EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet those ones were obviously built to last. As were the Norse ones half a world away where earthquakes were much less of a thing.

Any structural engineer would laugh in the face of someone saying, "they chose wood because they expect it to be knocked down in an earthquake."

[Migrant_Coconut]

In fact, modern engineers marvel at Japanese wood construction's intentional resilience to earthquakes:

• Video Link

[Sheba]

I debated where to post this - ‘New wave of building’ in Vancouver comes as mayor makes plans to focus on more homes

The mayor of Vancouver set out a foundation on Wednesday to address the housing crisis in the city, while reducing barriers to building and streamlining regulations.

Ken Sim released a seven-point motion going before council that would direct city staff to prioritize new housing construction, allow for increased density around transit hubs, speed up a plan for 26 villages in the city and increase enforcement of short-term rental regulations.

“There’s an affordability crisis going on in the city of Vancouver,” he said. “And we have a supply and demand imbalance in the city of Vancouver, and how we address that over the longer term is we build more housing.”

The mayor said residents should expect to see more “bold motions” coming from council in the upcoming weeks to cut delays for building more homes.

...

[GenWhy?]

"The proposed motion would make changes across a number of fronts:

- Accelerating the implementation of the 26 Village Areas outlined in the Vancouver Plan to facilitate the construction of to1;vnhouses, multiplex buildings, and mixed-use low-rise buildings between 3-6 storeys;

- Exploring the steps and measures to harmonize and otherwise align the Vancouver Building By-law (CBO) with the BC Building Code (BCBC), which governs how new construction, building alterations, repairs and demolitions are completed, for a more rapid delivery of housing in the City of Vancouver;

- Reviewing the City's Shado'l.lv Impact Criteria and Guidelines;

- Explore opportunities to expand and improve the City's Certified Professional {CP} program to more efficiently and effectively deliver a 'l.lvide range of housing;

- Increasing the maximum allowable floor plate size for residential towers in order to allow, for greater design flexibility to unlock additional housing units;

- Exploring opportunities to increase housing density through the rezoning of lands in proximity to the city's underdeveloped SkyTrain stations, such as Nanaimo Station, 29th Avenue Station, Renfrew Station, and Rupert Station; and,

- Working with senior levels of government to express the City's support for increased Provincial Short Term Rental enforcement.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

(laughs dismissively in Japanese)

Yeah, mostly re-builts, and something Canada can never afford anyway. At least the Japanese have high savings rate.

But laugh away....

Raze, Rebuild, Repeat: why Japan knocks down its houses after 30 years
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/...0most%20of,within%2020%20or%2030%20years.

By The Guardian

[Migrant_Coconut]

It's the 1400 year-old original, actually. And you're moving your goalposts again.

Originally Posted by Vin

Just don't build with so much wood, especially for multi-family dwellings. That is the secret.

Horyuji is definitely the size of a multifamily building, and is obviously of a higher quality than a Sixties prefab.

[s211]

Of late, I've come to believe the name of this thread should be changed slightly.

Can the mods please insert the word "less" before affordable?

[Sheba]

An interesting blurb I came across in an article about missing middle housing in Ontario:

The problem, though, is that fourplexes are illegal to build in most of Canada, McKellar notes.

“The City of Toronto banned these kinds of multiplex units in 1929,” he said. “And so, we got stuck with single-family housing.”

Whitzman added: “Zoning came in in the 1920s, so it has a century of use in Canada. They were made much stricter in terms of suburban redevelopment from about the 1960s and 1970s onward. So now, you’re talking about one or two generations that really can’t imagine any other (kind of) development happening.”

This, experts like Whitzman believe, entrenched the idea of an ideal Canadian home in the minds of many – a single-family home in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a lawn and a backyard.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It's the 1400 year-old original, actually. And you're moving your goalposts again.

Horyuji is definitely the size of a multifamily building, and is obviously of a higher quality than a Sixties prefab.

