Vancouver View Cones - Reviews and Amendments

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You can't make this up...hot takes from a developer on why we should get ride of the view cones.

Bob Ransford
@BobRansford
I served on Vancouver’s Urban Design Panel in the past & dealt with view cones. They made developments a lot more complex & more costly. Low cloud cover obscures a lot of the intended vistas many days of the year. Let’s make affordable housing our priority.

https://twitter.com/BobRansford/status/1709650986036556211

He’s not wrong. More density per site (= taller with floor plate limits) make rental towers more economically viable. That means more rental units.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

You can't make this up...hot takes from a developer on why we should get ride of the view cones.

Bob Ransford
@BobRansford
I served on Vancouver’s Urban Design Panel in the past & dealt with view cones. They made developments a lot more complex & more costly. Low cloud cover obscures a lot of the intended vistas many days of the year. Let’s make affordable housing our priority.

https://twitter.com/BobRansford/status/1709650986036556211

A good argument for a few to be modified are the ones that have new houses creeping up the mountain on the North Shore. Could probably add a few stories to a few potential developments if you are allowed to obscure the mountainside with homes on it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

He’s not wrong. More density per site (= taller with floor plate limits) make rental towers more economically viable. That means more rental units.

Yes, because we all know how affordable the units in Vancouver's recent tall towers have been.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, because we all know how affordable the units in Vancouver's recent tall towers have been.

People like you never change.

https://twitter.com/gridsvancouver/status/1097297956451975168

I can't believe they let them build those unaffordable rental units in those massive apartment buildings!



These luxury buildings are well known in Vancouver for their high rents and wealthy renters!

god you're dumb

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, because we all know how affordable the units in Vancouver's recent tall towers have been.

Because (you think) they would be more affordable or cheaper if they were in mid- or lowrises?

Taller towers (i.e. more density per site) not only means they'll be more economically viable for developers to financially justify building them, it also means there'll be more (units built and available), period.

More rental units availble to rent means more "supply" <- which is the key point in the whole "supply and demand" aspect of this affordability question in the housing crisis.

Or do you need it explained to you how more supply of something that the city is badly lacking is supposed to help alleviate the problem and eventually tamp down runaway rental rates and housing costs?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Because (you think) they would be more affordable or cheaper if they were in mid- or lowrises?

Taller towers (i.e. more density per site) not only means they'll be more economically viable for developers to financially justify building them, it also means there'll be more (units built and available), period.

More rental units availble to rent means more "supply" <- which is the key point in the whole "supply and demand" aspect of this affordability question in the housing crisis.

Or do you need it explained to you how more supply of something that the city is badly lacking is supposed to help alleviate the problem and eventually tamp down runaway rental rates and housing costs?

It's hard to explain things to people that used to ride the short bus.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Devil's advocate: most of the "extra" units from a viewcone removal will be completely unaffordable for most Vancouverites until decades later. City Hall'd have to step in and mandate a significant portion of below-market units from the start, which itself is pretty controversial.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: most of the "extra" units from a viewcone removal will be completely unaffordable for most Vancouverites until decades later. City Hall'd have to step in and mandate a significant portion of below-market units from the start, which itself is pretty controversial.

Brand new expensive rentals will get occupied by people who can afford them, freeing up slightly less expensive rentals, who will then get occupied by people who can afford those, and so on down the line.

This isn't rocket science.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Vancouver's been looking for that to happen for the last ten years; so far, nada. Purpose-built subsidized housing would seem to be a more consistent solution than waiting for enough supply to trigger a hermit crab shuffle.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Brand new expensive rentals will get occupied by people who can afford them, freeing up slightly less expensive rentals, who will then get occupied by people who can afford those, and so on down the line.

This isn't rocket science.

If anything, more units higher up in a building probably slightly depress the inherent value of units closer to the bottom (parking will have to be deeper ergo lower value, can't add any more elevators, amenities will be busier, etc.)

Up front construction cost will increase though, but I don't know how to crunch the numbers on that.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We've been waiting for that to happen for the last ten years; so far, nada. Purpose-built subsidized housing would seem to be a more consistent solution than trickle-down.

I think you might have a misunderstanding of what prices, and more specifically change in prices, mean. If action A happens which is meant to reduce price B and price B goes up, it doesn't mean that action A was useless. It mostly likely means that other factors caused price B to go up faster than action A caused it go down (-5 vs +10). Don't be so quick to say "action A is useless" when we don't know what price B would be if action A never occurred.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: most of the "extra" units from a viewcone removal will be completely unaffordable for most Vancouverites until decades later. City Hall'd have to step in and mandate a significant portion of below-market units from the start, which itself is pretty controversial.

