Residential Action Plan
LIVING DOWNTOWN: A Plan for the Future
INDEX
The year is 2020. Will, can, downtown Victoria be a vibrant, mixed-use residential area? A report and action plan by the Residential Working Group of the Downtown Victoria Community Alliance.
- Introduction
- Downtown Victoria Today
- A Residential Vision for 2020
- Strategic Objectives/Measures of Success
How We Get There From Here
- Objective One A downtown area resident population of 30,000
- Objective Two Enough families to support community facilities
- Objective Three A population profile that reflects the region
- Objective Four Residential and mixed use conversion of vacant space in heritage buildings
- Objective Five Affordable housing for people living on low incomes and the homeless
Introduction
The Residential Working Group (RWG) of the Downtown Victoria Community Alliance formed following the DVCA's first conference , The Successful Downtown , which was held on November 17 th and 18 th , 2003 at the Victoria Conference Centre. Subsequent to The Successful Downtown, the RWG defined two primary tasks. First, the group developed background briefing materials for speakers and panelists from around North America, who addressed various aspects affecting downtown residential neighbourhoods at the second DVCA conference, Making The Future Happen, which was held on March 22 nd and 23 rd , 2004. Based on information presented at the second conference, and additional meetings, research, and discussions, the RWG prepared recommendations for action. They are outlined in this report.
Participants in the working group's discussions over a six-month period include:
- Mark Hornell (Chair) - CRD Regional Planning Services
- Bill Taylor - YM/YWCA of Greater Victoria
- Deborah Curran - West Coast Environmental Law Association
- Gregory Damant - D'Ambrosio Architecture and Urbanism
- Rob Hunter - Devon Properties Ltd.
- Lee King - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
- Tom Moore - Victoria Cool Aid Society
- Pamela Madoff - City of Victoria
- Max Tomaszewski - Amadon Group
- Tony James - Warner James Architects
- Henry Kamphof - Capital Region Housing Corporation
Where We Are Now: Downtown Victoria Today
In 1971, downtown Victoria, then narrowly defined as the area south of Chatham Street, east of the Harbour to roughly Blanshard Street, and south to Belleville Street, was home to about 1850 people. Many were seniors who lived in second and third storey rental units above street-level commercial spaces. In the early 1970s, the City began to enforce residential occupancy standards. As a result, downtown lost a great proportion of its population, and the commercial and personal services that served residents’ needs. In just ten years, downtown’s residential population fell by 64% to 665.
Over the past twenty years, the residential population downtown has slowly recovered to levels still below those of the early 1970’s, reaching 1,135 in 2001. Today, 45% of residents are men between the ages of 20 and 49. 60% of downtown’s residents are single men and women who have never been legally married. The median income of all downtown households in 2000 was $20,300.
The 2001 Census stated that there were 820 occupied private dwellings downtown. Of these, 83% were rented, and 62% were apartments in buildings of less than five storeys. The average gross rent was $615 per month in 2001, just slightly lower than the citywide 2003 average of $657. Apartment vacancy rates across the City (including the downtown area) were under 1% in 2003. The average value of a downtown dwelling was $150,900 in 2001. This compares to a 2003 median price in the Victoria Metro Area of $239,900 for row houses and apartments.
These figures underestimate the potential stock of housing downtown. Many older commercial buildings have vacant second and third storey spaces that were residential rentals in the early 1970s, but which would need to be upgraded to meet current building and occupancy standards. At The Successful Downtown conference, the internationally renowned Toronto architect Jack Diamond estimated that this unoccupied space amounts to approximately 250,000 square feet, enough for 500 one-bedroom apartments.
