EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[Migrant_Coconut]

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!

Burnaby (among others) was already floating a laneway plan, but was scared of upsetting the NIMBYs; Vancouver already has laneways and is trying to get multiplexes approved. This isn't an overreach, more of a fast-track and bypass.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by 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

Very interesting development.

Surrey for example has lots sizes ranging from 8000 to 10 000 sq feet (give or take). Assuming FSR 1 like the Vancouver plan, you get 6 large family sized homes - 1330 to 1660 sq feet each. Compare that to the CoV, where the largest lots are only 6000 sq feet (mainly).

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

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.

Yes, and they voted just 12 months ago for those municipal council members. Much more recently than the federal ones.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

Very interesting development.

Surrey for example has lots sizes ranging from 8000 to 10 000 sq feet (give or take). Assuming FSR 1 like the Vancouver plan, you get 6 large family sized homes - 1330 to 1660 sq feet each. Compare that to the CoV, where the largest lots are only 6000 sq feet (mainly).

I just realised it actually goes further than the Vancouver multiplex plan; It requires six-plexes "within a prescribed distance to transit stops with frequent service, in selected areas", which I assume in Metro Vancouver means at the very least every Skytrain station, probably most RapidBus stops, and possibly even FTN stops; which is pretty much all of the City of Vancouver.

Surely for six-plexes on standard Vancouver lots they must be requiring 1.2 FSR?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I just realised it actually goes further than the Vancouver multiplex plan; It requires six-plexes "within a prescribed distance to transit stops with frequent service, in selected areas", which I assume in Metro Vancouver means at the very least every Skytrain station, probably most RapidBus stops, and possibly even FTN stops; which is pretty much all of the City of Vancouver.

Surely for six-plexes on standard Vancouver lots they must be requiring 1.2 FSR?

There's going to be a policy manual that "will be released immediately after the SSMU regulations are released to support local governments in implementing the required bylaw changes. The manual will set clear provincial expectations in terms of setbacks, height restrictions, parking and lot coverage."

The briefing also says

"Some local governments have introduced similar or aligned policies to the SSMU proposed legislation (Victoria/Vancouver/Kelowna/Kimberley).

In communities/neighbourhoods that have already adapted SSMU zoning changes to single-family and duplex lots, existing bylaws would remain.

Municipalities with current SSMU zoning bylaws can adopt provincial site standards on setbacks, height restrictions, parking and lot coverage provided in the policy manual."

So Vancouver won't have to revisit their policy, unless they choose to do so. It's perfectly possible to build a 6 unit apartment building with 500 sf 1-bed apartments at 1 FSR on a standard 33ft Vancouver lot, but not really possible to provide more than four family-sized apartments.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

So Vancouver won't have to revisit their policy, unless they choose to do so. It's perfectly possible to build a 6 unit apartment building with 500 sf 1-bed apartments at 1 FSR on a standard 33ft Vancouver lot, but not really possible to provide more than four family-sized apartments.

Possible? Yes. Legal? Not in the adopted Vancouver Multiplex plan. Vancouver aligns with the SSMU bylaw requirement but does not align with the multiplex bylaw requirement.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Possible? Yes. Legal? Not in the adopted Vancouver Multiplex plan. Vancouver aligns with the SSMU bylaw requirement but does not align with the multiplex bylaw requirement.

Until the policy manual is published in December, it won't be clear how much of Metro Vancouver will be affected. It will depend on how "close to transit stops with frequent service" is defined. And the details on height, setbacks etc will imply density - but nothing so far published seems to define what "small-scale, multi-unit homes" are, and whether a 6-plex of apartments would meet the requirements.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Until the policy manual is published in December, it won't be clear how much of Metro Vancouver will be affected. It will depend on how "close to transit stops with frequent service" is defined. And the details on height, setbacks etc will imply density - but nothing so far published seems to define what "small-scale, multi-unit homes" are, and whether a 6-plex of apartments would meet the requirements.

https://twitter.com/talktoaryze/status/1719876242151993406?s=61&t=zXvJ_bvSXhopdfiLWHf3kA

Apparently bus service with a 15 min frequency qualifies as frequent which would make pretty mean all of Vancouver and much of Burnaby falls under this grouping. This is pretty exciting for Burnaby as the lots are big enough that even if they keep current FSR that you can still build 6 decent sized units on most lots and family sized units on a good number (I live near Patterson and there are many 10000sf lots nearby).

[logan5]

Originally Posted by ecbin

https://twitter.com/talktoaryze/status/1719876242151993406?s=61&t=zXvJ_bvSXhopdfiLWHf3kA

Apparently bus service with a 15 min frequency qualifies as frequent which would make pretty mean all of Vancouver and much of Burnaby falls under this grouping. This is pretty exciting for Burnaby as the lots are big enough that even if they keep current FSR that you can still build 6 decent sized units on most lots and family sized units on a good number (I live near Patterson and there are many 10000sf lots nearby).

I haven’t looked but I’m pretty sure most routes in Surrey and the rest of Metro Vancouver have 15 minute service or better. The majority of Metri Vancouver would qualify for the 6 unit option.

EDIT - bus frequencies in the suburbs are terrible. There are still some arterials that have 2 routes running along them that would qualify as frequent service, plus Skytrain stations where there is likely an 800 meter radius. Maybe change the definition of "frequent". A 10 000 sq foot lot is plenty for a 6 unit multi-plex. What difference does bus frequency make?

[logan5]

I wonder how difficult it would be for a homeowner to finance a multi-plex project on their own. It seems like a very low risk bank loan, as the new units are guaranteed to sell.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yes, and they voted just 12 months ago for those municipal council members. Much more recently than the federal ones.

I think you misunderstood what I said.