Are you saying that most housing made of wood in Japan are 1400 years old? I'm not the one moving goalposts, you are.


What whatnext said:

Originally Posted by whatnext

So many Japanese buildings are built in wood precisely because of its impermanence. When an earthquake knocks it down you scrap it and start again.

Your reply:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yet those ones were obviously built to last. As were the Norse ones half a world away where earthquakes were much less of a thing.

Sounds like you are implying that most Japanese buildings are made of wood and are 1400 years old, when that doesn't make any cow sense at all. You can't use the example of one or two Japanese temples made of 1400 year-old wood to say that all homes made of wood are made to last. So if the old pagoda is made to last, why aren't all wood house in Japan made this way? Sure, if you have money growing on trees. Truth is, most economical woodframe homes built in modern times are just shitty.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Are you saying that most housing made of wood in Japan are 1400 years old? I'm not the one moving goalposts, you are.


What whatnext said:


Your reply:


Sounds like you are implying that most Japanese buildings are made of wood and are 1400 years old, when that doesn't make any cow sense at all.

"Yet those ones," i.e. those specific Japanese wooden temples are up to 1400 years old, the opposite of impermanent - just as old as many of the Roman or Mayan buildings you claimed only lasted because they're "not wood." Try and keep up.

If you're going to wait eleven days to make such a weak comeback, just take the L, keep quiet and save yourself the embarrassment.

[officedweller]

City of Vancouver to repeal up to 72 community and land use plans

Note the severely outdated 1987 SkyTrain Station Area Plans finally being repealed.

In order to turn the framework of the Vancouver Plan into a legally applicable strategy, City of Vancouver staff are recommending the repeal of up to 72 old community plans and land use guidelines dating as far back as the 1970s.
...

Here is the full list of 72 community plans and land use strategies proposed for repeal:

