Originally Posted by GenWhy? (Post 8793223)

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs...l-housing.aspx

"Following Council’s approval of the amended Secured Rental Policy, we're working on necessary next steps for the implementation of policy directions. This work will be taking place over the coming year, including:

Recommendations to amend zoning for select commercial areas (C-2 zoning districts) to enable rental housing development up to 6-storeys through a ‘pre-zoning’ approach
Enhanced rental housing rezoning options in low-density transition areas
Any proposed changes will be subject to Council approval.

Opportunities for public engagement will take place in early 2020, with a report to Council anticipated for spring 2020."

Originally Posted by misher (Post 8793115)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...nts-they-cant/



The population of Greater Vancouver is 2.5 million. A 1 million increase represents a growth of 40%. This means that we will grow about 2% a year. Vancouver's housing goal (which its currently failing) was 85,000 new units over 10 years. However demolitions represent about 20% so this means if we followed this goal we'd gain 6,800 units annually. We have about 330,000 units in Vancouver. If we followed Stewart's 10 year plan's goal we'd gain 2.06% more housing annually, barely keeping up with immigration. This of course doesn't count phenomenons causing us to require more housing even discounting immigration, the increasing desire for people to live by themselves/away from families, the reduced size of housing (more people can fit in a house than a condo), AirBnB, longer lifespans, and international students/visitors. I'd say if we followed Stewart's housing goals, we'd barely tread water and keep things stable. But we're not, Council is blocking development and is chasing developers out of town. So expect the housing crisis to get worse by 2041 not better. Though greater Vancouver is more than just the city of Vancouver, so if the muncipalities build the housing Vancouver at a rate of faster than 2% maybe the problem will get better. Just Vancouver will shrink and soon become a suburb, probably of Burnaby or Surrey.

I really don't understand how people can expect housing prices or demand to go down under these conditions. Supply must catch up or we must change how many people we are putting here.

Originally Posted by misher (Post 8793115)

Though greater Vancouver is more than just the city of Vancouver, so if the muncipalities build the housing Vancouver at a rate of faster than 2% maybe the problem will get better. Just Vancouver will shrink and soon become a suburb, probably of Burnaby or Surrey.

Originally Posted by lokyin (Post 8795935)

We need to quickly densify another corridor within city of Vancouver after Broadway. Ideally Hastings - super underutilized in terms of density. That and West End really needs to give itself up to much higher density redevelopments...

Originally Posted by logan5 (Post 8795996)

The Arbutus Corridor is rapid transit ready, so that is the first place o would densify. It can easily have more Transit capacity than Cambie so I would plan for even higher density than we are seeing along Cambie.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8796046)

It’s Point Grey, and can’t have greater capacity unless you piss the NIMBYs that originally stopped the Canada Line from going there.

Hastings makes the most sense right now beside Broadway.

Originally Posted by lokyin (Post 8795935)

We need to quickly densify another corridor within city of Vancouver after Broadway. Ideally Hastings - super underutilized in terms of density. That and West End really needs to give itself up to much higher density redevelopments...

Originally Posted by misher (Post 8796071)

Am I the only one that thinks we need 5000+ small condos around UBC? I feel this would heavily reduce the burden on transit (getting to/from UBC across Vancouver) and the burden on our rental market as many UBC students live across Vancouver due to cheaper rents. Plus we will have a skytrain there eventually.

UBC is one of the few areas that still has a bunch of undeveloped land (I'm talking about the grassy parts not the forest).

And best of yet few NIMBYs to oppose it.

Originally Posted by scryer (Post 8796568)

If we are talking about densifying other corridors, then I totally propose Granville Street. The street on the peninsula deserves an upzoning never-seen-before south of West Georgia to prevent it from becoming a second East Hastings. I want to keep the bars but I want to also build ontop of them including towers (if view-cones will allow it) and medium density 12+floors.

Granville street south of the peninsula also deserves greater densification efforts and upzoning as well (I'm thinking 6-12+ floors). Especially at the future South Granville station where it should be towers there along with the rest of Broadway.

But before we go crazy with densifying other corridors, let's remember the shameful waste of potential that Broadway/Commercial Station is right now...

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8796046)

It’s Point Grey, and can’t have greater capacity unless you piss the NIMBYs that originally stopped the Canada Line from going there.

Hastings makes the most sense right now beside Broadway.

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18 (Post 8796701)

Hastings is already super clogged with vehicular traffic Densifying is relatively easy, but moving people efficiently is a nightmare. Should density along existing sky train routes ,such as further east along Evergreen line.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8796403)

Don't forget Rupert and Renfrew. The entire Expo-Millennium-Boundary triangle should be at the top of the list.



Not sure what you mean by "grassy," but UBC is indeed getting a ton of new residences. Given student housing rates though, they're likely not going to attract any current student renters without MIRHPP and/or massive public subsidies. Staff, maybe.

As for reducing transit use, UBC's not just some academic monastery - you need housing for the faculty and researchers too. And more housing means more infrastructure/amenities to support it, which means more support staff either living on-site or commuting in... and the students are going to want to spend the nights and weekends downtown... so we can forget about a contained community.

Originally Posted by scryer (Post 8796568)

If we are talking about densifying other corridors, then I totally propose Granville Street. The street on the peninsula deserves an upzoning never-seen-before south of West Georgia to prevent it from becoming a second East Hastings. I want to keep the bars but I want to also build ontop of them including towers (if view-cones will allow it) and medium density 12+floors.

Granville street south of the peninsula also deserves greater densification efforts and upzoning as well (I'm thinking 6-12+ floors). Especially at the future South Granville station where it should be towers there along with the rest of Broadway.

But before we go crazy with densifying other corridors, let's remember the shameful waste of potential that Broadway/Commercial Station is right now...

Originally Posted by Tetsuo (Post 8795677)

Can we get more investment in infrastructure, not only transit and roads but also recreation.

More trails for example

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut (Post 8795964)

Main, Commercial-Victoria and the rest of Broadway would be good options too.



Rest of the post aside, it's hard to see how this'd happen when even the largest suburbs are building 64% as fast as Vancouver.

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8797182)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granvi...nment_District
Not sure if the bars and nightclubs are compatible with even office towers... But then again, condos in NEFC, so :shrug:

Originally Posted by fredinno (Post 8797184)

Source?