Totally reasonable question!

In short, it comes down to economies of scale. Most of our costs are fixed costs - that is, they are about the same (or change only moderately) regardless of the number of homes provided.

As an example, the property cost roughly $750,000 to buy. That's $125,000 per home on a sixplex, but $250,000 per home on a triplex. Double. Architecture fees, engineering fees, professional fees (arborist, surveyor, geotechnical, etc.), municipal fees (most), administrative costs, etc - are fixed costs. These costs change very little (or not at all) regardless of whether it's 6 or 3 homes. That makes an enormous difference.

We estimate that our homes will be 36-42% less expensive than a triplex made-up of homes of the exact same size (~1150 ft2). If the homes in a triplex were larger, the difference would be even more significant.

But here's the catch. Could we sell those homes for 36-42% more? Would the bank lend us the money to build them? The answer is almost certainly "no". There's a reason 0 triplexes have been proposed or built since the Neighbourhood Plan was published four years ago. If you need more convincing, the City of Victoria commissioned a third party analysis confirming the same: triplexes aren't financially feasible, which is why the City of Victoria is revising their policies.

The simple truth is, six is the minimum required if we want 3-bedroom homes attainable for middle-income families.

Our proposal very much aligns with and exemplifies the Neighbourhood Plan but there are few layers to that question. For reference, here's the Vic West Neighbourhood Plan.

The Plan Allows for More than 3

First, yes, "guidance" is provided on page 73 that houseplexes should be limited to 3 homes in the Northwest Sub-Area (where Belton is). However, in the same section the Plan states: "Houseplexes with more units than specified in a) and b) may be considered, particularly in Sub-Area 5, Skinner Street, where additional residential density is envisioned."

The Plan specifically sees houseplexes with more than 3 homes in certain circumstances. Where is "additional residential density" envisioned? Within a "5-minute walking distance of urban villages" and "near transit", among other places. 633 Belton is a less than a 3-minute walk to Craigflower Village and the #14 transit stop (one of the best routes in the City).

The Plan is Not Intended to be “Prescriptive or Exhaustive”

On page 65, it states: "Housing types supported within Traditional Residential Sub-Areas are outlined in Figure 13 and described in further detail in the subsequent sections. These sections are meant to guide redevelopment and zoning considerations, and are not meant to be a prescriptive or exhaustive list of development types that may be considered consistent with the desired characteristics of each area."

The Plan provides guidance. It was never intended to be a rulebook or tool for limiting housing choice and diversity.

Our Building is Smaller than Envisioned in the Plan

The Neighbourhood Plan allows for a 8.2m tall building and a 0.75 Floor Space Ratio (the amount of livable space to lot size). Our proposed building is shorter (8.05m) and smaller (0.68 Floor Space Ratio) than what the plan allows.

The size of our proposed building is completely within the envisioned scale and character of the Plan, as outlined in Chapter 6.

Our Proposal Exemplifies the Vision and Goals of the Plan

The vision for the Neighbourhood Plan states:

"In 25 years, Victoria West is a safe and welcoming community with diverse people, housing and businesses. The old and new are knitted together to create an eclectic and exciting mix of people, places and culture. It is a leader in neighbourhood sustainability, showcasing strong businesses, active transportation, a vibrant waterfront, healthy ecosystems, local food and innovative housing."

Our proposal is a perfect reflection of this vision.

The Plan also has 33 goals but here are the most relevant ones:

• Encourage a mix of housing sizes, costs, tenures and types

• Create more affordable housing

• Showcase new, innovative housing types

• Support new housing within a 5-minute walk of urban villages

• Become a leader for sustainable buildings and infrastructure

• Foster a safe and inclusive community for all residents

Again, our proposal reflects these important community aspirations.

As discussed in the other FAQs, when compared to a triplex with parking, our proposal is significantly more affordable, creates less street traffic, provides more green space, reduces more emissions, is more innovative and better supports our inclusion goals. In fact, limiting houseplexes to 3 homes clearly contradicts the vision and goals of the Plan, especially on housing affordability and inclusion.

A Triplex Isn't a Real Option

As noted in the first FAQ, a triplex is almost certainly not feasible which would explain why 0 triplex projects have been proposed or built since the Neighbourhood Plan was published four years ago. A third-party analysis commissioned by the City of Victoria confirms this finding and shows triplexes aren't financially feasible, which is why the City of Victoria is revising their policies.