The DVCA’s broader definition of downtown is based on a 15-minute (1 kilometre) walking radius from the fountain at Centennial Square. This area includes all of Census Tract 10—the traditional downtown and most of Harris Green—plus the remainder of Harris Green and the bordering sections of North Park, Fairfield (the Humboldt Valley), Songhees, James Bay, and Burnside-Gorge. This broader metropolitan downtown, still compact at approximately 1.2 square miles, grew by about 10% between 1996 and 2001, attaining a residential population of approximately 7,000. Much of this growth occurred in Harris Green, which is experiencing a condominium construction boom. A survey identified that eighteen new projects are currently in development, for sale, or under construction in the area, ranging in size from 20 to 500 units. Not one of these projects includes rental housing, affordable housing or supportive housing. These shoulder areas of downtown, as currently defined, hold great potential for additional residential construction on currently vacant (primarily parking lots) or underdeveloped lands that could be developed to much higher density under existing zoning.
Where We Are Going: A Residential Vision for Downtown in 2020
It’s 2020 and downtown Victoria is the vibrant urban centre for the Victoria Metropolitan Area. This metro downtown includes the historic business district and immediate surroundings, and extends 1 kilometre in every direction from the Centennial Fountain at City Hall. Encompassing roughly 315 hectares (1.2 square miles), or about 13% of the City’s total land area of 2,335 hectares (9.02 square miles), this pedestrian-friendly commercial and residential district can be reached within a 15-minute walk of City Hall.
Safe and lively around the clock, the enviable, livable, human-scale Victoria downtown of 2020 sustains our city’s richly textured architecture and public spaces. At build-out, downtown provides a resident market of 30,000 consumers, an increase of about 20,000 from 2004. The downtown retail sector is energetic and profitable, providing all the services and amenities necessary to meet the daily needs of residents and visitors alike. With everything within walking distance, most residents walk, cycle or take transit to get where they want to go. Paradoxically, traffic volumes remain near 2004 levels.
Downtown boasts a diversity of upper, middle and lower income households. Housing choices are abundant and varied: market and non-market, owner-occupied and rental tenures.
Downtown is home to enough households and families with children to support numerous community facilities, including a new school.
Strategic Objectives and Measures of Success
• By 2020, downtown has a resident population of approximately 30,000 people within a 1.2 square mile area.
• By 2020, downtown is home to enough families with children to support community facilities and a school.
• By 2020, downtown has a population profile that reflects that of the region as a whole, with a comparable range of income levels, ages and household types. Socially, downtown is the region in microcosm.
• By 2020, all of the approximately 250,000 square feet of upper-storey space in older heritage buildings in downtown that was vacant in 2004, has been legally converted to residential or other uses.
• By 2020, approximately 20% of housing units are affordable to households with incomes in the bottom two quintiles of regional household income, including the provision of housing for those with little or no income - the homeless.
How We Get There: An Action Plan for Downtown Residential
Objective One
By 2020, downtown has a resident population of approximately 30,000 people across its 1.2 square mile area.
Strategy A
Establish a new package of regulatory requirements and incentives to achieve the target downtown population based on a defensible, research-based business case.
Action #1: Determine accurate population targets by sub-area for the downtown, based on detailed capacity research.
Rationale: An accurate population target for the downtown, including socioeconomic analyses of potential market demand, can be used to determine the built area (square footage) required to accommodate the population. This can then be compared against total build-out potential under current zoning and density bonusing policies, to determine the scale of regulatory and policy change needed to meet the new population target, including any density bonus requirement and other incentives.
Responsibility: DVCA and City of Victoria
Timeline: 2005
Action #2: Determine research-based, build-out target years for the proposed downtown population.
Rationale: An analysis of historic housing market uptake, leading to a forecast for demand under several market-forecast scenarios, would help clarify an achievable range of unit construction targets to 2020.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, Neighbourhood Associations
Timeline: 2005
Action #3: Distribute a proportional share of the forecast population across neighbourhood areas within the defined metro downtown area.
Rationale: A proportional distribution based on an assessment of build-out capacity and defined neighbourhood/precinct density, form and character criteria.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, Neighbourhood Associations
Timeline: 2005
Action #4: Design and implement a new suite of updated zoning, density bonusing and other incentive/disincentive policies.
