Learnings from Housing Central 2017

I’ve followed the issue of Temporary Modular Housing (TMH) in Vancouver fairly closely, so was glad for the opportunity to learn more about it as part of the annual Housing Central conference in Richmond a couple weeks ago, in a session called “New Options in Temporary Housing.” It covered both Vancouver’s pilot TMH project at 220 Terminal Ave. and the Vacant Homes program run by Richmond’s Chimo Community Services.

For starters, I learned that the main reason “temporary” modular housing is referred to that way is because it’s built to be moved – and not because, as some have suggested, it’s flimsy or of poor quality. Deconstruction and moving takes a toll on these structures, which is the main reason their lifespan is about 40 years, rather than any lesser quality of materials or construction. They are built to the same BC Building Code standards as other types of housing.

However, putting together these units in a factory in a standardized way does increase the speed at which they can be built (two per day) and decrease their cost. They can be built for about $75,000 per unit, not including land – at least this was the case in Vancouver’s pilot project – costs may vary with other suppliers.

Anyone who’s followed Vancouver’s recent debate over TMH in Marpole will know that one of the main objections protesters have raised is proximity to schools. Presenters addressed this “Why here?” question directly with a slide listing the various interrelated and overlapping factors the city wants to weigh and satisfy when looking for suitable TMH sites:

  • Ownership of land
  • Lease and legal considerations
  • Current land use and zoning
  • Financial considerations
  • Timeline for alternative use and development – this one being a major factor in the TMH siting on the privately owned Marpole property
  • Site access and servicing
  • BC Hydro considerations
  • Any environmental issues with the land (anything from soil contamination to mature trees)
  • Access to transit
  • Access to health services

Interior of a TMH display unit the City of Vancouver set up at Robson Square in September 2017.

Given that protesters are continuing their to efforts to stop the TMH construction in Marpole, the city’s intention to get a injunction allowing it to continue building, the need for enough sites to house 600 homeless people, and a welcome rally that Marpole high school students have planned for this Tuesday, TMH is likely to be in the news for the next few weeks at least. The city’s TMH web page is a good place to check for updates.

 The Vacant Homes Project in Richmond

The other example of temporary housing covered in this session was Chimo Community Services’ Vacant Homes project, which has housed about 50 people since it began in 2013, using 15 houses that would likely otherwise have remained vacant.

The program got started as a partnership between Chimo and a local property developer, which had houses sitting empty while waiting for building or development permits from the City of Richmond. The program was good for the owner of the properties because it brought in rental income and kept the houses more secure.

Presenters said that one of the unexpected challenges of the project has been negative reactions from some neighbours when they find out who’s living in the houses. However, overall, the project has been a success. For those who would like to replicate the program in their own communities, advice from presenters included the following:

  • Meet with the city
  • Create policies and guidelines
  • Speak with developers and obtain access to your first house
  • Match client and landlord
  • Communicate regularly with landlord/developer
  • Look for permanent housing for client
  • Develop clear and concise marketing materials

If you’re interested in learning more, I recommend reading this 2014 news story about the project: Richmond nonprofit makes most of empty homes

Next year’s Housing Central conference begins Nov. 18, 2018 and will be in Vancouver. As with previous years, it will likely include dozens of educational sessions spread over at least three days – definitely something to plan for if you’re interested in affordable housing. Follow @BCNPHA on Twitter for the latest on conference and BC nonprofit housing news.

Advertisements

Housing tenure statistics for the City of Vancouver, 1951 to 2011

We’ve seen much interesting information emerge from the 2016 Census so far, but the data I’ve been most eager for is still to be released – this Wednesday. Those statistics are on housing tenure – and more specifically, how many renters and homeowners exist in a given jurisdiction. I’m keen to see this data for the city overall, as well as for its individual neighbourhoods, which vary considerably in their percentages of renting households.

For sake of historical perspective, here is a table showing what the City of Vancouver’s tenure percentages have been, back to 1951. The source is a report prepared for the city in 2010 (by McClanaghan & Associates) as background for the city’s current housing and homelessness strategy (see pg. 24, Table 7). As is shown, the percentage of renting households in the City of Vancouver peaked in 1991 at 59 percent and has been slowly declining since then. Between the 1961 and 1966 censuses and again from 1966 to 1971, the percentage of tenant households took major leaps, increasing from 39 to 53 over that ten-year period. Tenant households have made up the majority of the city ever since then.

