at this time, there are no additional plans for pedestrians bridges like the one down by Doon, although they will revisit it in the future). Might be worth reaching out to the City yourself to ask for something like this, show that there's demand for alternate routes!

[clasher]

I like the project, Phase 1 is one of the nicest pre-cast projects I have seen built in the region. I just wish they had somehow extended Langs crescent to the River bend drive cul-de-sac.  The way the site plan is set up all traffic will need to go through Lancaster, making that intersection even more hostile to pedestrians.

I actually reached out to the City of Kitchener just recently, asking about the possibility of additional bike/people bridges over the Grand to help link neighbourhoods together, namely connecting the tail-end of Riverbend across to the Bridgeport Sportsfield, and then another bridge crossing from Schaefer Park over to the Bridgeport North neighbourhood, so that pedestrians/cyclists could navigate the Lancaster/Bridge area without having to actually travel on those streets. (I was told that, at this time, there are no additional plans for pedestrians bridges like the one down by Doon, although they will revisit it in the future). Might be worth reaching out to the City yourself to ask for something like this, show that there's demand for alternate routes!

This is a pretty good idea IMO. Lancaster/Bridge can be kind of wild to ride during busy times.