Rationale: The City of Victoria needs to ensure that its package of policies, regulations and incentives, are not working against the achievement of desirable objectives. In other words, they need to be aligned with the overall public objective of encouraging downtown residential development. Density bonusing programs that provide additional development space to developers who provide identified public benefits such as community amenities, heritage preservation, affordable housing etcetera, can be used to further achieve this objective. Base the new regulatory/incentive package on the results of the research noted above, and streamline the application review process to facilitate projects that fit within the policy frame of City expectations.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, Neighbourhood Associations and Smart Growth BC
Timeline: 2005
Action #5: Develop and implement a public amenity and supporting infrastructure requirements program.
Rationale: An amenity and public infrastructure upgrade program will demonstrate tangible civic commitment to the transformation of downtown. Potential funding contributions from all levels of government and private sector, such as developer contributions, the federal government, the province, and foundations, should be investigated.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, Neighbourhood Associations , Smart Growth BC, UDI
Timeline: 2005
Action #6: Prepare and deliver a downtown marketing program aimed at local, provincial, national and international markets.
Rationale: Without in-migration, the population of the Capital Region would be declining, as deaths have been exceeding births for several years. Increasing the population of downtown can in part be achieved by attracting residents from other parts of the region. However, success will be limited without efforts to attract a greater share of in-migrants to downtown. A marketing campaign aimed at attracting investors, developers and potential residents from within and outside the region is needed, to meet targeted residential uptake rates that are higher than the historical average.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, Downtown BIA, Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, UDI, Business Victoria and BOMA
Timeline: 2005
Strategy B
Facilitate the build-out of potential residential development in Downtown, Harris Green, the Humboldt Valley, Songhees and the Dockside Lands by 2014. (Note: The actions proposed in this strategy would also apply to the remainder of metro downtown, particularly Downtown North, after realizing their preliminary application in the parts of downtown specifically identified.)
Action #1: The City of Victoria institutes a project facilitation application review process, in order to fast-track projects that meet a suite of defined form, character, and activity-mix criteria.
Rationale: Cities that are successful in transforming their downtowns take an active role in facilitating development, and they change in alliance with civic objectives. Not content to simply sit back and critique applications, successful cities define what they want, then act as partners with investors, developers, and residents to ensure that projects that further civic policy objectives not only have road blocks cleared, but are actively shepherded through the design and approvals process. To ensure optimum development energy during market upswings, the City of Victoria needs to align its permit and approvals process to facilitate the best, and most expansive, residential and mixed-use development downtown.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, UDI, Smart Growth BC
Timeline: 2004/05
Action #2: City of Victoria to develop an investment strategy, based on a thorough analysis of the real costs of providing growth-related public amenities and infrastructure, partially funded by developer/property owner contributions, with investments proceeding in tandem with development.
Rationale: A dramatic increase in downtown’s population, sustaining a built form and character that provides an attractive residential environment for future residents, requires significant investment in public amenities. Infrastructure gives residents in downtown neighbourhoods an attractive lifestyle alternative to the traditional suburbs. If the City of Victoria determines potential, long-term costs for providing these growth-related public amenities, the City can then develop a investment program that makes sense, which combines growth-generated development cost charge contributions, tax increment financing, tax credits, civic investments and other direct municipal financial contributions. As part of this process, the City of Victoria should assess its current investment priorities, and determine if these should be changed to address this objective.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, UDI, Smart Growth BC
Timeline: 2004/05
Action #3: The City of Victoria designates at least 50% of the tax yield increase stemming from redevelopment in these areas to amenity and infrastructure upgrades targeted within the neighbourhoods.
Rationale: New tools in the Community Charter give municipalities the ability to build the equivalent of a US-style tax increment-financing scheme. This would enable the city to target a portion of the development-generated increase in tax revenues to public investments that will further encourage more private sector investment.
Responsibility: City of Victoria and DVCA
Timeline: 2005
Action #4: Implement a marketing plan that aims to position downtown Victoria within the top three residential investment locations in the Pacific Northwest.