If we want to realize the vision and goals of the Neighbourhood Plan, we have to look at real options. For the 633 Belton property, those options are:

1. New single-detached house (no rezoning)

2. A sixplex (or greater)

3. Do nothing

A new single-detached home would be the most exclusive and expensive housing option possible and it would not reflect the Neighbourhood Plan in any way.

As a community, we have to ask ourselves - do we really believe in the vision and goals of the Neighbourhood Plan? Do we actually care about housing affordability, being inclusive, making safer streets and fighting climate change? We do and our proposal is what real action looks like.

Replacing 1 home with 6 makes it sound big but the building is actually below the size envisioned in the Neighbourhood Plan and only marginally larger than the zoning parameters for a single-detached home.

The Neighbourhood Plan allows for an 8.2m tall building and a 0.75 Floor Space Ratio (the amount of livable space to lot size). Our proposed building is shorter (8.05m) and smaller (0.68 Floor Space Ratio) than what the plan allows. Additionally, a 0.75 Floor Space Ratio is already well below the Ratio envisioned for other areas in the Neighbourhood Plan and the Official Community Plan - 1.0 for each.

When compared to the allowable size of a single-detached home, our proposal is actually very close. It's 0.45m taller (about the length from your elbow to your fingertips) and 1.92m longer (a bit more than an average height person laying down).

Also, by being car-free, our proposal provides a much more gentle neighbourhood fit with less pavement, more trees and green space, and no impact on traffic.

And remember, the only way to provide more affordable housing is by providing more homes (see "You said homes in a sixplex would be more affordable than a triplex. How's that work?").

Lots of people! Including me (Julian West).

20% of households in the City of Victoria are car-free. Modo has 77 car-share vehicles in Victoria and 80% of their local members are car-free*. Also, there is a rapidly growing market for electric cargo bikes which are specifically designed to be car replacements. If you haven't already, you should check out our amazing local cargo bike shop Bishop's Family Cycles!

There are lots of reasons why people choose to not own a car. Some people do it to reduce their emissions, some to save money, others find driving uncomfortable and dangerous, and others just like the exercise from walking and cycling most places.

We currently have more than 50 families waitlisted to live in one of our homes - all through word of mouth.

The lifestyle isn't for everyone but it's the way some people want to live, which is great for the environment, making safer streets, creating connected and resilient communities, and many more good reasons. So, that's who we're building these homes for.

*Source: Modo HQ, January 2022.

The car-free lifestyle is a "lifestyle of short distances". Typically, you walk, bike and take transit for most trips and use a car-share vehicle on the occasions you need one - 1 or 2 trips a month is typical for Modo car-share members*.

It's important to note this lifestyle only works in amenity rich urban areas, like Vic West. It doesn't work in car-dependent suburbs.

It's also important to understand that it's much more than "your life minus a car". It's a completely different lifestyle. You spend much more time within convenient walking and cycling distance and develop a rich connection and attachment to your local community. It's important to teach your kids independence early so they become self-sufficient teenagers. If you'd like to learn more, here are a few great books on the topic:

• Curbing Traffic by Chris Bruntlett and Melissa Bruntlett

• Happy City by Charles Montgomery

• Child in the City by Kristin N. Agnello

*Source: Modo HQ, January 2022.

First, it's important to recognize there are car-free families who just don't want to compete for street parking on Belton (20% of Victoria households are car-free; see "Seriously - who doesn't own a car?"). These are real people who need housing and don't need street parking.

To make sure only car-free families buy into these homes, we've developed a waitlist with more than 50 families registered. This helps us identify and screen for families who are the right fit, long before people will actually move into these homes.

When it comes to our transportation choices, convenience is king. So instead of car parking, we make the alternatives practical and convenient, including:

• Walkable/bikeable location close to the #14 transit route (service every 15 minutes or less, 7am-7pm, Monday-Friday) and the All-Ages-and-Abilities Cycling Network.

• Large bike garage with capacity for all families to have standard bikes, ebikes, cargo bikes and children's bikes. It will be accessible at-grade with an overhead garage door and remote fobs. The room will be spacious, well-lit, and packed with features (tool wall, repair station, electrical ports, etc.).

• Provide an on-street Modo car-share vehicle, including Modo memberships and driving credits for all households.

It's also important to recognize that the competition for street parking and the lack of oversight on-street parking is a municipal policy gap that will be resolved sometime in the near future. More than 200 cities across North America have removed parking requirements for new housing in certain areas or city-wide, which is usually coupled with some form of street parking management (typically an inexpensive but managed permit system). The City of Victoria has slated its Parking Modernization Project to begin this year, which will look at options for reducing parking requirements and better managing street parking. Here's a City staff report which discusses the project in relation to encouraging more "missing middle" housing like houseplexes.