The decline in the percentage of tenant households since 1991 has happened despite various of what I view to be important and useful city policies aimed at retaining and increasing the amount of rental housing, such as the Rate of Change policy enacted in 2007 and more recently, incentive programs such as Rental 100. It’s notable that a similar decline has taken place at the regional level, with the percentage of renting households declining from 44 percent in 1986 to 35 percent in 2011.[1]

Percentage of owner and renter households in the City of Vancouver, 1951-2011[2] [3]

Year Owning HH Rental HH
1951 63.0% 37.0%
1961 60.8% 39.2%
1966 52.2% 47.8%
1971 46.9% 53.1%
1976 46.5% 53.5%
1981 44.9% 55.1%
1986 42.3% 57.7%
1991 40.8% 59.2%
1996 41.9% 58.1%
2001 43.8% 56.2%
2006 48.1% 51.9%
2011 48.6% 51.4%
2016 ? ?

Possible reasons for the changes in the percentage of renting households

I believe the most significant factors in this decline are the nearly complete lack of new, long-term, secure rental housing that was built in the city between the (approximately) late 1980s and early 2010s, as well as the conversions of apartment buildings to condominiums that took place from the 1970s and into the 1990s (and which are generally no longer allowed).

However, especially if interest rates are low and the economy is doing well, the decrease in the percentage of renting households could also result from existing tenants becoming homeowners. Depending on your values and views on home ownership, you might see a tenure shift stemming from those factors to be positive – for the tenants and for society overall.

While no doubt many Vancouver tenants have happily become homeowners since 1991, given what we know about current incomes of tenants and the current cost of housing in relation to local incomes, I believe the decline in the percentage of renter households is a serious problem – enough so that while these conditions continue, I’d like to see governments (at each level) try to halt this trend.

Why does this matter?

Our current combination of circumstances – i.e. high housing costs in relation to local incomes, very low rental vacancy rates and the declining percentage of renter households – strongly suggests that people who can’t afford to buy homes are finding it more and more difficult to stay in or move to the City of Vancouver, and therefore that people with lower incomes (who tend to be renters) are gradually losing access to the public goods (e.g. libraries, parks and cultural and recreational events) that a city such as Vancouver has to offer. Vancouver and cities like it provide economic and cultural opportunities – for jobs, for starting businesses and building skills, and for finding like-minded others – not available in smaller communities. Vancouver tenants forced out of the city due to lack of rental housing, or rental housing that’s affordable to them, also lose whatever community connections they’ve built up over the time they’ve lived here. If we care about equity, I believe it should be a policy goal to ensure that renters continue to have ample access to these high-quality opportunities and public goods. Simply residing in a vibrant, diverse and culturally rich urban environment should not be a luxury, but declining access to rental housing puts us on this trajectory.

Another consideration is that renters are vital to the functioning of the city’s economy. If we don’t halt this trend and make more room for renters, we’ll continue to see stories about the difficulties local businesses are having with finding and keeping workers – in some cases even having to cut back on hours of service or curtail expansion plans. Wages are obviously a big part of this equation too, but one way or the other, people who can’t afford to buy a home need to be able to rent one within reasonable commuting distance of their work, or they won’t be able to participate in the economy (and many other equally important activities).

Side note: 1921 was the first time housing tenure data was collected in the Canadian national census. So, any housing tenure data you run across from before then must be from other (perhaps less reliable) sources.


[1] Metro Vancouver, “2006 Census Bulletin: Dwellings by Type and Tenure,” December 2007, http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/2006census_dwell_Dec2007.pdf. Page 2, Table 4. See also note 2 re: 2011 National Household Survey data.

[2] This table draws from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) because the 2011 Census did not include a question on tenure status. Statistics Canada has cautioned that due to differences in data collection methods between the census and the voluntary NHS, the two types of data may not be directly comparable. So a cautionary note there.

[3] Dale McClanaghan, “City of Vancouver Rental Housing Strategy Research and Policy Development Synthesis Report,” August 2010, http://vancouver.ca/docs/policy/housing-rental-housing-strategy-synthesis.pdf. p.24, Table 7. Also, Statistics Canada, “NHS Profile, Vancouver, CY, British Columbia, 2011.”

