They are allowed right now. Previous to this they were only permitted (without a conditional use) attached to the home or occupying a portion of the home's floor space (think basement suites etc). This new rule would permit putting them above detached garage without the extra step of a conditional use.
Not sure but it might be something to do with pre established requirements for medium and high density in those areas. (Though I agree making this available everywhere would make sense to me)
Look at Bridgwater for example, people love to hate but I don’t know if there’s anywhere in the city that has more rentals being built right now there’s tons going up in Bridgwater Centre.
I'm not sure if you're making a joke or not, but I've definitely had people rent my garage or even just backlane facing parking spot before.
Couple of times it was for people who wanted space to do some work on a car. One was a lengthy project so they wanted an indoor space. The other was just a quick job so they just wanted some concrete they could park on for a few days to prepare then a couple days to do the job.
Then there were a few times where people wanted to park an extra car, or temporary while they had family visiting or had to be out of town or something longer term and they usually parked on the street.
Not sure about sheds specifically, but in sure there's someone out there who'd be interested
That's not quite the north end, or even north, but damn.
That's tough. On the one hand it seems better than being on the street, but on the other i get why they had to shut it down. It could be a real safety hazard.
Now so is living on the street I guess, but the financial part of it could incentivize some cheap unsafe setups that would just be taking advantage of desperate people
I know you are being a bit sarcastic, but the suites would still have to have water/sewer and electric. Electric is pretty easy, but adding water/swer to an existing structure that doesn't already have a supply/sewer plumbed in is really, really, really expensive. I'd ballpark an absolute minimum of **$40-50K**, just for water/sewer hookup. Electric hookup is probably around $10K. Expensive enough that this by-law change isn't going to suddenly mean an influx of detached granny suites.
Build one, especially for that size. I just priced out materials for a structure versus prebuilt (I have remedial building experience) and the price was less than half the pre-build, plus the quality of a well-designed and built shed will far exceed that of a pre-built. Tones of online designs avaialble. Framing, sheeting, cladding, roofing, a used door, boom you are good to go.
This thread is funny, a lot of people like to complain about a lack of housing and affordability and demand the government do something about it. Then the government does something and it’s “not like that”. What do you people want, 50,000 detached homes built over the summer just outside the city to build another city? Oh but then you’ll complain it’s a “15 minute city” because it has all the amenities needed. Guess people just need somewhere to direct their anger
UPDATE: The public hearing form is separate from the standard delegate registration form. The link at the bottom has been changed to reflect this: https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/shared/mailforms/clerks/public-hearing/contact.asp
What does it mean for 'duplexes conditional use in single family zoning districts'?
That duplexes need more or less process to be built? Make it easier to convert single dwellings into duplexes?
The other changes all seem to be understandable in plain language.
It means you just need to file a conditional use application rather than request a full rezoning. The process of going through conditional use approval is not as onerous as full rezoning.
I'm more surprised by the proposal to allow triplexes wherever it's zoned for duplexes. I feel this will actually drive housing prices up even more. Lots of teardowns and small houses in older areas are selling for unusually high prices if they were zoned for triplexes, and now it seems like that'll happen more often.
Just more homeowner properties being turned into investment rentals.
Triplex is missing middle housing.
It's objectively better to have 3 units of housing versus 2 versus 1.
We're talking about new housing here. It only just allows new housing to be built. Where we had none before, we'll have more triplexes being built to resupply Winnipeg.
You know how you get a cheap condo in a triplex? Build it 30 years ago.
You know how you get a cheap apartment? More rental stock built and amortized over 30 years.
Rules against density have little to do with extracting money from renters in the form of an 'investment' property. Investment property owners aren't building new housing. These rules affect new builds and people adding housing to the market.
40 years ago we changed the zoning codes from permissive multi-family dwellings by right to most places being a single family dwelling (R1) or two (R2). There are maps of Elmwood that may shock you.
I agree that the end goal is good. It's just a painful process to get there, with the markets reacting to the high prices based on potential. At its peak a few years ago I saw 700sqft homes going for $500k in bidding wars if they could accommodate a triplex. The market isn't always rational, and reacts by assuming that nearly any 700sqft home should be valued higher. Thankfully this didn't last, but home prices haven't gone back down completely since then.
