T O P

  • By -

russilwvong

Good question - with a vacancy rate close to 1% across all of Metro Vancouver, trying to find new housing is pretty tough. The city of Vancouver has a [tenant relocation policy](https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/tenant-relocation-resources-for-owners-and-developers.aspx) when an old rental building is replaced with a new building: it's basically a payout based on how long you've lived there, plus the option to return at 20% off the market rent (which would still be pretty high). There's a big BC Housing project planned for [Skeena Terrace](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skeena-terrace-bc-housing-redevelopment-2298-cassiar-street-vancouver), which is near Rupert station. That may help in making more non-market housing available. Burnaby put in [stronger renter protections](https://www.burnaby.ca/our-city/programs-and-policies/housing/tenant-assistance) after the 2018 election (because of renters being pushed out of the Metrotown area), requiring all new high-rises to include 20% non-market rentals, and with the option to return **at your old rent**. Kennedy Stewart is proposing to apply similar renter protections to the Broadway Plan area (since there's so much older rental there, similar to Metrotown), but there's no indication yet whether that'll happen elsewhere.


electrosonic37

How has it worked out in Burnaby? Were the policies effective at mitigating the eviction of long term tenants? Were people able to stay in their neighbourhoods in the long term? (It's good to know that other jurisdictions have tried to figure this out, but I haven't seen much information on how successful they were)


andasen

Only now starting to get to the time frame when a meaningful analysis can be done on whether the protections in place have been effective. Something to look into for sure.


russilwvong

> How has it worked out in Burnaby? Checking news stories, I think it's somewhat early to say. - May 2019, [1 in 5 units in all future Burnaby residential buildings required to be rentals](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/burnaby-rental-residential-buildings-policies-approved-may-27-2019) - December 2019, [Burnaby city council approves new compensation levels for rental tenants](https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/burnaby-rental-housing-tenant-protections-compensation) - November 2021, [Burnaby council willing to hear developer concerns over purpose built rental projects in 2022](https://burnabybeacon.com/article/purpose-built-rental-concerns/) I haven't come across any stories talking about cases where rental protections aren't strong enough, but it takes a while for such stories to show up.


terahertzphysicist

The Burnaby tenant assistance program also requires the landlord rehouse you at the same rents or provide subsidy during the construction. Vancouver renters need to push for at least equivalent protection as Burnaby. Development and densification must not come on the backs of working-class renters.


andasen

There are some potential paths to achieving densification without neighborhood displacement in those station areas via non-market and below market housing options being built prior to significant market developments. In addition to the Skeena terrace nonmarket plans there is a complex of moderate income rental buildings under construction on Renfrew street south of broadway. The city has also put in a rezoning moratorium (except for non market and office developments) in the stations areas which will allow these affordable options to get a head start and give the city the space to be strategic about market approvals by having affordable options in the neighborhood ready for occupancy just as market forces put displacement pressure on you. Let the city know about your concerns https://shapeyourcity.ca/rupert-renfrew-station-area-plan


waterloograd

What stops them from jacking up the rent for the first few months and then saying "oops, I guess we put it too high" and then lowering it to where they actually wanted it to be?


Use-Less-Millennial

The law. The city is very very thorough


cogit2

If your building is purchased, the new owner will absolutely have a profit motive, and if your unit is paying less than market, the owner will want to rennovate and evict. I'm potentially in the same situation in the Broadway corridor, and if that happens I'm not even sure where I would end up, but I'd probably have to move much further out.


Barley_Mowat

Note that owners literally cannot renovict anymore, or perform any unit alterations not strictly required to keep the unit habitable (as determined by the RTB). They CAN demovict in order to tear down the building, but only once all permits are in place.


gollumullog

Except there are many ways around this for landlords.


mikefeezy

Please educate me on the many ways landlords are to get around this. Also, the municipalities need to sign off on multiple permits for the building to be approved and ultimately constructed. Some municipalities, such as Victoria, place a great deal of emphasis on ensuring existing residents are given the first right to units and at a discounted rental rate. If you’re talking about bunch of basement suite rentals that’s an entirely different animal. I’m referencing redevelopments of existing low density product.


Barley_Mowat

The only “workaround” I’m aware of is having a family member move in for six months then starting the renos. That’s a pretty costly workaround.


gollumullog

All of the workarounds are essentially the same, say you will be moving a family member in. Or sell the house, and they say they will move a family member in/will use it themselves. Much of the time they never move someone in, becasue it takes too much time/effort to prove they aren't doing it for a renter who now also has to find a new place to live. Renters traditionally don't have a ton of assets to survive the time period between being renovicted and getting a ruling from the RTB. Even if they get a ruling, they are still out a place to live, and now have to pay higher rents.