Youth in care deserve better as they become adults

As the May 9th provincial election approaches, one of the policy issues I hope will get some attention is the question of extending financial support to young people in the foster-care system, after they turn 19. As it stands, the financial and other types of support available to children in government care (including regular social worker support and monthly maintenance payments to foster parents) end, quite abruptly in most cases, at age 19 –  a transition that is known as “aging out.”

Nineteen is a pretty young age to have to navigate today’s complex world completely on your own, but even more so for young people in care, since being there means they’ve already experienced major loss, neglect, trauma or abuse – and the foster system can be traumatizing in itself. Also, social mobility, and even survival, in today’s credential-oriented world depends on having marketable skills, which usually requires some type of formal post-secondary education, whether vocational or academic. That’s expensive and may not be easily accessible to youth in care, who have much lower high-school graduate rates than other students. The need for post-secondary education in order to access the job market, along with the Lower Mainland’s astronomically high housing costs, are why we’re now seeing about 60% of young people in BC between the ages of 20 and 24 living at home with their families.

But what if you don’t have that option? With no financial support and weak (or non-existent) family ties, youth coming out the foster care system are obviously at a major disadvantage. No surprise, then, that they disproportionately end up homeless or dependent on income assistance, at least temporarily.

I recently (well, November) attended a workshop on this topic at Housing Central, the annual conference of the BC Nonprofit Housing Association (BCNPHA). The conference is aimed at the nonprofit housing providers that comprise the BCNPHA’s membership, but it also offers a wide range of workshops on various aspects of affordable housing and homelessness more generally. One of these was put on by Aunt Leah’s Place, an nonprofit group that provides support to youth in care as and after they age out of the system. A staffer from Aunt Leah’s led participants through an eye-opening exercise in which we were asked to remember all the types of help we received from our families between the ages of 19 and 24 and estimate the cost of that support if we had had to pay for it ourselves. Free or cheap housing is an obvious type of support that many people receive from their families after 19, but the list is much longer. The basics include groceries, utilities, transportation, medical and dental insurance, phone bills and clothing. Better-off families may spend much more to support their children as they transition into adulthood, including by subsidizing or completely paying for tuition, cars, travel and down-payments on homes. I was glad the facilitator did not ask us to share the dollar figures we came up with in public, because I thought this calculation process could trigger a lot of emotions – of everything from overwhelming gratitude to deep hurt as people reflected on the ways they were or weren’t supported by their families as they became adults. While we weren’t expected to share our figures publicly, those who wanted to were invited to anonymously write the dollar amount they came up with on a piece of paper, which the facilitator collected and wrote on a whiteboard. The figures from our group of about 25 participants (of widely varying ages) ranged from the negatives – those who actually helped support their families financially between the ages of 19 and 24 – to sums over $60,000. Quite the disparity.

Of course, financial help is just one type of support that intact, functional families provide their children with, and perhaps not even the most important. Youth in care also lack social support from their families of origin – and so may be lacking in life skills and just places to turn when things go wrong. Life is often not smooth when you’re a young person just figuring out how the world works. Recovering from the trials and tribulations of adult life (whether that’s locking yourself out of your apartment, losing a job, getting in a car accident, suffering a breakup, or worse) is harder the first time around and also harder if you have no one to reassure you that these things happen to everyone or to offer advice on how to get through the tough patches. Even when things are going well, functioning families provide a framework of support, as well as expectations, that help young adults not only find their way in the world, but also make the most of their potential. Former youth-in-care do not benefit from this type of built-in intangible but crucial social support.

This is why extending financial and other supports to youth in care beyond their nineteenth birthday makes so much sense, on both compassionate and fiscal grounds. Various advocacy groups and social agencies, including the Vancouver Foundation, have taken up this call. To its credit, the provincial government did recently make some changes in that direction. In late 2016, it expanded an existing program (Agreements with Young Adults) that provides financial support to about 650 youth in care, if they meet certain criteria. The expansion was expected to help another 500 youth. However, considering that we have somewhere between 7,000 and 8,000 children in care in B.C. and about 700 of them age out of the system every year, that program and its expansion by no means meets the extent of the need. More policy changes are needed – thus I’ll be watching for news on this issue as the election approaches.

