Affordable Housing Rally

[quobobo]

Is anyone attending this rally for affordable housing at the VAG on Sunday?

@YVRHousing's tweets made me think it might be worthwhile:

Without a grassroots bloc able to go toe to toe with local oppositions to rezoning plans I do not see the rate of density changing much

Next week's affordable housing rally is a potential starting point for such a bloc

I'm vaguely considering attending in the hopes of A) directing some attention toward our land use regulation as a limit on housing supply B) meeting a few more like-minded people. It would be a shame if this was only attended by people with an exclusive focus on foreign ownership.

A few ideas for signs so far (suggestions very welcome, they're not terribly catchy):

ZONE FOR MORE HOUSING
APARTMENTS ILLEGAL ON 3/4 OF VANCOUVER LAND. FAIR?
UPZONE THE WEST SIDE

[WarrenC12]

Density increases are happening at a pretty rapid rate are they not?

Unfortunately this is a pretty slow process in general, not something that can change overnight.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Density increases are happening at a pretty rapid rate are they not?

Ehh, not in the 65% of Vancouver still zoned for freestanding houses only.

Density increases have been concentrated in neighbourhoods with little political capital (or in Yaletown and the OV, no existing residents to complain). Very little progress has been made in tonier neighbourhoods* - Dunbar was able to prevent a 6-storey retirement home!

I find it unconscionable that it's illegal to build apartments on land where single-family homes cost $2M+ (i.e. most of the West Side). I don't expect anything to change overnight, but the process of densifying single-family neighbourhoods has to start somewhere.

*Oakridge is a welcome exception, but anywhere more than a few blocks away from a Canada Line station has been mostly untouched.

[WarrenC12]

I think you might need to take a drive down Cambie St.

[quobobo]

^An arterial with rapid transit which is not representative of zoning in the vast majority of Vancouver's land area?

I've been down Cambie, it's mostly fine. It doesn't say anything about the rest of the city, but the zoning map does.

[logan5]

I wonder who they will be directing their message at? Practically the only new product being offered in Vancouver is condo's. I wonder if this is helping developers jack up the price since their is no other middle product like row-house or townhouse to compete with.

The City did try to up-zone parts of Marpole to row-houses, but the neighbourhood didn't want them. Just like every neighbourhood protests any kind of change in their back yard, so we're left with concentrating density (bland condo towers) on former industrial land.

The first and most obvious place to add higher density is the Arbutus Corridor. It's rail transit ready, so it could easily accommodate very high densities. Using the Norquay template, start with mid-rise along the main corridor (Arbutus), then step down to low-rise, then row-house. The Hastings corridor and Victoria Dr. are other good candidates.

I support the rallies message, I just hope the right people will listen.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Density increases are happening at a pretty rapid rate are they not?
.

Errr, no!

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think you might need to take a drive down Cambie St.

FYI, Cambie street is not representative of Vancouver. Even if it is, 6-storey condos flanking a single street is hardly high density.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Density increases are happening at a pretty rapid rate are they not?

Unfortunately this is a pretty slow process in general, not something that can change overnight.

It's increasing. But I wouldn't say it's increasing at a rapid rate. Vancouver is dense for a north american city, but that's not saying much. Most north american cities aren't that dense to begin with. With "density" really only happening over the last, what, maybe 15-20 years?

If compared to some cities in asia, well, it's a different beast entirely. And Vancouver wouldn't be called a "dense" city by most asian standard. I think Vancouver will become a dense city, but that's not likely to occur for another, 100 years if not more. NYC didn't become dense overnight. It took that city hundreds of years to become the modern city that it is today.

[whatnext]

The OP's mistake is believing you can build your way to affordability without changes in other policies. Over the last five years there have been thousands of units added in areas like Olympic Village, Downtown South, Chinatown. And now Hastings, Marine Gateway, Cambie and Oak have thousands more about to come online, and yet prices continue to climb.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The OP's mistake is believing you can build your way to affordability without changes in other policies. Over the last five years there have been thousands of units added in areas like Olympic Village, Downtown South, Chinatown. And now Hastings, Marine Gateway, Cambie and Oak have thousands more about to come online, and yet prices continue to climb.

Of course if you only rezone limited spots on a very sparsely-populated but highly popular city to a slightly higher density with many constraints, the land values of those areas are going to spiral out of control because all the developers want in (Where else can they build except getting out of Vancouver to suburb cities?). Throw in the height restrictions, city contributions and the provision of of rental/cheaper housing contributions and that's when it gets really unaffordable for the middle class.