Rationale: To successfully ensure the transformation of downtown as a dynamic residential location, Victoria needs to be seen: regionally, nationally, and internationally. The City of Victoria offers a prime downtown residential location, with civic, cultural and natural amenities, and an urban quality of life second to none. Downtown Victoria is not just a place to visit, it's a place to live. The City operates within a market that provides stiff competition for offshore and out-of-region (both Canada and the US) urban residential investors. Our primary competition for this market is not Southern California or other Sun Belt locations. Our competition is our Pacific Northwest neighbours—Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland—who have blazed trails in revitalizing their downtown areas through residential re-investment. Victoria has natural and cultural gifts that should enable its downtown to compete very successfully for these investors and migrants. Northwest Environment Watch rates Victoria at the top of the class among Northwest cities from a smart growth perspective. Smart Growth BC gives us high marks for livability. However, there needs to be an evident effort by private and public sectors to ensure that the great story and opportunity of downtown Victoria gets out, and gets heard.
Responsibility: DVCA, Tourism Victoria, GVCC, Downtown BIA, City of Victoria
Timeline: 2004/05
Strategy C
Develop the north downtown (from Chatham Street north to Bay Street, including Rock Bay) as a new mixed-use neighbourhood with a substantial residential component between 2010 and 2020.
Action #1: Quantify the potential build-out unit yields for the north downtown.
Rationale: North downtown represents the future of downtown Victoria. It provides the opportunity to leverage the quality of life, and public cleanup investments in contaminated sites, and offers the benefits of access to historical buildings, urban waterfront, and a downtown marketplace, similar to the south downtown area in Vancouver. It provides an opportunity for Victorian’s to demonstrate sustainable urban redevelopment, building on parking lots and brownfield sites with green building technology, laying the foundation for the next century of downtown growth, as well as doing right by our values and tradition of building in urban areas in preference to building on green space. Redevelopment of the north downtown as a residential area will require striking a balance between the desire for residential infill and intensification, with the need to maintain a viable industrial and commercial base that provides much of the ambiance and texture for the area. Other cities have demonstrated that carefully designed and sited residential neighbourhoods can coexist easily with industrial activity. Designing the right mix and gradation of land uses will require a detailed analysis to determine a realistic residential build out unit yield. Nevertheless, residential development will not impede or conflict with many of the service, commercial and industrial uses located in this area. Residences can even coexist with quite heavy industry, such as cement plants and metal recyclers, if carefully sited and designed, as the examples of Granville Island in Vancouver and Victoria’s own Selkirk Waterfront bear out.
Responsibility: City Of Victoria, DVCA, future Downtown Neighbourhood Association, UDI, GV Chamber of Commerce
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #2: Identify and reinforce areas where residential and commercial/industrial use complement one another.
Rationale: Maintenance of a proportion of industrial and commercial activities in the north downtown may cause potential activity conflicts with residential uses. Practical ways to address the issue that serves the needs of both residents and businesses will need to be developed, including such mechanisms as good neighbour agreements.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA
Timeline: 2005/07
Action #3: Prepare a marketing program for the north downtown that focuses on its unique heritage, industrial and harbour waterfront character.
Rationale: Marketing for the north downtown should focus on the unique blend of heritage, industrial texture, and harbour waterfront features that make this area distinct in the region. There is opportunity to build on these assets much in the way the City of Vancouver was able to build on similar characteristics in Yaletown and in Granville Island. House forms currently being pioneered in the Fisgard/Herald Street area may provide good form models for other mixed-use areas up to Rock Bay. This will mean that homeowners and renters who may be attracted to this kind of residential environment will be different from those in other parts of downtown.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, Future North Downtown Community Association
Timeline: 2007/10
Objective 2
By 2020, downtown is home to enough families with children to support community facilities including a school.
Strategy A
Define and deliver a package of community facilities that are necessary to make the downtown an attractive residential choice to family households.
Action #1: Determine the minimum number of family households necessary to support a new downtown school, whether public, private, or a new kind of multipurpose school format, with more grades and educational programming than a strictly traditional elementary school.