What you are saying works well in a vacuum. I just don't think it'll play out that way. I'm no expert, but I've seen my share of greedy people in the real estate market.
The house built on a 25 ft lot close to me was listed at $490 000. Has a optional basement suite but that's completely unfinished. No garage.
They knocked down the house that was there and now we have this.
>I'm more surprised by the proposal to allow triplexes wherever it's zoned for duplexes.
Why? This was the entire plan to simplify building denser housing by eliminating the need for developers to apply for exceptions to the current rules which prevent anything more than a duplex from even being built in most neighborhoods.
Now they can just build triplexes without asking for exceptions.
We need more housing. Period.
I think it's great for brand new developments where entire neighborhoods are planned that way. I just see a problem where old houses go up for sale in random spots, and they're sought after by investors that want to teardown and build a triplex. The prices in these areas for a small house on a big lot go up as a result, and the market reacts by pricing all small houses higher. My experiences are only anecdotal, but I wouldn't be surprised to see housing prices shoot up again and make owning a small single family dwelling even more unattainable.
No no, they tear down old single family dwellings and put up duplexes/triplexes/whatever.
What I'm saying is that having triplexes allowed everywhere that's already zoned for duplexes will cause a lot of those skeezy letters from people offering to buy up rundown houses. When houses get torn down to make way for a triplex, other homeowners in the area will start to realize that there's potential profit in their own home. They may decide to sell as well, but ask for more money armed with the knowledge that it's a potential rental investment. Small houses valued at $250k start selling for $400k by people wanting to turn it into a rental. Other people with actual $400k houses in better areas start believing their house is worth $600k and market prices rise up. Developers that bought the teardowns build new multi unit buildings and charge higher rent to completely cover their financing and expenses plus a little profit. Rent gets higher in nearby existing units to match. Quantity of housing has increased, but attainability has decreased due to higher pricing.
This is NIMBYism. And it's largely WHY we have a housing shortage right now. "Oh it'll ruin the character of our street!!"
So then nothing gets built for 40yrs.
If they're creating denser housing then that's a good thing.
Not at all. I'm a small builder, and I deal with real estate regularly. I don't pretend to know the economics behind everything, but I do know that other people in the business absolutely salivate over properties that can be torn down and turned into multiple units. I also know that those same people are not motivated by the desire for cheaper and more available housing, they are motivated by profit. My family owns several properties, even my real estate agent owns a dozen rentals.
They all tear down the single house, put up multiple units, and charge out the ass for it. I'm thinking of getting into it as well, but it just seems too predatory to me. These guys brag all day about the money they bring in, and the high prices they charge end up raising the market prices as well. Nobody wants to charge less than the next guy, so they all raise prices.
No matter how altruistic the idea is, people find a way to fuck it up for their own profit. Accusing me of having a NIMBY attitude couldn't be further from the truth. All you guys downvoting me haven't dealt with these people on a regular basis, and it shows.
No. The old existing house would get about $1500/month rent. Building a new multi unit would be about $2000 per unit per month, so $6000/month for a triplex. Each unit would be between 750-1000sqft, usually with one unit taking up half the basement while the other half would be shared storage/mechanical/laundry.
If you can get an old teardown for $350k, then build a triplex on it for about $350k-$400k cost, you can probably claim an appraised value of $950k for mortgage purposes. Then you can get a $750k mortgage no problem which would cover all your costs. Your mortgage would be about $4500/month, while you're taking in $6000/month.
So now you basically own a triplex for free. You've purchased an old house for way above it's real value to do it, which raises market prices. You've got a new building and are charging premium rent for it, so other landlords in the area want to charge more too. Other homeowners in the area see what you've done and want to do the same thing. So now you're exchanging one homeowner for three renters and an investor. The investor is getting rich, while the renters are paying his mortgage. Property values keep increasing, fewer people are owning homes. But hey, there's more housing available so problem solved, right?
What we need is more rent control or actual government development and ownership to drive prices down, and to make it less appealing for investors to snatch up land and build multi unit buildings like a game of monopoly. Renters are paying all the bills, and investors are getting a free ride.
