Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[GenWhy?]

Between 16th and 12th is where the grades really impact potential height with the QE viewcones, under the Plan's allowable height, from what I've seen.

[logan5]

And if the CoV wants to meet and exceed housing targets set forth by the Province, lifting height restrictions along Broadway would help build more units faster.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logan5

And if the CoV wants to meet and exceed housing targets set forth by the Province, lifting height restrictions along Broadway would help build more units faster.

Well, not sure on the timelines but the October 4th viewcone item will have to come up 1st, Staff review and implementation. We're likely into late January of 2024 at the earliest.

Potentially then a Council motion to amend the Broadway Plan. Which, if you exclude public participation could be completed by late Summer 2024.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

And if the CoV wants to meet and exceed housing targets set forth by the Province, lifting height restrictions along Broadway would help build more units faster.

Only if the same number of sites were developed at a greater height, (and even then it would be slower, not faster). There's only so much capacity to build at any one time. If a developer was building a 40 storey tower, they have to raise more capital (especially if it's a rental tower) and take on greater risk than if two developers build two 20 storey towers. And building the tower takes longer too.

Overall, lifting height restriction increases potential capacity over the long term, but it doesn't help getting things built to meet the current housing shortage.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Only if the same number of sites were developed at a greater height, (and even then it would be slower, not faster). There's only so much capacity to build at any one time. If a developer was building a 40 storey tower, they have to raise more capital (especially if it's a rental tower) and take on greater risk than if two developers build two 20 storey towers. And building the tower takes longer too.

Overall, lifting height restriction increases potential capacity over the long term, but it doesn't help getting things built to meet the current housing shortage.

Rezonings and the whole UDP process are painstakingly long, so doing 1 on a taller project instead of on 2 shorter ones saves a lot of time. Then do 1 site prep instead of 2. As the building goes up, each trade gets a lot more efficient as they get familiar with how each floor and each suite is built, so when you eliminate a new learning curve on a second building, you are saving even more time and resources.

I can guarantee it is faster to build 1 taller building instead of 2 shorter ones.

*Using the Broadway Plan's 6500 sq foot floor plate limit as an example.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Rezonings and the whole UDP process are painstakingly long, so doing 1 on a taller project instead of on 2 shorter ones saves a lot of time. Then do 1 site prep instead of 2. As the building goes up, each trade gets a lot more efficient as they get familiar with how each floor and each suite is built, so when you eliminate a new learning curve on a second building, you are saving even more time and resources.

I can guarantee it is faster to build 1 taller building instead of 2 shorter ones.

*Using the Broadway Plan's 6500 sq foot floor plate limit as an example.

Only if they started building the second shorter tower after they finished the first. I'm suggesting two different developments that are shorter, started at the same time, will create the same number of units (actually more, as there are two podiums), than one taller tower. So if getting housing built fast is the issue, not building tall is the way to go. (And as GenWhy has previously pointed out, building a lot of 6-storey woodframe should be even quicker). (The rezoning takes roughly the same length of time for any project, so that's down to the developer having their ducks in a row, and short or tall shouldn't be any difference).

[MistyMountain]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Only if they started building the second shorter tower after they finished the first. I'm suggesting two different developments that are shorter, started at the same time, will create the same number of units (actually more, as there are two podiums), than one taller tower. So if getting housing built fast is the issue, not building tall is the way to go. (And as GenWhy has previously pointed out, building a lot of 6-storey woodframe should be even quicker). (The rezoning takes roughly the same length of time for any project, so that's down to the developer having their ducks in a row, and short or tall shouldn't be any difference).

Purely on a technical basis you're right, but in reality with financial considerations it would absolutely speed things up. If you're a developer and you own a site that can do 20 storeys but then the view cone gets lifted and now you can do 30 it makes the project a lot more viable.

Basically the same architect costs, same rezoning, same land cost but more revenue. There's a lot of projects that are on hold right now because of spiraling costs: interest rates, construction prices, etc. but if they can get a few more floors it can make the difference between it being built now and being built 3 years from now.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MistyMountain

Purely on a technical basis you're right, but in reality with financial considerations it would absolutely speed things up. If you're a developer and you own a site that can do 20 storeys but then the view cone gets lifted and now you can do 30 it makes the project a lot more viable.

Basically the same architect costs, same rezoning, same land cost but more revenue. There's a lot of projects that are on hold right now because of spiraling costs: interest rates, construction prices, etc. but if they can get a few more floors it can make the difference between it being built now and being built 3 years from now.

My understanding is that Changing City is of the belief that there is a finite construction capacity in Vancouver and we are at that limit, thus no matter what changes are made construction will not be faster. If a tower could be built 10 stories taller, that means 10 stories somewhere else cannot be built yet because the labour will be "used up".

If I'm wrong they can feel free to correct me.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Devil's advocate: the industry's ability to expand is dependent on how many skilled labourers we can crank out every year... and given all the job-creation incentives geared toward construction, it doesn't seem like it's a very high number.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: the industry's ability to expand is dependent on how many skilled labourers we can crank out every year... and given all the job-creation incentives geared toward construction, it doesn't seem like it's a very high number.

The counter argument is that if enough opportunity is there, people in lesser paid careers will decide to make a career switch (why be a barista when I could make twice as much as a framing apprentice?)

[WarrenC12]

Are trade schools full right now? If they are, we need more spaces. If they aren't, maybe we need more grants and subsidies for the schooling.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are trade schools full right now? If they are, we need more spaces. If they aren't, maybe we need more grants and subsidies for the schooling.