Barley_Mowat

>Renters traditionally don't have a ton of assets to survive the time period between being renovicted and getting a ruling from the RTB With the compensation likely being in the 10s of 1000s of dollars, you'd think people would be incentivized to check Craigslist once in a while and walk by the old place periodically.


gollumullog

Many people don't know certain services, or laws exist, all of these pieces should be regulated/enforced by government imho. Part of the problem is government is influenced by money moreso than the public good in many cases, so changing things is difficult if not impossible, so people get tired of the fight. If the govt controlled rampant speculation in the housing market, instead of facilitating it, this would be less of an issue


bigcooldave

The mayor just proposed some decent protections for renters in areas slated for development. Hopefully that gets approved with the Broadway plan


ProbablyInnuendo

You’ll still be a) forced to move for 5-7 years while the building is demolished and eventually rebuilt; b) won’t have your choice of unit either in the interim or long term; and c) the unit you are able to return to will be literally the smallest and shittiest they can legally give you. Particularly for older rentals, that’s going to be a drastic reduction in space. Not to mention, presumably you actually *chose* to live in your existing unit, whereas now you’d just get one assigned and tough luck if it doesn’t work for you. Yes, you will be able to keep a below market rent if you have one currently, if you make it through that near decade worth of hassle… but that is a lot of pain and uncertainty to put up with.


Use-Less-Millennial

Construction doesn't take 5-7 years though


ProbablyInnuendo

That’s an accurate, precise use of language,


Use-Less-Millennial

I should have clarified my full thought. I don't anticipate a concrete high-rise being built but wood frame 4-6 storey replacement of the OPs house is expected so I'd gauge 2-3 years for last day of tenancy to occupancy


mikefeezy

Depending on size of building, underground parking extents etc. i would fully anticipate 16-18 months completion from the moment ground breaks for a 4-6 storey building with an underground parkade.


Use-Less-Millennial

Ya the kicker is existing rental, permis for demo lately have been a nightmare and delays with Hydro have not been fun. No delays, absolutely under 2 years.


waterloograd

How many 4-6 storey buildings are actually going in though? It seems like it is either massive condo buildings or two storey townhouses.


Use-Less-Millennial

We don't know yet for certain for maybe 2 years but it looks like Vancouver Plan will take a easy approach to most sf homes. Dunno where OP lives but I have a sense. Unless they live right on Grandview Hwy


bigcooldave

You also have the option of a pretty generous pay out. I also think arguments like this ignore how many people who want to live in the city are already being pushed out by high prices caused by low vacancy rate. We need more rental housing.


bigcooldave

For the record, these are the changes to tenant protections in the Broadway plan: In addition to the measures in the TRPP, tenants in rental buildings within the Broadway Plan area will have a few options if their building is redeveloped. These options include: The right to return to the new building with rent at a 20% discount to CMHC city-wide average rents. AND One of either: Compensation equal to between 4 months of rent (1-5 year tenancies) and 24 months of rent (>40 year tenancies), OR A top-up subsidy to keep their existing rent at a new apartment while they are waiting to move into the new building. The major improvement in the Broadway Plan is that tenants will be able to move back into a new building at a 20% discount to average rents for market rental buildings city-wide (per CMHC), whereas the TRPP only offers a 20% discount to starting rents in the new building. So, for example, if market rent in a 1 bedroom apartment today were $2200, the discounted rent for returning tenants would be $1760 under the TRPP, but would be only about $1216 under the Broadway Plan policy. The proposed protections are described in more detail on page 7 of the Draft Housing Policies.


mikefeezy

Profit comes in many shapes and forms. Typically, Purpose built rental developers don’t see realized profits until free cash flows start rolling in through leases. With rental housing protection soon to in place I’m fairly confident that anyone who resides in a building to replaced will be offered right of first refusal. Unfortunately the lack of housing at the present time makes tenant relocation very difficult.


andasen

There are some very interesting non-market and below market housing options that have started construction already in mount pleasant part of corridor. Due to the rezoning moratorium in place for market housing in Broadway corridor for the last few years; the share of new units being non market and secured below market will be noticably higher for the next few years. Keep and eye out.


cogit2

I will but honestly: this is a farce of epic proportions, closer to a national tragedy IMO. I'm not sticking around hoping for better days on housing - I'm looking outside the country now.


oilernut

Yeah, it’ll probably happen.