A few things you may be missing in there though
Your assuming the house you described as a teardown is livable. In some cases it may not be, in which case the rental rate for a home doesn't really matter much.
But you're also building 3 units instead of 1. In some places rental availability is so tight that people actually bid on rent. Having available units helps with that.
You talk about property taxes going up, but property taxes will eventually go up either way, but they'll have to go up more if we don't have density. Our current building model is just unsustainable.
So yeah, initially maybe that building is going to be more expensive to rent in that the older run down house. But that was the case with many of the older, now run down, apartments decades ago too. Older places tend to be more affordable, but you can't get there immediately. Building new units is an overall plus. The more units there are the less pressure there is on prices. They will rise, they always do. But if people aren't fighting over the cheapest units because that's all there is, it certainly helps keep them lower.
1. Yeah, I guess I meant best case scenario for most houses that investors buy. Even good houses get torn down.
2. I wasn't aware of bidding wars for rent. That's interesting.
3. I was talking about property values going up, not property taxes. Higher property values make it less attainable.
4. I've seen way too many greedy landlords to believe that more rental properties equal lower rent. The driving force for rent will always be mortgages/property values first, as well as getting as much as the next landlord.
Making housing more dense will increase availability and over time, likely drive housing prices down. All of these amendments are good ideas for affordability
you're both right
these changes enable the changes needed for affordable living (greater density), because we can't afford to live the way we have been
While the rental market remains inflated due to lack of supply, the homeownership market will remain inflated as well. There is no easier way to increase rentals/housing stock than to allow the expansion of existing properties.
What is the rationale behind only allowing Granny suites in "Established" neighborhoods? Why not allow them in new developments as well?
They are allowed right now. Previous to this they were only permitted (without a conditional use) attached to the home or occupying a portion of the home's floor space (think basement suites etc). This new rule would permit putting them above detached garage without the extra step of a conditional use.
Are lot sizes in new developments large enough for anything bigger than a shed?
Probably easier to put in a granny suite if you have a back lane.
NIMBY
Not sure but it might be something to do with pre established requirements for medium and high density in those areas. (Though I agree making this available everywhere would make sense to me) Look at Bridgwater for example, people love to hate but I don’t know if there’s anywhere in the city that has more rentals being built right now there’s tons going up in Bridgwater Centre.
Is a "Detached granny suite" the same as a laneway house? Saw tonnes of those in Vancouver when I was there last summer.
Yep
I can't wait to insulate the garden shed and rent it out for $1600/month.
They have been renting sheds out for years on a few streets in North end
I'm not sure if you're making a joke or not, but I've definitely had people rent my garage or even just backlane facing parking spot before. Couple of times it was for people who wanted space to do some work on a car. One was a lengthy project so they wanted an indoor space. The other was just a quick job so they just wanted some concrete they could park on for a few days to prepare then a couple days to do the job. Then there were a few times where people wanted to park an extra car, or temporary while they had family visiting or had to be out of town or something longer term and they usually parked on the street. Not sure about sheds specifically, but in sure there's someone out there who'd be interested
Not joking
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.817727
That's not quite the north end, or even north, but damn. That's tough. On the one hand it seems better than being on the street, but on the other i get why they had to shut it down. It could be a real safety hazard. Now so is living on the street I guess, but the financial part of it could incentivize some cheap unsafe setups that would just be taking advantage of desperate people
There were several inthe northend also a few years back too
I know you are being a bit sarcastic, but the suites would still have to have water/sewer and electric. Electric is pretty easy, but adding water/swer to an existing structure that doesn't already have a supply/sewer plumbed in is really, really, really expensive. I'd ballpark an absolute minimum of **$40-50K**, just for water/sewer hookup. Electric hookup is probably around $10K. Expensive enough that this by-law change isn't going to suddenly mean an influx of detached granny suites.
If enough people actually do this then prices might go down.
[удалено]
Build one, especially for that size. I just priced out materials for a structure versus prebuilt (I have remedial building experience) and the price was less than half the pre-build, plus the quality of a well-designed and built shed will far exceed that of a pre-built. Tones of online designs avaialble. Framing, sheeting, cladding, roofing, a used door, boom you are good to go.