If you’re interested in this issue or others related to social and affordable housing, you might want to check out the BCNPHA’s conference in 2017. At the 2016 edition, I also attended interesting workshops on creating opportunities for new nonprofit housing in Metro Vancouver, land trusts, and the controversial practice of including separate doorways (sometimes referred to as “poor doors”) in mixed market and social housing developments. There was also a great keynote presentation by Buffy Sainte-Marie.

Recent news items and resources on “aging out”

Support for two rezonings to allow for purpose-built rental units

At tonight’s (July 12) meeting, Vancouver city council will be considering two applications to rezone land for purpose-built rental housing. The addresses of the sites are 2805 E. Hastings and 445 Kingsway. My letter in support of 2805 E. Hastings is below. The circumstances of 445 Kingsway are much the same, so I haven’t posted that letter. If approved, together the two proposals will add 200 units of purpose-built rental housing to the city’s rental housing supply.

Dear Mayor and Council,

I write to support the rezoning of 2805 East Hastings to CD-1 zoning to permit a six-storey rental building with 91 secured market rental units.

I support this application for several reasons, the main one being the city’s dire need for more purpose-built rental housing. As I know you’re aware, the city’s vacancy rate for private apartments like the ones proposed here was 0.6% as of late 2015 and in fact the city’s vacancy rate has averaged under 1% for about the last 30 years. Industry and housing experts generally point to a healthy vacancy rate being as being at least three percent. The lack of rental housing has severe and far-reaching consequences for Vancouver’s renters and also the city’s ability to have a functioning economy, as was recently noted in the “Rent Race” report published by Vancity Credit Union. That report noted that renters are dispersed “throughout the entire economy—working as health and education professionals, in construction, finance, social assistance, and other industries” and that “renter workers making median incomes in several industries face the real possibility of being priced out of the communities they call home.”

I would further like to note that renters are present in all age groups in Vancouver, making the lack of rental housing a problem that affects a wide segment of our local population. According to the report, the renter population is comprised of 33% millenials, 30% Gen X, 26% baby boomers and 11% those aged 70 or older (page 4).

While currently just over half of Vancouver’s households are renters, this percentage has declined since 1991 (when it was 59 percent, see page 24 of linked report). As a renter myself, I am concerned about this trend and what it suggests for the future of renters in our city. The city also has a low rate of purpose-built rentals per capita – less than other cities that have a lower percentage of renting households, which also points to the great need for rental housing such as is being proposed here.

PB rentals by city per capita

Source: Ian Meredith @ian_meredith, Altus Group

Adding a lot more new secured rental supply is necessary to deal with our current shortages and in the shorter-term gives more choices to renters, which makes life easier for them and gives them a bit more housing security.

In terms of this specific application, I see that the proposed building would not displace any existing renters and that it would replace a fast-food franchise and a surface parking lot.

It’s located in an area where there are many shops, services and public transit to meet the needs of the future residents. Those future residents will also be customers for the area’s many small businesses. All these factors point to this building being a great benefit to our city.

I am also pleased to see that this project includes 34 two-bedroom and five three-bedroom units, which will provide much-needed family-friendly housing. I see as well that, in keeping with the city’s guidelines for housing families at high densities, this proposal includes common amenity space both indoors and outdoors and that is another reason why I support it.

I also note and support the condition of bylaw enactment (7(iii)) that says none of the units shall be rented for less than one month at a time, because this helps ensure that these units are not rented out as short-term rentals to tourists instead of serving their intended purpose as housing for residents.

For all these reasons, I support this project and urge you to do the same.

In favour of purpose-built rental…

Remarks at public hearing for rezoning of 3365 Commercial Drive (and other lots)

June 23, 2016 

Link to video of hearing. My remarks begin at 1:20:25

Good evening mayor and council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Sawatzky and I am here to support this rezoning application and urge you to do the same.

I am a long-time renter in the City of Vancouver, in a neighbourhood right next to Cedar Cottage –– Grandview-Woodland. It’s because I’m a renter, and one who strongly believes in the need for more purpose-built rental, that I favour this proposal.

While the reasons I support more purpose-built rental in general, and particularly here tonight, are probably familiar to all of you, I would like to explain at least some of those reasons now.