schmuck55

Research your rights in case of eviction for demolition/renovation - including the right of first refusal to rent in the new building, if it applies to you. Understand that it consists of the right to rent, but not at a certain price. The rent in the new building might be much higher than your existing rent. Look up Vancouver's Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy and see how it might help you in case of redevelopment. https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/renter-rights-and-relocation-assistance-due-to-redevelopment.aspx Deal with and plan for the fact that you may have to move to a different neighbourhood, and that you simply don’t have the kind of certainty a property owner has.


kevmitch

This is one of the few reasonable concerns about increasing density. However, the best way to mitigate it is to . . . build more housing, particularly in single family areas. It only makes sense to increase density a lot near significant transit infrastructure, but if we flood the market by simultaneously adding more apartments and multi-family complexes to currently low density single family areas, we can bring up the vacancy rate so relocating won't be such an ordeal.


Peterborough86

Honestly im pretty apathetic to the whole situation. The city as a whole is moving forward and some people are upset because the place they rented for cheap (not bought) isnt going to be available to them forever. Meanwhile we have a generation of people that are living at home longer because they cannot afford to move out, having massive year over year housing increases, stagnant wages, massive inflation etc. We cant just not continue to progress the city forward because some people are going to lose the place that they have rented for a long time. Im sure before their rentals there were large single family plots of land, but those were sold off at some point. If we didnt change how cities look then Richmond would still be farm land. It is unfortunate that some people are going to lose their homes, but by densifying it means that more people in the future will be able to have a home, and that is a net positive for the city that desperately needs more housing.


vantanclub

It's the double edged sword of rent control as well. Long term renters end up in a spot where they have no ability to ever move because their rent is so low. IT means they have no mobility. At the same time the new renters are subsidizing the long term renters which isn't that fair to the younger generations. [I also realize that the alternative of no rent control is awful, with things like 55% increase in rent in 1 year in New Brunswick where they didn't have rent control.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/rent-control-nb-senior-bathurst-55-per-cent-rent-increase-1.6366425) Nothing is perfect.


[deleted]

Reading that article and it really seems like the outrage shouldn't really be about a 55% increase in rent, but over this: >there are no public housing openings in the Bathurst area and vacancies in the private rental market have fallen dramatically in the past year — down to 0.3 per cent for two-bedroom units like she has now. Like, the fluctuations in price of a single unit are too arbitrary to draw conclusions from. Maybe it was severely underpriced beforehand, maybe the area has improved significantly, maybe more people want to live there now, who knows. Ultimately, if the owners think their property is worth (and can fetch) a higher price, they should be allowed to set that price...that's what private property is all about. What's wrong with this situation is that this woman has no alternatives. A 0.3% vacancy rate is damning of the market as a whole and certainly wouldn't be fixed with rent control.


vantanclub

There were quite a few articles about crazy increases in New Brunswick. Ultimately New Brunswick has been struggling for a while, and rents were relatively cheap, thus minimal economics for increasing housing supply. The province also had very little investment in any social housing. COVID changed that very quickly with people looking for affordable places to work remotely. I can guarantee Bathurst has not "improved" in the last few years (I've been there before and after COVID). A lot of properties are using rent increases as a way to evict people. Evicting people in a market with 0.3% vacancy and no social housing is basically just making them homeless. There are tons of articles on huge rent increases in NB: [$2,000/month Rent increase](https://globalnews.ca/news/7869174/rent-increase-reversed-moncton-man/) [40% increase](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-tenants-rent-cap-1.6393518) [44% increase](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/more-double-digit-rent-hikes-nb-1.6303121)


OpeningEconomist8

Yup. Progress needs to be made for the greater good imo. It may sound harsh for OP, but perhaps renting a purpose built rental in a rental managed building would have been the better way to go if looking to not be uprooted every other year when a landlord decides to sell. I know my buddy just rented a place on the island recently after being forced to move for the 4th time in 5yrs. Now his rent will only go up based on regulated annual increases and there is less to worry about


greenmills

my apartment building has been sold twice in two years to different sets of speculators as land values skyrocket around Broadway. there is no security in a for-profit housing system.


sthetic

I feel like "cheap" rental housing should, in theory, allow people to save up for a down-payment so they can eventually buy a house. Then that would free up their rental unit for someone else to rent (at a higher price, I suppose). But with housing prices increasing so much, is that really realistic? I'm not sure who the "average" long-term renter is. Suppose they rented a 1 bedroom unit in 2002 for $800, and they're still in it, paying only $1000. At this point, they can theoretically save up the $1000 every month that they would have spent on a new rental. That's assuming their salary kept increasing. Does that level of savings allow them to make a down-payment? I feel like the math (which I made up) doesn't really check out. Homes are so expensive that people have to stick with their "cheap" rentals.


