Surrey, Delta, and Langley Township UCB Change Proposals & Suburban Sprawl Discussion

[mcj]

Hoping to start a bit of discussion on the proposed UCB changes and general dissent from Metro Vancouver's planning policies that the current municipal governments of Surrey, Langley Township and Delta are proposing.

Here's a recent DailyHive article on the changes. As well as a Delta Optimist article on the same issue.

Ultimately, these changes would mean less forests and farmland in exchange for more suburban sprawl. Is this a worthwhile endeavor to actually help solve our housing crisis?

[BaddieB]

The problem with sprawl is that of course it leads to a fiscal bomb years down the road when things need to be repaired. More sprawl means more infrastructure means more money paid in taxes.

If we have to have sprawl, I'd like a law saying that it can only happen with X number of meters from a train station. Just like we build roads to service new sprawl, transit should be required.

[djmk]

to be fair, they are not asking for sprawl

First, the three mayors suggest modernizing the UCB so that it can be extended into areas that are not part of the provincial government’s protected Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) or environmentally sensitive zones, can be served by existing or already planned infrastructure, and will support compact, transit-oriented, and complete communities.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surr...oogle_vignette

[mcj]

Originally Posted by djmk

to be fair, they are not asking for sprawl

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/surr...oogle_vignette

Curious why you think extending the Urban Containment Boundary wouldn't be considered sprawl?

[Migrant_Coconut]

I don't see how building more homes further away from all the things people want to do (and with no way to get to them without a car) does anything but trade one problem for another. The boundaries exist for a reason.

It's not like any of those munis are running out of half-empty parking lots and strip malls to build on.

[seamusmcduff]

I can't wait until the entire Fraser Valley is just a sea of single family homes from Surrey to Hope. Growth for the sake of growth isn't a positive endeavour.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Oppose. Sprawl is NEVER a good thing. Lets not ruin our regions quality of life just to lower prices of homes,

[Sheba]

Ok we get:

...modernizing the UCB so that it can be extended into areas that are not part of the provincial government’s protected Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) or environmentally sensitive zones, can be served by existing or already planned infrastructure, and will support compact, transit-oriented, and complete communities.

That seems reasonable enough, as does this:

All three cities account for a significant share of the region’s remaining available industrial land, much of which is constrained from expanding by the ALR.

But then we get:

...urging the BC NDP-led provincial government to review the “outdated” UCB, invest in new infrastructure to unlock development on these new lands, and prioritize the development of affordable, ground-oriented housing sized for families.

Even if we consider 'ground-oriented housing' to include duplexes, townhouses, etc (and the likelihood of that is really low) - one thing that form of housing isn't is affordable.

[osirisboy]

Kits and mount pleasant or west end were “sprawl” originally. The problem is we build shit now, car centric, stroads etc

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Kits and mount pleasant or west end were “sprawl” originally. The problem is we build shit now, car centric, stroads etc

These were original "sprawls" but at least their footprints were comparable to downtown. Now the overall Lower Mainland sprawl is just unacceptable because Vancouver's original sprawl refuses to densify significantly. With the history we have, Kits and Mr Pleasant should be at least half as dense as downtown by now, but they still feel like sprawling suburbs for the most parts.

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Vin

These were original "sprawls" but at least their footprints were comparable to downtown. Now the overall Lower Mainland sprawl is just unacceptable because Vancouver's original sprawl refuses to densify significantly. With the history we have, Kits and Mr Pleasant should be at least half as dense as downtown by now, but they still feel like sprawling suburbs for the most parts.

You can't force people to sell their homes just to densify.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The average Kitsilano/Mount Pleasant street is roughly triple the density of the average Burnaby street, and at the rate Burnaby develops, it'll stay that way.

Just need to get it up to 4-5x that.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by djmk

You can't force people to sell their homes just to densify.

No, but you *can* ban them from selling their homes for the purpose of densification, and that is what we have been doing for decades and decades now. Nobody got forced to sell their house in the Oakdale detached house neighbourhood but as soon as the ban on densification was lifted, over half the owners (voluntarily!) sold, and rapid densification is underway. And that is way out in Transit Zone 3 (Burquitlam), imagine what would happen if you lifted the ban in the inner parts of Vancouver?