1995: CityPlan
2005: Arbutus Ridge/ Kerrisdale/Shaughnessy Community Vision
1996: Cedar Cottage MC-1/ Welwyn Street Planning Policies
1998: Cedar Cottage MC-1/ Welwyn Street Planning Policies
2004: Hastings-Sunrise Community Vision
1987: Joyce Station Area Plan
1998: Kensington-Cedar Cottage Community Vision
2004: Kingsway-Knight Neighbourhood Centre Housing Area Plan; Kingsway-Knight Neighbourhood Centre Shopping Area Public Realm and Pedestrian/Traffic Improvements Plan
1987: Nanaimo/29th Avenue Station Areas Plan
2004: Renfrew-Collingwood Community Vision
2005: Riley Park/South Cambie Community Vision
2002: Sunset Community Vision
2002: Victoria-Fraserview/ Killarney Community Vision
2010: West Point Grey Community Vision
1990: Coal Harbour Policy Statement
1988: False Creek Policy Broadsheets
1990: Triangle West Policies
1979: Agricultural Land Reserve Policies
1995: Downtown District Low Cost Housing Policies and Procedures
1996: Brewery Creek IC-3, C3A, C-2C and RM-4/4N Guidelines
1999: 1400 West Hastings & Pender Street Guidelines
1980: Fraser Street C-2 Guidelines
1995: 605-645 West Eighth Avenue C-3A Guidelines
1995: 1054 – 1098 Robson Street CD-1 Guidelines (Bylaw No. 7381) (CD1 No. 331)
1990: North Fraser Landing CD-1 Guidelines (1800- 2100 East Kent Avenue South)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (28th Avenue and Kaslo Street Site) (Bylaw No. 6315)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (29th Avenue at ALRT Station) (Bylaw No. 6317)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Earles Street and 29th Avenue Site) (Bylaw No. 6318)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Kaslo Street-End Site) (Bylaw No. 6361)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Kings Avenue and Manor Street Site) (Bylaw No. 6319)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Kings Avenue and Rupert Street Site) (Bylaw No. 6320)
1988: 29th Avenue Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Slocan Street and 29th Avenue Site) (Bylaw No. 6316)
1998: 598 Taylor Street CD-1 Guidelines (Phase 2B – Block 17)
1997: 5299 Arbutus Street CD-1 Guidelines (Bylaw No. 7705) (CD-1 No. 371)
1996: 901 – 967 and 940 – 990 Seymour Street CD-1 Guidelines
1986: Angus West CD-1 Design Guidelines (Bylaw No. 6063) (Cd-1 No. 184)
1994: Arbutus/Vine Industrial Area CD-1 Guidelines
1989: Fraser Lands Champlain Heights South CD-1 Guidelines (Bylaw No. 5381 & 6537)
1990: Champlain Heights South CD-1 Guidelines (Sub-Area 1, Church Site) (Bylaw No. 5381)
1989: Commercial Drive “East Lane” CD-1 Guidelines
2000: Commercial Station CD1 Guidelines
1989: Fraser Lands CD-1 Guidelines (Blocks 68 and 69)
1988: Joyce Station Area CD1 Guidelines (3450 Wellington Avenue Site) Bylaw No. 6325
1993: Joyce/Vanness CD-1 Guidelines (Bylaw No. 7204) (CD-1 No. 314)
1988: Joyce Station Area CD1 Guidelines (McHardy and Vanness Avenue North Site) (Bylaw No. 6363)
1987: Joyce Station Area Guidelines for Sites A and B (CD-1 Bylaw No. 6272)
1988: Joyce Station Area CD1 Guidelines (Vanness Avenue and McHardy Street Site) (Bylaw No. 6321)
1988: Joyce Station Area CD1 Guidelines (Vanness Avenue and Spencer Street S
1988: Nanaimo Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Kamloops Street and 24th Avenue Site) (Bylaw No. 6312)
1988: Nanaimo Station Area CD-1 Guidelines (Nanaimo Street and 26th Avenue Site) (Bylaw No. 6313)
1983: Riverside Design CD-1 Guidelines
1988: Mount Pleasant I-1 Guidelines
1980: M-1B Guidelines
1989: Britannia/Woodland RM-4 and RM-4N Guidelines
1987: Broadway Station Area RM-4 & RM-4N Guidelines
1984: Fairview Heights RM-4 Guidelines
1987: Hudson Street RM-4 Guidelines
1988: Joyce Street RM-4N Guidelines
1988: Kitsilano RM-4 Guidelines
1983: Marpole Triangle RM-4 Guidelines
1990: Mount Pleasant RM-4 Guidelines
1996: Arcade Guidelines
1976: Parking Garage Security Guidelines
1988: Joyce Station Area Guidelines for CD-1 Bylaw No. 6323 Ormidale Street and Vanness Avenue Site
2015: Passive House Guidelines for RS-1
1983: Special Needs Residential Facility Guidelines
1987: Broadway Station Area Plan
2004: Downtown District Interim Policies for New Residential in Areas C and F; and Conversion of Existing Office Space to Residential Use
1980: Kerrisdale RS Districts Rezoning Policy
1979: Marpole Policies and Guidelines
1989: RM-3, RM-5, RM-5A, RM-5B, RM-5C, and RM-6 Multiple Dwelling Guidelines
1982: Port of Vancouver City Policies

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-community-vision-land-use-plans-repeal

[chowhou]

It sounds like a lot but for the most part it seems it's just removing redundant/outdated plans that already have replacement plans.

[logan5]

I don't understand the point of repeal here. What's the purpose of this? Some of those old plans have already been replaced with the Broadway Plan, and other newer plans.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

I don't understand the point of repeal here. What's the purpose of this? Some of those old plans have already been replaced with the Broadway Plan, and other newer plans.

Just bookkeeping I think.

[Migrant_Coconut]

^ This. AFAIK the old plans are outdated, BUT still legally binding (they also cover many NIMBY neighbourhoods) so it’d be a good idea to not have the Vancouver Plan stalled by technicalities and frivolous lawsuits.