Isn't that why it's part of the argument right now?

Yes, of course we're talking about units that will be high up on these towers which almost certainly means they will be market units and not rental, much less below-market rental units.

But part of the point with a lot of these developments and the argument of the developers is that being able to build those extra units facilitates their ability to include or build rental or non-market units and components elsewhere in the same project or even adjacent to.

In other words, it helps them make the math work and get the books balanced to be able to build and include those (needed) rental components as opposed to building a pure market condo tower or pure market condo with market or above-market rental component towers - which from an affordability stand-point doesn't really help with the housing crisis and affordability and availability issues.
Whether that's a valid argument or not is wholly different question altogether, as is the question and argument of the city forcing developers to include these below-market sort of rental units in their developments.

(*personally, I don't really think they have a choice at this stage of the housing crisis otherwise you'll just end up with another Metrotown at a larger scale)

Everybody's been saying that the removal or reduction of these viewcones won't really mitigate the affordability crisis,.......well,....sure,..not directly, or on it's own, but you can see how in a roundabout way it can work towards making an impact downstream if developments are able to go ahead with more rental or below-market units that they either wouldn't otherwise be able to justify having (thus killing the projects altogether) or would go ahead at a smaller scale (less density) resulting in higher prices and rents anyway.

I don't think there's a single silver bullet solution that's going to solve this housing and affordability crisis or even a couple of them, and anyone who believes so or is waiting for one is guaranteed to be disappointed.
So you might as well try to get at the problem through any means you can, however less effective it may seem in the bigger picture.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vancouver's been looking for that to happen for the last ten years; so far, nada. Purpose-built subsidized housing would seem to be a more consistent solution than waiting for enough supply to trigger a hermit crab shuffle.

It doesn't work if you don't even build enough supply for the population increase.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

... If action A happens which is meant to reduce price B and price B goes up, it doesn't mean that action A was useless. It mostly likely means that other factors caused price B to go up faster than action A caused it go down (-5 vs +10). Don't be so quick to say "action A is useless" when we don't know what price B would be if action A never occurred.

Not disagreeing, so much as pointing out that other things that can create Price B from the get-go might be just as important, if not more. City Hall's been over-relying on just doing Action A (and in marginal amounts) for too long.

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Everybody's been saying that the removal or reduction of these viewcones won't really mitigate the affordability crisis,.......well,....sure,..not directly, or on it's own, but you can see how in a roundabout way it can work towards making an impact downstream if developments are able to go ahead with more rental or below-market units that they either wouldn't otherwise be able to justify having (thus killing the projects altogether) or would go ahead at a smaller scale (less density) resulting in higher prices and rents anyway.

Sure, and yet unlocking the rest of the city would do even more of that, and without as much controversy - even the urbanists are split on whether or not to keep the viewcones.

Let's do the math again: the 'cones cut twelve floors, 47k square feet and 17 units from the Jenga tower. Using that as the yardstick, fifty or so projects building to the max averages 250k sq ft and 850 units more without the 'cones than with them.
Compare and contrast with the Broadway and Cambie plans, the former adding 30k units to the city, and the latter 11-32k; rezoning all the RS-1 for multiplexes would get us even more.

It's the Pareto principle in action: why spend 80% of the effort for 20% of the results when you can do it the other way around? A more cynical observer would assume that was deliberate.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It doesn't work if you don't even build enough supply for the population increase.

We're in the middle of an all-time record in housing construction, and even that's not enough (might've been ten years ago, but that's a different thread). Seems like other solutions are required too.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It's hard to explain things to people that used to ride the short bus.

Insulting the handicapped now? A new low for you.

Yes, I'm sure the towers resulting from these theoretical towers will produce an abundance of affordable housing. Just asked your buddy Joo Kim Tiah on ho to get 'er done.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Insulting the handicapped now? A new low for you.

So you admit it.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Devil's advocate: most of the "extra" units from a viewcone removal will be completely unaffordable for most Vancouverites until decades later. City Hall'd have to step in and mandate a significant portion of below-market units from the start, which itself is pretty controversial.

The Motion's amandments already hashed this out for Staff to look at

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

......
Sure, and yet unlocking the rest of the city would do even more of that, and without as much controversy - even the urbanists are split on whether or not to keep the viewcones.