As for the original question, I would support limited, targetted, greenfield development in the valley if it was done in a smart way (built around transit, with good walkability and a reasonably high density level). Like Carvolth / 208th st. but with better planning for transit and cycling and narrower roads.

Editing to add: It is interesting to me that the thread has almost universal agreement that Vancouver is experiencing horrific sprawl, when it is one of the least sprawling cities in the entire Anglo-world. But to be fair, that is a pretty low bar.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

These were original "sprawls" but at least their footprints were comparable to downtown. Now the overall Lower Mainland sprawl is just unacceptable because Vancouver's original sprawl refuses to densify significantly. With the history we have, Kits and Mr Pleasant should be at least half as dense as downtown by now, but they still feel like sprawling suburbs for the most parts.

Originally Posted by Vin

These were original "sprawls" but at least their footprints were comparable to downtown. Now the overall Lower Mainland sprawl is just unacceptable because Vancouver's original sprawl refuses to densify significantly. With the history we have, Kits and Mr Pleasant should be at least half as dense as downtown by now, but they still feel like sprawling suburbs for the most parts.

Kits and Mr Pleasant already have half the population density that Downtown has, (with much more to come thanks to the Broadway transit expansion). They started as streetcar suburbs - the transit went in first, and development followed. If that was what was proposed in Surrey, Delta or Langley, it wouldn't be a bad idea, but that's not what's being proposed. And there are existing parts of all three municipalities that have the potential for better transit (and related density) before other parts of the municipality are released for greenfield development.

Kitsilano in 1909


[Vancouver is Awesome copy of an City Archives image]

There's an even earlier 1890s Archives image of a streetcar in Mount Pleasant, before anything was built there.

[whatnext]

People want single family houses, you can see it in the housing stats with the condo market collapse. They'll settle for a townhouse but virtually nobody really wants to raise a family in a two bed condo.

[seamusmcduff]

The geography of Vancouver is literally incompatible with single family sprawl. The only way the region can really sprawl is east, which means most commutes and trips are going one direction. At least in prairie cities, for better or worse they can sprawl in every direction, which really reduces the distance with commutes. In the prairies, a 40km wide city means you'll probably be 20km max from dt. Vancouver being 40km wide means the max commute to DT is 40km.

Single family homes also make it difficult for transit to work, and when most trips are east to west, the geometry for cars doesn't work with how big the highway would have to get if we kept sprawling east.

All sustainability and good urban planning aside, logistically a large percentage of single family homes just don't work in Vancouver. If that's the lifestyle you want at an affordable price, then there's plenty other cities you can move to for that lifestyle.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by whatnext

People want single family houses..

If that was true, then there would be no need to use zoning to ban other forms of housing, you could just let the market decide. But it turns out that, when left to a free market, people in aggregate express a greater preference for more dense living. I mean, of course people want big houses on big lots, and they want waterfront acreage and they want the weather to always be nice and they want to get paid a lot of money to do a very easy job and they want a lot of things, but life is about trade-offs, and when given the chance to do so, enough people prefer denser living such that it is more profitable for developers to build more dense housing, not detached houses.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Oppose. Sprawl is NEVER a good thing. Lets not ruin our regions quality of life just to lower prices of homes,

Totally agree. We can densify and still keep green space. Look at England or Europe. Green space made posssible by densifying houses into multiple dwellings, villages, town centres.
With parks and playing fields we can still find nice places for the kids to play. It is not an either/or situation, as has been implied. Vancouver is wedged in on three sides, yes, but that does not mean we have to dig up and pave over the Fraser Valley justm to make room for vast tracts of single family homes, and concommitant freeway systems. There can be rapid transit and better busses to take up the transportation that otherwise means LA-style car choked rush hours.

[osirisboy]

Why can’t cities just build dense single family walkable neighbourhoods, like kits, strathcona? They don’t. They build car centric shit holes. Everywhere in North America is like this. It’s ridiculous

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why can’t cities just build dense single family walkable neighbourhoods, like kits, strathcona? They don’t. They build car centric shit holes. Everywhere in North America is like this. It’s ridiculous

They need good transit first. All those places had streetcars built as part of their initial layout.