It's increasingly clear to policy makers that parking requirements and unmanaged street parking is in direct conflict with our housing affordability and emission reduction goals. For more background on this, I highly recommend reading The High Price of Free Parking by Donald Shoup.

Finally, as part of our purchase agreement and to set clear expectations for everyone, we will require our buyers to sign a contract ensuring they won't park on the street within 500m of the property. This contract will be included in future sales of the property, passing down from buyer to buyer over a period of 10 years (from the date of occupancy, 10-12 years from today). This allows ample time for the City of Victoria implement it's new street parking management policies, and for society to adjust to all of the decarbonization changes required to meet our national and provincial goal of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030 (8 years from today).

Strata bylaws will also be implemented to help monitor and support compliance of the car-free contract. We'll also assist our buyers in future resales by pairing them with waitlisted families.

Finally, research shows that one Modo car-share vehicle should remove between 9-13 private cars from the road (both from households "shedding" excess vehicles and people "not purchasing" vehicles they otherwise would have). Recognizing that most of the usage for a car-share vehicle comes from the neighbourhood (not the project it was purchased for), all evidence suggest our proposal will reduce pressure on street parking, not increase it.

The same place as guests for every other home on the block - on the street. That’s a fair, equitable, and good use of publicly owned street parking. While our buyers will be car-free, we can't expect every visitor to be car-free.

The good news is, guests use much less parking than most people expect and the East end of Belton has lots of parking capacity. Here are the facts:

• 37 street parking spaces on the East end of Belton, including 2 in front of 633 Belton

• 20 homes on the East end of Belton (not including suites)

• All but 2 houses on Belton have functional driveways for parking

• That's 2.75 parking spaces per home

• 58% of City of Victoria households have only 1 car

• City of Victoria visitor parking requirements: 0.1 per home (0.6)*

• Visitor parking need for 633 Belton: 1 space

This means that at most times there will be no visitors parked on the street, sometimes there will be 1, on occasion there will be 2, and very rarely there will be more than 2. Therefore, there is more than enough street parking on Belton, even accounting for suites, and visitor parking for 633 Belton will have a negligible impact on-street parking capacity.

Furthermore, research shows that one Modo car-share vehicle should remove between 9-13 private cars from the road (both from households "shedding" excess vehicles and people "not purchasing" vehicles they otherwise would have). Recognizing that most of the usage for a car-share vehicle comes from the neighbourhood (not the project it was purchased for), all evidence suggests our proposal will reduce pressure on-street parking, not increase it.

*City of Victoria parking requirements are based on a 2016 study on visitor parking demand during peak periods. Source: "Review of Zoning Regulation Bylaw Off-Street Parking Requirements (Schedule C)," City of Victoria, August 2016.

This is a very understandable concern so it's important to put this into context. A few facts to consider:

• Average Modo member spends $600 per year on car-share trips

• That's approximately 17 trips per year (1.4 trips per month)

• The typical household receives 21 packages a year*

• During peak periods, there are 0.1 vehicle visitors per home

• A car-orientated household with modest usage will produce around 9 vehicle trips per week (e.g. 5 work, 1 grocery, 1 errand, 2 social/recreational)

Using this information and local travel data, we've developed a chart that compares expected vehicle traffic from our proposal and other housing alternatives - click here to view the chart.

This means that:

• Our proposal will generate roughly the same traffic as 1 single-family household with 1 car and modest vehicle use.

• Our proposal will generate much less traffic than a 2 vehicle household (or duplex) and significantly less than higher-density car-centric alternatives.

• If we want to reduce traffic in our neighbourhoods and have safer streets, we have to reduce parking, support alternative forms of transportation, and support car-free lifestyles.

Furthermore, we have taken extensive measures to ensure our buyers are car-free (see " How will you ensure these families won't park on the street?"), but the neighbourhood would have no such assurances for the alternative housing options. A single-family home can easily have 2 or more vehicles. Alternative car-centric housing options (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, etc.) are almost guaranteed to increase traffic significantly.

*Assuming Canadian household deliveries are about roughly equal to US household deliveries, each package is individually delivered (no bundled deliveries), and online shopping preferences for our households reflect the average population (i.e. not discounting for our environmentally conscious buyer demographic).