Rationale : : If the downtown is safe for families with children, it will be safe for everyone. For families, a convenient and good school for their children is a key part of deciding where to live. Providing a school within walking distance is a key piece of public infrastructure that can make downtown a desirable residential location for families with children. To be viable, an elementary school needs a minimum number of family households with children within walking distance. Research will identify the range of school types and formats suitable to the downtown community. What may be the best option would be a new kind of community learning/recreation centre that is based on a lifelong learning, multigenerational format, combining school, public library, recreation, and cultural functions into one single or clustered facility.
Responsibility: DVCA, City School District 61, Montessori, YM/YWCA, GV Library
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #2: Explore school, park, and community facility (recreation, libraries etc.) location, financing and operational requirements early in the planning period.
Rationale: : Determining and acquiring a suitable school, community centre, library and other sites early in the development period will enable these facilities to be programmed in advance of major development and constructed as development generated funds become available. There may be opportunities to explore innovative financing and P3 type arrangements to provide these community facilities in different ways than the traditional dedication of money or lands.
Responsibility: DVCA, City School District 61, City of Victoria, UDI
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #3: Prepare and deliver a marketing program aimed at family households or those who intend to have children.
Rationale: Attracting family households downtown means giving them a downtown environment that meets their needs for child safety and convenience, that is a genuine and viable alternative to the suburban single detached neighbourhood. Market research can help determine which family market segments may be interested in living downtown, and what package of amenities, neighbourhood quality and housing type would attract them there.
Responsibility: DVCA, UDI, Downtown BIA
Timeline: 2005
Action #4: Implement a marketing plan that aims to position downtown Victoria within the top three residential investment locations in the Pacific Northwest.
Rationale: Attracting family households downtown means giving them a community that meets their needs for child safety and convenience and is a genuine, viable alternative to single dwelling neighbourhoods in the suburbs. Market research can help determine which family market segments may be interested in living downtown, and what package of amenities, neighbourhood quality and housing types would attract them.
Responsibility: DVCA, Downtown BIA, City of Victoria, PCC
Timeline: 2004/05
Objective 3
By 2020, downtown has a population profile that reflects that of the region as a whole, with a comparable range of income levels, ages and household types—socially, downtown is the region in microcosm.
Strategy A
Establish a coordinated program including policies, regulations and incentives, that deliberately aims for a diverse residential population downtown.
Action #1: Develop a population profile based on census information to determine diversity targets for the downtown.
Rationale: Census data provides the best source of information on household structure from which to develop a suitable set of household diversity targets.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, CRD
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #2: Undertake research into public and private issues that may work against the achievement of household diversity targets.
Rationale: Notwithstanding the desire for a downtown with a broad diversity of residents, there may be environmental, lifestyle and other issues that get in the way of achieving this objective. Research can identify and narrow down the range of issues into a manageable group that can be effectively addressed.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria
Timeline: 2005/07
Action #3: Review and align city policies, regulations and incentives to achieve the diversity objective as downtown develops.
Rationale: By clearly establishing at the outset the kind of diverse social environment that the city seeks to achieve in the downtown, specific targets related to housing type and tenure, as well as unit size and distribution can be determined to guide the development process. This will help ensure that investors and developers take a longer and broader view and cultivate a broader market than young urban singles or empty nesters.
Timeline: 2005/07
Action #4: Establish a marketing program that appeals to a broad range of household types.
Rationale: Often marketing programs for downtown residential developments emphasize a limited demographic of empty nesters and young urban singles. It is important that marketing efforts for the downtown are aligned with the focus on a diverse downtown population, and emphasize the breadth of household, lifestyle, and housing opportunities being created.
Responsibility: DVCA. Downtown BIA, Real Estate Board
Timeline: 2005/07
Objective 4
By 2020, all of the approximately 250,000 square feet of vacant upper-storey space in older heritage buildings downtown have been legally converted to residential or other uses.
Strategy A
Layer a variety of incentive programs coupled with revised regulations to facilitate renovation of upper-storey vacant space in heritage buildings downtown.
Action #1:Expand and develop a range of additional incentive programs including those with senior government participation.