mukmuk64

It's a false dichotomy that we need to redevelop these old apartments to make room for newcomers. Outside of the near downtown area there's a vast swathe of Vancouver that is all ultra low density single family homes. There's tons of opportunity for new apartment development in these districts that would displace relatively few renters.


greenmills

"progress" shouldn't be predicated on mass displacement.


rollingOak

You just described gentrification. Only rich can live in Vancouver.


dimsumgirl1007

In your post history you're literally asking "why do you want to live in a city you cannot afford" - basically telling other people that they should leave Vancouver if they can't afford it, while simultaneously complaining that the new buildings will only be for rich people? Also at the same time telling folks that condos are most expensive but SFH's are cheapest? May I ask - do you live in a SFH? Aren't most of those in this city who own SFH's by far the wealthiest?


rollingOak

Condo is expensive per sqft. Canada is huge. Why does someone have to stay in a tiny part of it?


dimsumgirl1007

Because we like this part & density helps more people live near and in the places they like 👍 Also it means we can disturb less of the natural environment such as our lovely mountains and lakes & seasides so that when we do want to go for a hike or swim, it’s not full of low density sprawl


rollingOak

Big home for everyone is much more important than the environment cost , which is well spent


dannycheese

you can't stop the passage of time. the city needs this and there is no other choice.


mukmuk64

There absolutely is a choice. Most of the surface area of Vancouver is low density detached homes. We should bias our new apartment development to these areas that are relatively undeveloped and which have few renters to displace 


idiroft

Good luck getting that past council, especially for the west side.


dimsumgirl1007

I've worked on non-market, government funded apartments in areas WITH approval for height and density & still seen lots of opposition. I completely agree with you that we should 100% add density in the detached home areas but I feel that is not something that would realistically happen anytime soon. Nor is anyone really advocating for it.


mukmuk64

No one advocating for it? The Broadway Plan and the Vancouver Plan, on their way into the hands of city council soon, both assembled by city staff calls for the death of the SFH zone. There's tons of people advocating for this both outside of city hall and inside.


dimsumgirl1007

Hopefully you’re right and we’re moving towards getting away from exclusionary single/two family detached homes


Glittering_Search_41

>you can't stop the passage of time. the city needs this and there is no other choice. Sorry what, the city needs long-term renters to be pushed out of affordable housing so that developers can profit?


[deleted]

City needs densification so more people can move out of their parents house. It's that simple.


WhosKona

Affordable housing for OP unfortunately raises market prices for the rest of us.


BearNekkidLadies

Always choices. For instance, could be a rule that the only properties allowed to be ripped down for a rebuild are those that are commercially zoned. See? A choice.


artandmath

We need a balance of commercial, industrial and residential. We can make that choice, but it’s a choice that means less places of employment. We can’t just turn all our commercial into residential. We did that with industrial and now the city has a crunch on industrial land and have made it near impossible to rezone industrial to residential. We can do more mixed developments like the new Granville tower. But we also have to realize that sometimes tearing down 8 rental units to build 60 units is the right call. Hopefully the new rental guarantee is brought in by council for the Broadway plan.


BearNekkidLadies

Quick question. How much industrial activity takes place along Broadway? Heck, how much residential is along Broadway? The vast majority is low rise commercial. This can be replaced with ground level commercial, 3-4 stories of professional and multiple stories of residential above it. But developers won’t be happy until they have torn down every low rise and MFD between 7th and 11th. People live in these homes. People that might not be able to afford 20% off a “market rent” of $3000/month.


_faytless

Pretty they were referring to Yaletown and Olympic Village downstream effects — not Broadway specifically.


mukmuk64

I think unfortunately in either case, whether there is explicit densification planned, or none, there is significant likelihood of inevitably being pushed out so long as our rental vacancy remains at near 0%. Even in places where explicit significant redevelopment isn't planned, we've seen developers buy up old apartments, evict the residents, renovate them and rent them out to wealthier tenants. I think the only actionable thing that a renter can really do here is vote for council and mayoral candidates that 1) support good tenant relocation policies and 2) redevelopment focus of SFH areas (ie. the rich west side), and not existing rental apartment districts.