Kitsilano, Fairview slopes, the Olympic Village, Chinatown and Granville/W. Broadway areas should have been densely-built to lessen the burden of downtown. You can't keep limiting very high density developments to just the downtown core and expect housing prices to remain affordable.

[Smooth]

I noticed in the EcoDensity thread that the policy's three goals were to make Vancouver sustainable, livable, and affordable. I couldn't help but think that you can only really achieve 2 out of 3 of those goals. Right now I believe Vancouver is putting a strong emphasis on sustainability and a smaller emphasis on livability to the detriment of affordability. If we want Vancouver to be more affordable then, unfortunately, we might have to sacrifice some sustainability & livability and I don't see much of an appetite for that politically.

[Tetsuo]

100% the rally is going to be hijacked by east side commies

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Kitsilano, Fairview slopes, the Olympic Village, Chinatown and Granville/W. Broadway areas should have been densely-built to lessen the burden of downtown. You can't keep limiting very high density developments to just the downtown core and expect housing prices to remain affordable.

What does density mean to you? If you think those areas aren't dense just because they don't have 30+ story towers, you probably need to look at a population density map.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What does density mean to you? If you think those areas aren't dense just because they don't have 30+ story towers, you probably need to look at a population density map.

Go take a look:
http://www.estebanmatheus.com/9-billion-fulcrum-2/
Click on the Metro Vancouver 2010 map

You probably looked at a dubious map that only showed pop. 10,000 per square km., which means the areas mentioned before (Kits, OV, Broadway) would appear dark. You need to look at a map where density > 20,000 per sq km or more, which would then paint a more accurate picture.

So yeah, 30+ story towers do help.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Go take a look:
http://www.estebanmatheus.com/9-billion-fulcrum-2/
Click on the Metro Vancouver 2010 map

You probably looked at a dubious map that only showed pop. 10,000 per square km., which means the areas mentioned before (Kits, OV, Broadway) would appear dark. You need to look at a map where density > 20,000 per sq km or more, which would then paint a more accurate picture.

So yeah, 30+ story towers do help.

I think you need to take a better look at that map. The low rises of the west end are far more dense than Coal Harbour or Yaletown, home to dozens of the tallest residential towers in the city.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think you need to take a better look at that map. The low rises of the west end are far more dense than Coal Harbour or Yaletown, home to dozens of the tallest residential towers in the city.

Funny, but Yaletown and downtown have a lot more services like retail shops, theatres, offices, hotels, etc, than those areas of purely residential West End that have high population densities. Many lots in Yaletown were occupied by low-rise warehouse-type buildings and parking lots which are slowly giving way to new hi-rise condos, and would have shown a higher density since this population density map was made. Also, West End is by no means made up of 'low rises', and started having the highest density anywhere in Canada back in the 50s, with many residential apartments of 15-30 stories built. Yaletown used to be industrial lands, and with today's tall towers, is just starting to catch up when it started from the mid-90s. Also, I wonder if you have seen how many foreign students/workers rent with 2 or 3 other room-mates in those rental flats in the West End? I don't think many of the Yaletown condos are like that. Yaletown could sport an even higher population density if buildings were to go beyond 40 floors from the get-go. It is just starting to happen with the completion of The Mark, but too many that were built before are rather short.

[WarrenC12]

We all know you like towers and malls and think they should be everywhere. Cities around the world are successfully dense without either (look at Europe).

I have no problem with towers, but they aren't the only solution.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We all know you like towers and malls and think they should be everywhere. Cities around the world are successfully dense without either (look at Europe).

I have no problem with towers, but they aren't the only solution.

No, I never think that towers and malls should be everywhere. I think they should be in prime areas, especially those close to downtown and commercial nodes.

[ssiguy]

I applaud the idea of the rally but it won't make a hoot of difference. Our politicians and media have been completedly bought about by developers and real estate agents.

The City and province made a conscious decision 15 years ago that it was willing to put the needs of it's citizens and the character of the city in the "also ran" file and turn the city into a resort for the well heeled.

Despite all the platitudes, Vancouver will never again be even remotely affordable to the masses. City Hall and Victoria will instead do everything in their power to keep the housing market red hot forcing more people out. There is too much money flowing to City Hall and the province { as well as politicians palms of all stripes} now and they have become dependent on the money.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Our politicians and media have been completedly bought about by developers and real estate agents.

Serious questions:

1) How familiar are you with the Vancouver zoning code and what is/isn't allowed in the majority of the city?
2) How many times have you attended a public hearing on development/rezoning in Vancouver, and did you notice the demographics of attendees? How do you think the attendees would respond to a policy which lowered housing prices?