Rationale: Adaptively reusing the great stock of vacant upper floor space in largely heritage buildings downtown would provide fabulous living environments and revitalize the old town area. The City’s existing tax incentive, which provides 10 year property tax concessions, mainly to cover the high cost of seismic upgrades to heritage buildings, has not been a sufficient incentive to redevelop a significant amount of downtown’s vacant upper storey space. Additional incentive programs, tax credits and direct City funding initiatives are needed, in partnership with federal and provincial incentive programs. For example, in order to encourage the development of market rental apartments (possibly RRAP, possibly tax concessions) that can be layered together with density bonuses and other programs, tipping the scale in favour or renewing this underused space resource.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, Smart Growth BC, CMHC
Timeline: 2004/05
Action #2: Identify and implement feasible equivalencies on building code/seismic requirements.
Rationale: Building code requirements for seismic upgrading of older buildings are so stringent, that they effectively remove a quarter of a million square feet of upper floor space from the market downtown. The cost of seismic upgrades under current codes is so high that landowners cannot possibly renovate this space economically. Building codes need to be reconsidered in such a way that the risk associated with building failure, is balanced with other public objectives such that regulations are set to encourage upgrading that would allow the space to be effectively returned to use, while still providing an acceptable standard of occupancy.
Responsibility: Geoscientists, UDI
Timeline: 2004/05
Action #3: City to develop a density transfer policy for existing vacant heritage buildings or those with vacant upper floor space, which will allow transfer of density to another site, contingent upon revitalization of the heritage building.
Rationale: Apportioning an extra density allotment to underused heritage buildings, that could then be transferred to other receiving sites in the downtown, provided that heritage buildings are renovated and returned to full use, may provide an attractive incentive to landowners to redevelop their partially or entirely vacant properties. This way the City would be able to provide a financial incentive to renovate heritage sites (through a density credit the heritage property owner could sell), as well as spur redevelopment in other parts of the downtown.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, Real Estate Board, Smart Growth BC
Timeline: 2004/05
Action #4: Prepare an “old town” marketing program to promote the unique heritage/pedestrian accessible residential environment of downtown’s heritage core.
Rationale: Victoria’s downtown core offers a unique architectural and pedestrian ambiance that is a key asset of downtown. This advantage could be successfully marketed to targeted residential segments that value this character.
Responsibility: DVCA. Downtown BIA
Timeline: 2005/06
Objective 5
By 2020, approximately 20% of housing units are affordable to households with incomes in the bottom two quintiles of regional household income,including the provision of housing for those with little or no income - the homeless.
Strategy A
Raise and leverage funds for more new affordable housing.
Action #1: Establish a fundraising body to coordinate fundraising for affordable housing solutions in line with priorities established under strategy.
Rationale: Housing affordability is a regional issue, but the burden of responding to issues of homelessness and lack of affordability fall disproportionately on downtown Victoria. To effectively address the problems of affordability requires a regional response, where the city works in partnership with its neighbours to raise and leverage funds targeted specifically on addressing the housing needs of the poorest households in the region. The City of Victoria has endorsed the proposal to establish a regional housing fund, in its review of the Final Consultant’s Report, A Proposed Housing Affordability Strategy for the Capital Region (July 2003). One of the roles of a Housing Trust, or Housing Resource Centre (see action 3 below) would be to coordinate the efforts of affordable housing initiatives (by private, public and charitable organizations) with service providers.
Responsibility: DVCA, City of Victoria, CRD, Other Municipalities, Downtown Service Providers Committee, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #2: Establish third party fundraising mechanisms to address public housing shortfalls.
Rationale: Charitable fundraising mechanisms may be a way to raise private and foundation capital to build affordable housing. Similar to the way in which fundraising drives are able to raise capital to purchase expensive medical diagnostic equipment such as MRI’s, or the way in which TLC is able to raise funds for environmental and heritage protection, a similar program could be launched to raise funds to construct affordable housing, perhaps including the issuance of charitable contribution tax receipts. The focus of such a program would be on the hard-to-house and the homeless, and private individuals, corporations, and foundations could be the target audience for such a campaign, perhaps structured as part of a larger effort to rationalize committee structures in the region into a more efficient and focused body. Perhaps a TLC-styled Community Housing Trust could be a model.