[Changing City]

I'm not sure which thread to park these recent policy decisions, but this one will do.

In the Provincial legislature, the government functionally passed its short-term rental legislation. None of the BC United amendments passed.

and at the Metro Vancouver board meeting, they decided to ignore the Federal Minister of Housing request to delay increasing DCCs to pay for infrascture on new housing development. They voted 82-58 to go ahead with the increases, which will be phased in starting in 2025, and finishing in Jan 2027. A Vancouver apartment will see its Metro Vancouver DCCs rise from $6,249 per unit to $20,906. More than tripling in a 3 year span. A Vancouver townhouse will have even more substantial increases, going from $8,679 per unit to $30,861. The Vancouver councillors voted to accept a one-year delay; Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond voted to reject it.

It'll be interesting to see how the minister responds: it's possible Housing Accelerator funds won't be available to municipalities that supported the increase, or even to the whole of Metro Vancouver. He already postponed giving $43-million to Burnaby and about $95-million for Surrey.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Something to think about (if true):

Metro Vancouver's urban planning considerations need to prioritize urban economics, says renowned planner


When it comes to how cities should be planned, it all comes down to urban economics.

That was the core message internationally renowned urban planner Alain Bertaud had to share when he recently visited Vancouver upon being invited by former mayor Sam Sullivan...

...There are four general commuting trip patterns to explain how the labour market functions, he says.

The monocentric model has one big core where all the jobs and opportunities are located. Cities that have a monocentric pattern are generally smaller metropolitan areas with about a million residents, such as Calgary and Edmonton. It can be easier to build a public transit network as while the origin of trips is dispersed, the jobs are concentrated.

Metropolitan regions like Los Angeles and Atlanta — known for having a large geographical area with sprawling low-density uses, and very weak city centre densities — have the dispersed model. With both the origin and destination of trips being dispersed, it is difficult to serve such regions with public transit.

According to Bertaud, Metro Vancouver is the composite model, where there is a strong primary city centre (downtown Vancouver and Central Broadway), but many jobs are also dispersed elsewhere in the region. This is a product of the various officially regionally designated secondary city centres and town centres, such as Brentwood, Metrotown, Richmond City Centre, Lougheed Town Centre, and Lonsdale, with many of these areas well served by major public transit services.

Under the composite model, he says, cities that begin with a high concentration in the core see their jobs disperse over time for reasons such as rising land costs in the central city.

But he says the composite model comes short of the highly contemporary concept of the fourth model — the urban village model, where there is no longer a single strong primary labour market but rather numerous equally sized urban cores. This is also more commonly referred to as “The 15 Minute City,” which Bertaud ridicules as being a pure fantasy.

Simply put, he says, The 15 Minute City does not exist in real life. And if it does, that means the urban region’s labour market is highly fragmented and therefore incredibly unproductive.

“It means you do not have a labour market anymore, you have 20 labour markets,” he later said at an event. “We have a lot of flying carpets in urban planning. It sounds wonderful but in the long run, it never works...”

tl;dr - Apparently, further decentralization isn't going to work. But obviously further centralization won't either, because we've already tried that... so, what now?

[chowhou]

Pretty massive news out of the blue this afternoon.

Seems the province is going to require all BC munis over 5k pop to adopt the Vancouver mutliplex plan.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023PREM0062-001706

The Province is introducing new housing legislation to deliver more small-scale, multi-unit housing for people, including townhomes, triplexes and laneway homes, and fix outdated zoning rules to help build more homes faster.

“Anyone looking for a place to live in a community they love knows how hard it is – and outdated zoning rules are making that even harder,” said Premier David Eby. “Constructing mostly high-rise condo towers or single-family homes means B.C. isn’t building enough small-scale multi-unit homes that fit into existing neighbourhoods and give people more housing options that are within reach. That’s why we’re taking action to fix zoning problems and deliver more homes for people, faster.”