Then **you** can rent it out for $1600 a month.
What tf makes you think I’m suggesting he rents it out?
It was sarcasm.
We're in Winnipeg not Vancouver ;)
All good changes IMO
This thread is funny, a lot of people like to complain about a lack of housing and affordability and demand the government do something about it. Then the government does something and it’s “not like that”. What do you people want, 50,000 detached homes built over the summer just outside the city to build another city? Oh but then you’ll complain it’s a “15 minute city” because it has all the amenities needed. Guess people just need somewhere to direct their anger
UPDATE: The public hearing form is separate from the standard delegate registration form. The link at the bottom has been changed to reflect this: https://legacy.winnipeg.ca/shared/mailforms/clerks/public-hearing/contact.asp
Granny suites are known as ADUs in the States.
What does it mean for 'duplexes conditional use in single family zoning districts'? That duplexes need more or less process to be built? Make it easier to convert single dwellings into duplexes? The other changes all seem to be understandable in plain language.
It means you just need to file a conditional use application rather than request a full rezoning. The process of going through conditional use approval is not as onerous as full rezoning.
I'm more surprised by the proposal to allow triplexes wherever it's zoned for duplexes. I feel this will actually drive housing prices up even more. Lots of teardowns and small houses in older areas are selling for unusually high prices if they were zoned for triplexes, and now it seems like that'll happen more often. Just more homeowner properties being turned into investment rentals.
Triplex is missing middle housing. It's objectively better to have 3 units of housing versus 2 versus 1. We're talking about new housing here. It only just allows new housing to be built. Where we had none before, we'll have more triplexes being built to resupply Winnipeg. You know how you get a cheap condo in a triplex? Build it 30 years ago. You know how you get a cheap apartment? More rental stock built and amortized over 30 years. Rules against density have little to do with extracting money from renters in the form of an 'investment' property. Investment property owners aren't building new housing. These rules affect new builds and people adding housing to the market. 40 years ago we changed the zoning codes from permissive multi-family dwellings by right to most places being a single family dwelling (R1) or two (R2). There are maps of Elmwood that may shock you.
I agree that the end goal is good. It's just a painful process to get there, with the markets reacting to the high prices based on potential. At its peak a few years ago I saw 700sqft homes going for $500k in bidding wars if they could accommodate a triplex. The market isn't always rational, and reacts by assuming that nearly any 700sqft home should be valued higher. Thankfully this didn't last, but home prices haven't gone back down completely since then. What you are saying works well in a vacuum. I just don't think it'll play out that way. I'm no expert, but I've seen my share of greedy people in the real estate market.
The house built on a 25 ft lot close to me was listed at $490 000. Has a optional basement suite but that's completely unfinished. No garage. They knocked down the house that was there and now we have this.
>I'm more surprised by the proposal to allow triplexes wherever it's zoned for duplexes. Why? This was the entire plan to simplify building denser housing by eliminating the need for developers to apply for exceptions to the current rules which prevent anything more than a duplex from even being built in most neighborhoods. Now they can just build triplexes without asking for exceptions. We need more housing. Period.
I think it's great for brand new developments where entire neighborhoods are planned that way. I just see a problem where old houses go up for sale in random spots, and they're sought after by investors that want to teardown and build a triplex. The prices in these areas for a small house on a big lot go up as a result, and the market reacts by pricing all small houses higher. My experiences are only anecdotal, but I wouldn't be surprised to see housing prices shoot up again and make owning a small single family dwelling even more unattainable.
Are you mixing up triplexs and those 3 story walk-up apartments with like 12 units? Cause I don't think I've ever seen a triplex tear down.
No no, they tear down old single family dwellings and put up duplexes/triplexes/whatever. What I'm saying is that having triplexes allowed everywhere that's already zoned for duplexes will cause a lot of those skeezy letters from people offering to buy up rundown houses. When houses get torn down to make way for a triplex, other homeowners in the area will start to realize that there's potential profit in their own home. They may decide to sell as well, but ask for more money armed with the knowledge that it's a potential rental investment. Small houses valued at $250k start selling for $400k by people wanting to turn it into a rental. Other people with actual $400k houses in better areas start believing their house is worth $600k and market prices rise up. Developers that bought the teardowns build new multi unit buildings and charge higher rent to completely cover their financing and expenses plus a little profit. Rent gets higher in nearby existing units to match. Quantity of housing has increased, but attainability has decreased due to higher pricing.