Responsibility: DVCA, Downtown Service Providers Committee, Habitat For Humanity, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #3: City to establish an affordable housing development levy.
Rationale: Contributions to the cost of providing more affordable housing have been an established fact in other locations such as Vancouver for many years. In these instances, developer contributions are matched with funds raised by the City and others to ensure that affordable non-market housing is constructed as areas redevelop.
Responsibility: DVCA, UDI, City of Victoria, Downtown Service Providers Committee, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #4: Create a communications initiative to explain the importance of affordable housing solutions to the community as a whole.
Rationale: The CRD’s final consultant report on a proposed regional housing affordability strategy includes as an action the establishment of a Housing Resource Centre. The purpose of the HRC would be to provide expertise and support to local government, industry and community housing groups in the effort to construct more affordable housing. A communications role could be part of the mandate of an HRC.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, CRD, Non-profit housing providers, CHBA–Victoria, Downtown Service Providers Committee, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/06
Strategy B
Align City policy, regulation and incentives into a focused program that directly facilitates the development of more affordable housing.
Action #1: Undertake a comprehensive research program aimed at identifying 1) appropriate affordable housing types based on current and emerging community needs; 2) the economic fundamentals necessary to sustain and develop individual affordable housing types/projects; and, 3) improved, more effective decision-making, advisory and review models to facilitate agreement on affordable housing.
Rationale: Several key research tasks are preconditions to the effective realignment of City policy, regulations and incentives into an effective and focused public program to facilitate the development of affordable housing. Research on housing types will help determine the right forms of housing to meet current community demand; demographic forecasting and needs modeling can develop realistic scenarios of future affordable housing need, that can be translated into housing type forecasts; economic analysis will help ensure that affordable housing models and proposals identified have business models that will ensure that they will be sustainable over time; and research into more effective review and decision-making models can help streamline approvals processes that currently bleed time and money that could be better spent on affordable housing.
Responsibility: DVCA, CMHC, CRD, City of Victoria, HAP, Downtown Service Providers Committee, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/06
Action #2: Require development of a mix of housing downtown, including affordable rental and strata titled tenures, and co-op housing, which address the lowest income quartiles with a target of 20% of annual new and renovated units to fall in this category.
Rationale: Affordable rental and condominium housing units could be most economically built in conversion of existing non-residential space involving approximately 250,000 square feet now largely vacant since 1971. To address these affordable housing targets, incentive funding over and above the existing ten-year tax abatement program will have to be developed. Presently the only funding available to convert such non-residential space are the federal RRAP conversion and rehabilitation programs. The City could develop a municipal convert to rent type program, that would be partnered with federal and provincial funding similar in style and content as proposed by the Executive Director of the Capital Region Housing Corporation, in his Victoria Downtown Revitalization program proposal.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, UDI, HAP, Non-profit housing providers, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/07
Action #3: Establish standards to permit secondary suites in all attached and apartment dwellings downtown.
Rationale: Secondary suites in townhouses and increasingly in apartments are a reality in many parts of Canada, often illegally. The new UniverCity Project at Simon Fraser University’s Burnaby Mountain campus is permitting secondary suites in apartment buildings, providing a small bachelor suite with its own door to the hallway, which can be used as a secondary suite for student housing, or as a home office.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, Downtown Service Providers Committee
Timeline: 2006/07
Action #4: Streamline and coordinate City approval processes for all residential development.
Rationale: The efficiency of the building industry could be improved by streamlining the City approvals and permitting process for all new residential development, and particularly for fast tracking affordable housing project applications. This could include waiving specific municipal fees (development permit fees, building permit fees) for affordable housing projects.
Responsibility: City of Victoria, DVCA, Downtown Service Providers Committee, UDI, Housing Resource Centre
Timeline: 2005/07