Historical zoning rules in many B.C. communities have led most new housing to be built mostly in the form of condos, or single-family homes that are out of reach for many people, leaving a shortage of options for the types of housing in between. Zoning barriers and layers of regulations have also slowed down the delivery of housing, making people go through long, complicated processes to build much-needed housing in communities.

“The housing crisis has made it harder for growing families looking for more space, seniors looking to downsize, and first-time homebuyers who can’t find a home that meets their needs and budget,” said Ravi Kahlon, Minister of Housing. “This legislation strengthens the vibrancy of our communities, while building the type of housing that will help us address the housing crisis.”

The proposed legislation and forthcoming regulations will permit one secondary suite or one laneway home (accessory dwelling unit) in all communities throughout B.C.

In most areas within municipalities of more than 5,000 people, these changes will also require bylaws to allow for:

three to four units permitted on lots currently zoned for single-family or duplex use, depending on lot size;
six units permitted on larger lots currently zoned for single-family or duplex use and close to transit stops with frequent service.

Municipalities covered by the legislation may permit additional density if desired, but cannot have bylaws that allow for fewer permitted units than the provincial legislation.

The legislation will also speed up local housing development approvals, by shifting local planning and zoning processes to happen up front. It will require municipalities throughout B.C. to expedite and streamline permitting by updating community plans and zoning bylaws on a regular basis, to ensure that they have enough housing to meet the needs of both their current and future residents. This will help create more certainty for both community members and home builders.

New proposed changes will also phase out one-off public hearings for rezonings for housing projects that are consistent and aligned with the official community plans. Instead, there will be more frequent opportunities for people to be involved in shaping their communities earlier in the process when official community plans are updated.

Modelling future scenarios cannot account for unforeseen circumstances, the changing nature of housing, real estate markets and other factors, but preliminary analysis indicates the province could see more than 130,000 new small-scale multi-unit homes in B.C. during the next 10 years. Other jurisdictions have had great success using similar policies to deliver more small-scale multi-unit homes faster. Auckland, N.Z. made similar changes in 2016. Research has shown these actions have led to the creation of more than 20,000 additional new homes over five years.

To support implementation, the Province will continue to provide local governments with resources to speed up approval processes, including the recently announced $51 million to support local governments in meeting the new density zoning requirements, and $10 million for the Local Government Development Approvals Program.

Additional legislation to support delivery of housing, support transit-oriented development, and help communities provide much-needed infrastructure, amenities and more certainty for projects will be introduced in the coming weeks. This legislation is part of the Province’s Homes for People action plan. Announced in spring 2023, the plan builds on historic action to deliver housing since 2017, and sets out further actions to deliver the homes people need faster, while creating more vibrant communities throughout B.C.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

... at the Metro Vancouver board meeting, they decided to ignore the Federal Minister of Housing request to delay increasing DCCs to pay for infrascture on new housing development. They voted 82-58 to go ahead with the increases, which will be phased in starting in 2025, and finishing in Jan 2027. A Vancouver apartment will see its Metro Vancouver DCCs rise from $6,249 per unit to $20,906. More than tripling in a 3 year span. A Vancouver townhouse will have even more substantial increases, going from $8,679 per unit to $30,861. The Vancouver councillors voted to accept a one-year delay; Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond voted to reject it.

It'll be interesting to see how the minister responds: it's possible Housing Accelerator funds won't be available to municipalities that supported the increase, or even to the whole of Metro Vancouver. He already postponed giving $43-million to Burnaby and about $95-million for Surrey.

Gee, why would locally elected politicians and staff think they know more about running their metro area than some federal political hack from thousands of kilometres away? The nerve!

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gee, why would locally elected politicians and staff think they know more about running their metro area than some federal political hack from thousands of kilometres away? The nerve!

It's unlikely they know more, but they are incentivized differently. A Burnaby voter can't very well impact Minister Hussen's re-election chances, but they can definitely choose to elect different City Council members next election.