Over the last three to four decades, and in the absence of the federal tax incentives for rental housing that used to exist, very little new purpose-built rental has been created. This has led to the increasing predominance of what is known as the secondary rental market – especially rented condos and secondary suites. While these units are crucial and valued, they are much more easily converted to owner occupation, or just removed from the rental stock, than purpose-built units because they are not subject to various regulations and policies to prevent their conversion or demolition, such as the city’s rate of change regulations. In practice, this means that renters living in the secondary market have far less tenure security than those living in purpose-built units. An insane real estate climate such as we have been experiencing for the last several years provides owners of secondary market units with many temptations and incentives to sell or demolish those units, or more recently, convert them to more lucrative short-term rentals. Living as a renter in Vancouver in this climate and with an incredibly low vacancy rate brings with it a constant sense of precariousness and stress. The only thing that will cure this is more rental housing. This should most definitely include lots more social housing and coop units, but we also need to address the long-standing construction deficit of market rentals. As far as I’m concerned, the more of those market units that are purpose-built, the better off tenants will be.

I note as well that the need for rental housing is clear no matter where you position yourself in the local debates currently raging over whether it is more supply that is needed to remedy our housing crises, or more controls over foreign capital – and for the record, I think we badly need both. Our chronically unhealthy and abysmally low rental vacancy rate is proof of the need for more rental housing and there is no doubt that if built, these units will quickly fill with residents who will contribute to our city in myriad ways. They will not be used merely as a safe place to park capital.

I know that some object to projects like this on the grounds that they are not affordable enough to people making low and moderate incomes. I definitely share that concern, but I also realize that in the absence of senior government subsidies or incentives, there is no way to make brand-new construction on land bought at today’s square-foot prices as affordable as units in 50- or 60-year old apartment buildings, such as the one I live in. As a renter, I do not want to wait any longer for those senior government incentives to materialize – we have already waited far too long to build more purpose-built rental.

In any case, to the charge that these units are not affordable enough, I can only say that the alternative to approving this rezoning is allowing the developer who owns the properties to build what they are already zoned for – single-family housing. That would probably please the immediate neighbours, but it would mean that instead of higher-than-average rents that the many mid- and higher-income renters who have been shut out of our “freakshow” real estate market can actually afford, this transit-friendly housing would only be available to those who can afford the mortgage on a house priced at $1 to $2 million, or even higher. I’ll take the 100-plus units of market rental housing located near transit and parks, please.

I will also point out that the city-wide proportion of renting households has declined from a high of 59 percent in 1991 to its current 51 percent – or perhaps even less as of the 2016 census. Again, as a renter this trend causes me considerable worry and it’s one I would like to see you, my elected representatives, try to halt or even reverse. I realize you have recently exceeded many of your targets for enabling new market rental units and I commend you for doing so, but I would like to see you go further and this project could be part of that. I’d like to see you calculate the number of units that are needed to reach a vacancy rate of 3 to 5 percent (which is what I see cited as a healthy rate) and also the number of units that would be needed to ensure that our city continues to be evenly balanced in terms of renting and home-owning households – and then set your new housing targets accordingly.

There are more points about the need for this type of rental housing, and this proposal in particular, that I would make if I had more time, but I know I’m nearing my limit so will conclude here. Again, thank you for your time.

***

Additional points not said at hearing

Regarding the trees and green space arguments

While of course I value the mature trees – and have passed and enjoyed them countless times over the years – there does not seem to be a scenario under which all the trees that neighbours want to be retained actually will be. It’s not reasonable to compare an unrealistic scenario to the options that actually exist. A developer owns these properties (with the exception of the city lot) and therefore has the legal right to develop single-family homes on them if this rezoning is denied. This would not result in more trees saved. And, locating housing close to transit where people can choose to lead car-free lifestyles will ultimately have a far greater environmental benefit than saving the few trees that could be retained if the lots were developed as SFD rather than apartments – if that was even the case, which I don’t think it is. Some residents have called for there to be a park on this site. The parks board has said it’s not interested, so that’s not a realistic option. With Trout Lake and Clark Park so nearby, this area has far better access to green space than my corner of East Van.

Age exclusion vs. economic exclusion

There is much talk in the housing affordability debate about making sure the city remains (or becomes) livable and affordable for young people (millennials) and too often, in my opinion, these issues are framed as if the young and young families are the only ones affected or the only ones who matter.