Let's do the math again: the 'cones cut twelve floors, 47k square feet and 17 units from the Jenga tower. Using that as the yardstick, fifty or so projects building to the max averages 250k sq ft and 850 units more without the 'cones than with them.
Compare and contrast with the Broadway and Cambie plans, the former adding 30k units to the city, and the latter 11-32k; rezoning all the RS-1 for multiplexes would get us even more.

It's the Pareto principle in action: why spend 80% of the effort for 20% of the results when you can do it the other way around? A more cynical observer would assume that was deliberate.



......

I mean, come on,...
It's not an Either/Or situation.
It's not like if they resolve to eliminate or reduce some viewcones they therefore can't pursue increasing density in other parts of the city.

They're not mutually exlcusive options.
The city can do both.
However ineffectual you think one of the options is, .....and no, it doesn't take that much effort to change the policy to allow more height and density in areas that were formerly restricted by viewcones.
And furthermore, even if they opt to abandon revising the viewcone and view corridors policy, and decide to go the route you're suggesting, that's not going to fix the affordability and housing crisis either. Not on it's own.

No silver bullet, remember? So why eliminate certain options just because you don't think they'll work as well or just because you think they'll get more pushback?

Speaking of which, who says they won't get any pushback or not as much pushback if they pursue the option of increasing density in other parts of the city that have perenially had low density, for example (or conversely that it would take a lot of "effort",...like 80% effort to eliminate viewcones on the other hand. It's changing a policy. They're not reinventing the wheel).

The reason a lot of those areas still have lower density than they should is precisely because of the pushback that successive prior administrations have received when trying to upzone them - for the ones that did.

NIMBY's are always going to be a part of equation, and yet anyone would agree that it would be downright irresponsible for the city to resist upzoning certain areas (like parts that will have Transit passing through them in the near future, for example, or even parts that are adjacent to major transit hubs NOW) just because of the pushback they're likely to receive.

Nothing's easy, nothing's too insignifcant and nothing should be sacred, because the moment you start carving out "untouchables" and sacred cows like that - things that the city shouldn't change or touch, because....reasons - , that's exactly how we end up where we are at right now with the housing and affordability crisis and situation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Remember how long 1477 Broadway (the South Granville tower) took to get approved? Remember how the Broadway Plan took even longer than that? Sure, the viewcones shouldn't be untouchable, but they're much less touchable than either of the above; again, you're not just fighting the NIMBYs, you're fighting the NIMBYs and moderate YIMBYs for the sake of a few hundred units.
And as history shows, by the time Council's gotten one or two large-scale density motions approved, it's time for the next election. So AFAIK, A) yes, it is an either/or situation, and B) in that light, it's probably better to pick the option that gets us more bang for the buck.

Will upzoning one corridor or all RS-1 solve housing on its own? No. Is 10-30 thousand new homes a lot more than ~900? Yes, absolutely.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Insulting the handicapped now? A new low for you.

Yes, I'm sure the towers resulting from these theoretical towers will produce an abundance of affordable housing. Just asked your buddy Joo Kim Tiah on ho to get 'er done.

Originally Posted by chowhou

So you admit it.

It's exchanges like this, that make this forum an embarrassment now .

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, the viewcones shouldn't be untouchable, but they're much less touchable than either of the above; again, you're not just fighting the NIMBYs, you're fighting the NIMBYs and moderate YIMBYs for the sake of a few hundred units.
And as history shows, by the time Council's gotten one or two large-scale density motions approved, it's time for the next election. So AFAIK, A) yes, it is an either/or situation, and B) in that light, it's probably better to pick the option that gets us more bang for the buck.

Will upzoning one corridor or all RS-1 solve housing on its own? No. Is 10-30 thousand new homes a lot more than ~900? Yes, absolutely.

Judging by the fact that both the view cones are being put forward for review and the multiplex proposal was passed, it seems objectively not an either/or situation with this city council.

I'm pretty sure you're both on the same page or at least reading the same book here; I think we all agree if viewcones were deregulated there is some amount of density which would be achieved which would certainly not hurt housing affordability and would help slow the rate of housing appreciation in Vancouver. I think the disconnect is Spr0ckets is arguing on a fundamental values level, where the policy ought to be changed regardless of how effective the change would be while Migrant_Coconut is trying to argue from a political efficacy where political goodwill might be better spent elsewhere. I think both can be true here, we should always be pushing for the most effective strategies, but as the saying goes, perfect (policy) is the enemy of good (policy). If it's a change in the right direction it's a good change.

Originally Posted by scryer

It's exchanges like this, that make this forum an embarrassment now .

You're not any better, I remember your embarassing Strathcona Park natural environment rant.