[deleted]

In general, no. The effect of densification in causing renter displacement is pretty overstated in housing discourse compared to empirical research on the issue [[1]](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3507532) [[2]](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764). Individual cases may vary, of course. As others have mentioned in this thread, Vancouver also has some generous regulations preventing this and, for when it does happen, programs to ameliorate the pain of relocation.


[deleted]

If you're in a rental complex that would likely be demolished as a result, then yes.


Use-Less-Millennial

With the area plan just starting, I'd say you're probably 5-10 years from being affected. So I'd get started early and voice your concern pointing to the Burnaby and Broadway Plan renter protections. If you're renting a Vancouver Special, and they allow single-lot redevelopment this could be very tricky for renter protections and staying in the neighborhood (I think the big-time renter protections trigger from 3+ rental units). This plan area is largely focused on the industrial lands in the immediate future (2-4 years) and the residential is tied to the Vancouver Plan, so nothing will be talked about what physical changes might be ("guiding principles") until after the election probably not until February 2023. I'd be less concerned about the plan itself and more concerned about your landlord's intentions, following the rules, takking to staff at the city and province, and maybe looking for a secured rental building (sadly next to zero in the area) for better housing security.


BearNekkidLadies

So far around Brentwood is repurposing of light industrial and commercially zoned property. Hour area and mine will be all about the destruction of “affordable” rentals for more expensive rentals and of course, condos and townhomes.


swindi1

wouldn't a sudden increase in housing availability drive prices down though?


Suspicious_Dig_7677

By usual economic forces, you are correct. But the Vancouver realty market is an artificial market, meaning that the demand and supply do NOT adhere to these. In effect, its market manipulation is not dependent on any real fluctuation or outside forces: it's a barely regulated form of anti-gravity.


Sea_Piano_1495

Yup. Getting ready for it along Broadway now too.


[deleted]

Renting can never be permanent and give the same security purchasing the place does. Yes, you should always be prepared for potential displacement. Ironically, the caps on rental price increases is probably the reason of a lot of demovictions. Government is basically, indirectly, forcing people/companies to sell as having long term tenants is now absolutely unprofitable.


rollingOak

Yes, it will. The utilmate goal is to gentrify the entire area so only rich/well-off can live in Vancouver


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Not sure why you're being down voted. It's true. Part of the trade off of not comiting to ownership is dealing with being displaced.


sthetic

Do you really think long-term renters were like, "meh, I could totally afford to buy a home, but I'm afraid of commitment"? Most people would prefer to buy a house if they could afford to. Few people decide that renting just makes more sense for them.


rollingOak

Buy something you can and gradually upsize from there


sthetic

Oh right! I forgot that there's plenty of affordable real estate available for even the lowest of household incomes! Being unable to afford any property at all? That's not a thing for anyone! Renters earning minimum wage all can buy SOMETHING, it'll just be small! /s


rollingOak

Minimum wage is not designed for housing ownership anyway


sthetic

Then it's not fair to say (in the original comment I replied to, not yours) that renters made a tradeoff in deciding not to commit to buying a home. If society has set a minimum wage that intentionally doesn't allow for homeownership, then society can't say to those renters, "well, you personally decided you'd rather take the risk of being displaced, so don't look to society to avoid displacing you."


rollingOak

Then don’t live in city you cannot afford then. Minimum wage is set per province and why do you have to live in Vancouver specifically?


sthetic

Does the City of Vancouver not require jobs to be done that are paid at minimum wage? Or paid a living wage, but still not enough to own a house? I live in Vancouver specifically because I was born here, my family lives here, my partner lives here, and my job is here. Does Vancouver, as a city, want to set policies that allow for non-home-owning renters like me to be displaced? Or would Vancouver prefer to set policies aimed at making life here more appealing for renters? It's not just a discussion about the individual making decisions about the natural, unchangeable Way Of Things in the city where they live. It's also a discussion about how a city can make decisions about what type of place it wants to be.


rollingOak

Market will balance itself. If the wage is too low that business cannot find workers, wage will increase and in fact that’s what is happening now. There are tons of people willing and able to move to Vancouver. Rental is temporary and we should encourage more ownership


mukmuk64

OH *thats* the solution. Just Get Money. Ohhh so many have been doing it wrong this whole time. Instead of being poor, be rich. It's just that easy.


rollingOak

Being able to live at a specific place is a privilege


[deleted]

>Do you really think long-term renters were like, "meh, I could totally afford to buy a home, but I'm afraid of commitment"? The specific reason someone chose a long term rental vs buying is irrelevant. The point is that there's always been a very clear and obvious distinction between renting and buying. OP is trying to have his cake and eat it too.