This annoys me, since I’m a GenXer who has been living with the consequences of unaffordable Vancouver (and Victoria) housing (and also student loans, expensive childcare and an eroding social safety net) for more than 20 years – and I have the invisible children and non-existent mortgage to prove it. While I agree that young people are the future (because it’s a truism), I’m also concerned about fairness in the present and I value the ability of (just as an example) a single 55-year-old retail or service worker (who may play a vital role in their community) to stay in Vancouver just as much as I do the ability of well-educated 20- and 30-somethings with young children to do the same.

In my view, if a city requires the labour of minimum-wage and low-paid workers to function, then that city (along with other levels of government) has an obligation to plan and do as much as it can to ensure those same workers can be housed in the prosperous city they make possible. It seems cruel and unfair that anyone should expect the people who make the least and have the most challenges in life to be consigned to spend another two hours commuting back and forth to those low-paid (and likely tedious) jobs on top of having to work them. Hard to improve your station in life (such as through starting a side business, going to school or working another job) when so much time is taken up in unpaid shadow work. Of course we need better transit and that would help affordability a lot. But a vision in which the only people who can afford to live in Vancouver (proper) are those who are childless, highly educated and with high-paying jobs and/or inherited wealth – while the rest are consigned to the outskirts and killer commutes – is what I call dystopic, as well as poor urban planning from a climate-change (and social cohesion) perspective.

Back to affordability

Finally, and again to those who say they oppose this project because it’s not affordable enough or they would support it if it were more affordable, I have to ask – How do you see that greater affordability being achieved?

The city had to take several steps – through the Rental 100 and similar programs – to get any purpose-built rental constructed at all. Condominiums and single- family homes are much more attractive options to developers, as evidenced by the fact that there was so little purpose-built rental created before the city initiated these programs. Since we’re living in a market-based society, we can’t actually force developers to build projects they don’t want to or that don’t “pencil out” for them, as much as I would love to have that magic wand. I’d much prefer a scenario where more housing was publicly owned, such as in the Scandanavian and many other countries, but that’s not what we have now.

Are you suggesting we wait to build any more purpose-built rental until senior levels of government bring back the tax incentives and subsidies that encouraged its construction in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s? I absolutely support the calls for more social housing, but I don’t see how constraining the supply or delaying the construction of what has become an incredibly scarce resource will ultimately benefit those who need social housing. Those with the most economic power are always going to win the competition for scarce resources.

If you say you support more rental housing but only if it meets your affordability criteria, please explain how you see that affordability being achieved – and please reference reality in that explanation. I hope you will acknowledge that asking for a project to be both less dense and more affordable is a contradiction under current market conditions. Again, I wish it were different, but we need to find ways to get a lot more rental built now, not in some hypothetical future. Also, I think it’s unfair and unreasonable for those who are lucky enough to be securely housed to try to set conditions for how others can achieve that state. Housing is, after all, a major social determinant of health and a fundamental need – and should be recognized as an enforceable human right.

As a resident, you certainly have a right to input into potential developments in your area (as well as do people in other parts of the city, if they consider themselves affected). But you did not buy the neighbourhood when you bought your house.

As for future directions, here’s a group and set of statements that I think provides a good model. I find it more nuanced and inclusive than the straight-ahead YIMBY stances.

Portland for Everyone

Highlights from the 2015 Vancouver Mini Maker Faire

I finally made it to Vancouver’s Mini Maker Faire. Cool event – interesting to have the more industrial, manufacturing, and technical stuff in the same place as the crafty/fibre stuff that attracts me. Gives it a different flavour. Lots of crazy people, but in the best possible way: see the pic below of the woman wearing a set of 10-foot (or wider?) expandable feathered wings. I had a peek at their frame and they must be so heavy! But they did look spectacular as they unfolded. Too bad my landscape-oriented photo that showed them at their full width was too blurry. Probably what made my jaw drop more than anything else was the guy who makes needle-felted Star Wars figures. I experimented with a bit of needle-felting at another booth (Fun! Blushing Lotus designs – ended up getting a kit) and I can’t imagine attempting to make a set of realistic people that way. He and his twin brother have made dozens, which they’ve then used as characters in photo board book versions of classics such as Moby Dick and Pride and Prejudice. Amazing. Now regretting not buying one.