A central question about future development in Victoria is the extent to which it is concentrated in key areas vs. spread out in all areas.
Residents have a range of views about this. I’ve tangled with this question myself, illustrated in my “building in the right places” series of posts.
Last night I attended a meeting of the Victoria Community Association Network (VCAN). One of the attendees suggested that the draft OCP Update should concentrate development more, and not spread it out. This person happened to be from a “traditional residential” neighbourhood (one that is mainly single-detached houses).
And of course I’ve heard from residents of built-up areas such as James Bay and Downtown / Harris Green that those areas “have done enough” and future development should be spread out more. (I would just note that in our OCP Update, staff have advised that James Bay will see less density increase than any other neighbourhood in the City.)
It’s a tough balancing question, and I thanked the person at the VCAN meeting for bringing it up. It’s a question all of Council will need to tangle with as we finalize and approve the OCP Update this year.
That said, the City’s OCP won’t be the sole and final word in determining how the City grows. We live in a mixed economy. The production and consumption of housing, like other goods and services, is determined by the interaction of government rules and market forces – by the tension between democracy on the one hand and capitalism* on the other.
In this context, a recent post about the seismic code and its impacts caught my eye (image below). The new seismic code was announced a couple of years ago, and its implementation has been delayed because it was known that it would have a significant effect on the cost of building new homes – in particular 6 storey wood frame construction.
In City’s draft OCP Update, it is noted that 6 storey wood frame construction is the most viable form for affordable housing, and construction project viability more generally.
The post about the new seismic code considers a high-level mapping of the soil types in Victoria, and in particular the priority growth areas anticipated in the draft OCP Update. The new seismic code wll drive up costs of construction, as noted in the recent MMAH Space and Cost Study that the post references. The post concludes: “On a typical 6 storey wood frame building this will increase construction costs by up to $5M. This eliminates project viability for 6 storey wood frame construction.”
Of course, there is much drilling down and contextualizing that can be done here, and I’m grateful to City staff for always pointing this out. For instance, the soil types in Victoria are variable, and site-specific soil testing would need to be performed to determine costs on a project-by-project basis. And the streamlined approval process anticipated in the OCP Update improves project viability.
The OCP Update emphasizes up to 4-storey and 6-storey wood frame construction, spread across the City, to provide much of the housing needed over the coming decades.
Will this vision be fulfilled? Or will the seismic code costs mean a shift toward taller buildings in fewer and more concentrated areas?
In the end, what actually gets built and where will be determined by the tension and interaction between the rules (e.g. new seismic code and OCP Update) on the one hand, and the market factors (e.g. rents, land and construction costs, interest rates) on the other.
No doubt more external changes could arrive in coming years that influence the shape of future development of the city.
And the City will be able to amend the OCP, zoning bylaw and other policies in response. There is now a provincial requirement to update the OCP every 5 years, and amendments can be made in the meantime.
* I’d rather see all new housing be non-profit affordable, but until a majority of the population supports large tax increases, that won’t happen.