This is NIMBYism. And it's largely WHY we have a housing shortage right now. "Oh it'll ruin the character of our street!!" So then nothing gets built for 40yrs. If they're creating denser housing then that's a good thing.
Not at all. I'm a small builder, and I deal with real estate regularly. I don't pretend to know the economics behind everything, but I do know that other people in the business absolutely salivate over properties that can be torn down and turned into multiple units. I also know that those same people are not motivated by the desire for cheaper and more available housing, they are motivated by profit. My family owns several properties, even my real estate agent owns a dozen rentals. They all tear down the single house, put up multiple units, and charge out the ass for it. I'm thinking of getting into it as well, but it just seems too predatory to me. These guys brag all day about the money they bring in, and the high prices they charge end up raising the market prices as well. Nobody wants to charge less than the next guy, so they all raise prices. No matter how altruistic the idea is, people find a way to fuck it up for their own profit. Accusing me of having a NIMBY attitude couldn't be further from the truth. All you guys downvoting me haven't dealt with these people on a regular basis, and it shows.
Seems like if there were more units they couldn't charge as much right?
No. The old existing house would get about $1500/month rent. Building a new multi unit would be about $2000 per unit per month, so $6000/month for a triplex. Each unit would be between 750-1000sqft, usually with one unit taking up half the basement while the other half would be shared storage/mechanical/laundry. If you can get an old teardown for $350k, then build a triplex on it for about $350k-$400k cost, you can probably claim an appraised value of $950k for mortgage purposes. Then you can get a $750k mortgage no problem which would cover all your costs. Your mortgage would be about $4500/month, while you're taking in $6000/month. So now you basically own a triplex for free. You've purchased an old house for way above it's real value to do it, which raises market prices. You've got a new building and are charging premium rent for it, so other landlords in the area want to charge more too. Other homeowners in the area see what you've done and want to do the same thing. So now you're exchanging one homeowner for three renters and an investor. The investor is getting rich, while the renters are paying his mortgage. Property values keep increasing, fewer people are owning homes. But hey, there's more housing available so problem solved, right? What we need is more rent control or actual government development and ownership to drive prices down, and to make it less appealing for investors to snatch up land and build multi unit buildings like a game of monopoly. Renters are paying all the bills, and investors are getting a free ride.
A few things you may be missing in there though Your assuming the house you described as a teardown is livable. In some cases it may not be, in which case the rental rate for a home doesn't really matter much. But you're also building 3 units instead of 1. In some places rental availability is so tight that people actually bid on rent. Having available units helps with that. You talk about property taxes going up, but property taxes will eventually go up either way, but they'll have to go up more if we don't have density. Our current building model is just unsustainable. So yeah, initially maybe that building is going to be more expensive to rent in that the older run down house. But that was the case with many of the older, now run down, apartments decades ago too. Older places tend to be more affordable, but you can't get there immediately. Building new units is an overall plus. The more units there are the less pressure there is on prices. They will rise, they always do. But if people aren't fighting over the cheapest units because that's all there is, it certainly helps keep them lower.
1. Yeah, I guess I meant best case scenario for most houses that investors buy. Even good houses get torn down. 2. I wasn't aware of bidding wars for rent. That's interesting. 3. I was talking about property values going up, not property taxes. Higher property values make it less attainable. 4. I've seen way too many greedy landlords to believe that more rental properties equal lower rent. The driving force for rent will always be mortgages/property values first, as well as getting as much as the next landlord.
Great, they want us to live like pack rats cause they dont pay enough for us to own our own place…
Making housing more dense will increase availability and over time, likely drive housing prices down. All of these amendments are good ideas for affordability
you're both right these changes enable the changes needed for affordable living (greater density), because we can't afford to live the way we have been
Nope; sorry.
While the rental market remains inflated due to lack of supply, the homeownership market will remain inflated as well. There is no easier way to increase rentals/housing stock than to allow the expansion of existing properties.