You don't even need to go to trade school to be a carpenter, electrician, welder, crane operator, or general labourer (among others) in BC.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Is construction one of the jobs that requires 2+ years of experience for (ahem) "entry-level" positions? That'll be another barrier if so.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Is construction one of the jobs that requires 2+ years of experience for (ahem) "entry-level" positions? That'll be another barrier if so.

I'm pretty sure construction is one of those industries where if you're walking down the sidewalk and you look like you can swing a hammer you might get offered a job, not unlike the service industry right now.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

My understanding is that Changing City is of the belief that there is a finite construction capacity in Vancouver and we are at that limit, thus no matter what changes are made construction will not be faster. If a tower could be built 10 stories taller, that means 10 stories somewhere else cannot be built yet because the labour will be "used up".

If I'm wrong they can feel free to correct me.

That's certainly a major component of the problem of trying to add more construction activity. If you look at the contruction activity data from CMHC, there are 57,965 units under construction [CMHC August 2023], 13,698 of them in the City of Vancouver. There were only 45,540 under construction a year ago, (9,994 in the City of Vancouver). I'm reasonably certain that's the most units recorded as being under construction in Greater Vancouver at one time.

At the same time this month's Labour Force Statistics for BC show 46,000 fewer construction workers in BC in August than in January (from 256,000 to 210,000). Some of those may have been working on Site C or the oil pipeline, but it doesn't look like they moved to building residential projects in the Lower Mainland. There are fewer workers in construction now than in 2014.

That might be part of the explanation for why the number of homes under construction is the most we've seen - everything is taking longer. We know from other threads on here that completion dates are stretched as buildings aren't being completed on schedule.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's certainly a major component of the problem of trying to add more construction activity. If you look at the contruction activity data from CMHC, there are 57,965 units under construction [CMHC August 2023], 13,698 of them in the City of Vancouver. There were only 45,540 under construction a year ago, (9,994 in the City of Vancouver). I'm reasonably certain that's the most units recorded as being under construction in Greater Vancouver at one time.

At the same time this month's Labour Force Statistics for BC show 46,000 fewer construction workers in BC in August than in January (from 256,000 to 210,000). Some of those may have been working on Site C or the oil pipeline, but it doesn't look like they moved to building residential projects in the Lower Mainland. There are fewer workers in construction now than in 2014.

That might be part of the explanation for why the number of homes under construction is the most we've seen - everything is taking longer. We know from other threads on here that completion dates are stretched as buildings aren't being completed on schedule.

I believe you're putting the cart before the horse, construction job numbers are down because construction projects are stalling due to rising financing costs, not the other way around methinks. If/when rates drop, we should expect construction projects to speed up and hiring to begin, same as if construction costs decrease or profits increase (because more profitable projects are allowed).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I believe you're putting the cart before the horse, construction job numbers are down because construction projects are stalling due to rising financing costs, not the other way around methinks. If/when rates drop, we should expect construction projects to speed up and hiring to begin, same as if construction costs decrease or profits increase (because more profitable projects are allowed).

Construction projects may be stalling in future, but housing starts are up in the GVRD way higher than recent years. (I suspect it's mostly condo projects and office buildings that are stalling, rentals don't seem to have the same issues). We have the most residential units under construction ever. So it would seem to be very difficult to increase those significantly in the short term.

First 8 months Metro Housing starts:
2023 23,044
2022 15,645
2021 19,272
2020 14,363
2019 20,103
2018 16,813
2017 16,452
2016 19,006
2015 13,717
2014 13,004
2013 12,211

And if we're waiting for rates to fall - that could be a long wait. Right now market expectations are for no change for a year, although some economists expect a further increase some time before the end of the year, if the inflation rate stays at 4% or goes up again.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Somewhere in the craziness it was deemed acceptable to block building developments for causing too many shadows, then demand more trees get planted in order to provide much needed shade!

Haha, indeed! It is exactly the same anti-development people complaining about building shadows, yet yell at clouds over lack of urban shade. It's a constant oxymoron with these bipolar fools.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: the industry's ability to expand is dependent on how many skilled labourers we can crank out every year... and given all the job-creation incentives geared toward construction, it doesn't seem like it's a very high number.

Originally Posted by chowhou

The counter argument is that if enough opportunity is there, people in lesser paid careers will decide to make a career switch (why be a barista when I could make twice as much as a framing apprentice?)

IMHO, both of the above stances have their validity. I think that in the grand scheme of things, there will always be people looking for work, maybe a career, and there is no harm in "cranking out" as many skilled labourers as possible. There is a huge task ahead. And if some move on to other careers, so be it. It's natural. But it is imperative to get the large-scale building of accommodation up and running ASAP. This is a national crisis, especially pronounced and acute in Vancouver and SW BC, and someone has to fix it.

[Vin]

Finally, the day has come....

Some Vancouver ‘view cones’ could be scrapped under proposed review
https://globalnews.ca/news/9990941/vancouver-view-cone-review/
“This is not really about making sweeping huge changes. We will always have view cones in Vancouver,” ABC Coun. Peter Meiszner told Global News.

Even though this is not set in stone, at least someone from ABC is willing to take a stand on this issue. Good job, Peter Meiszner. You are much braver than many of your counterparts. Those who insist that Viewcones has no effect on housing affordability and supply should be ashamed of themselves.