Mike Hurley and his council are doing exactly what his voters want by focusing density in Town Centres and leaving SFH neighbourhoods as-is. He is representing his NIMBY supporters perfectly.

This is why it is necessary for a more senior level of government to step into housing regulations, because local leaders are only incentivized to do what their current voters want - voters who are more often than not NIMBY homeowners. On the other hand, the federal Liberals will be the only ones to blame if increased immigration leads to worsening affordability crisis. Local leaders can always blame Ottawa for not doing enough to prepare for population growth and change while keeping their SFH neighbourhoods untouched for decades.

[GlassCity]

Here's TransLink's Frequent Transit Network map (based on minimum 15-minute headways): https://www.translink.ca/-/media/transli...network/frequent_transit_network_map.pdf.

The Provincial announcement didn't specify what would count as "frequent" or "close to", but the language of the actual bill itself (https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-busi...ment/4th-session/bills/progress-of-bills) specifically refers to buses. The 15-minute definition is the most common and is my current prediction for what they'll go with. Regarding "close to", the technical briefing (https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/Housing_Tech_Brief_Nov_01_2023.pdf) released with the announcement says parking requirements will be eliminated for these "small-scale multi-unit" projects (SSMUs) within 400 metres of frequent transit and will be "decreased" for projects closer to frequent transit, which implies that there will be a standard parking rate for projects far from frequent transit and something in-between for those close but not 400m close - I'm guessing that means lots within 800m would be allowed to go up to the 6 units.

Very impressed they chose 280 sq m lot size as the threshold between 3 units and 4 units - that's much smaller than I was expecting ahead of this announcement and opens the vast majority of urban lots across BC to 4 units.

Will be very interesting to see once the regulations and policy manual is released for more details. I saw a rumour that 1.5 FSR was being looked at for this - that would be huge if true, and could create ripple effects beyond those of the policy language as it already stands.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

... On the other hand, the federal Liberals will be the only ones to blame if increased immigration leads to worsening affordability crisis. Local leaders can always blame Ottawa for not doing enough to prepare for population growth and change while keeping their SFH neighbourhoods untouched for decades.

Exactly. The feds blame the cities while worsening the supply problem, and the cities blame the feds while worsening the demand problem. "Pass the buck" is basically Canada's second national sport.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think you misunderstood what I said.

Mike Hurley and his council are doing exactly what his voters want by focusing density in Town Centres and leaving SFH neighbourhoods as-is. He is representing his NIMBY supporters perfectly.

This is why it is necessary for a more senior level of government to step into housing regulations, because local leaders are only incentivized to do what their current voters want - voters who are more often than not NIMBY homeowners. On the other hand, the federal Liberals will be the only ones to blame if increased immigration leads to worsening affordability crisis. Local leaders can always blame Ottawa for not doing enough to prepare for population growth and change while keeping their SFH neighbourhoods untouched for decades.

So you’re faulting Hurly for doing what Burnaby voters democratically elected him to do . Got it.

Meanwhile you endorse the Federal gov’ts decision to trample on municipal powers while they do nothing to stop the huge unaffordability crisis they have spawned directly through their direct area of responsibility- immigration. One would have thought if the Trudeau Liberals were planning to bring in a million people a year (which they didn’t campaign on, so who voted for that) they would have used their extensive land holdings to ensure there was adequate housing.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So you’re faulting Hurly for doing what Burnaby voters democratically elected him to do . Got it.

Meanwhile you endorse the Federal gov’ts decision to trample on municipal powers while they do nothing to stop the huge unaffordability crisis they have spawned directly through their direct area of responsibility- immigration. One would have thought if the Trudeau Liberals were planning to bring in a million people a year (which they didn’t campaign on, so who voted for that) they would have used their extensive land holdings to ensure there was adequate housing.

Yeah, sort of. Just because it's more advantageous politically to ignore long-term considerations or residents who don't or can't vote doesn't mean it's good leadership. I just watched a video last night about Richard Daley leasing Chicago's parking meters to Morgan Stanley for 75 years to plug a budget hole. He won plenty of political points by avoiding a property tax hike but now the city can't add bike or bus lanes, take away parking spots during peak congestion hours, implement congestion pricing, or make curbside patios permanent. Catering to the people who put him in office meant that Daley kneecapped his city for decades to come.

Your "million people" figure is hyperbole, but I won't deny that immigration is a complicated issue. I will say that the government can't decided how many new residents to welcome based on available homes alone. There are a lot of other considerations, just like allowing more density isn't just a matter of housing more people. Cities also have to consider traffic, amenities, healthcare, schools, etc.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So you’re faulting Hurly for doing what Burnaby voters democratically elected him to do . Got it.

Meanwhile you endorse the Federal gov’ts decision to trample on municipal powers while they do nothing to stop the huge unaffordability crisis they have spawned directly through their direct area of responsibility- immigration. One would have thought if the Trudeau Liberals were planning to bring in a million people a year (which they didn’t campaign on, so who voted for that) they would have used their extensive land holdings to ensure there was adequate housing.

What Federal gov’ts decision to trample on municipal powers?

Minister Fraser asked Metro mayors to delay tripling DCC charges on development. A majority of the votes at the Metro Board approved the charges anyway (including for rental developments). That might mean some, or all Metro municipalities don't get Federal Housing Accelerator funds in future, but we don't know the outcome yet. No powerrs were trampled that I can see.

[chowhou]

Don't they teach reading comprehension in school? The federal government has nothing to do with the provincial housing legislation introduced yesterday.

We elect municipal governments to oversee local issues, and we elect provincial governments to oversee provincial issues and oversee municipal governments.

Even the Americans with their "states' rights" do not have the insane idea to have "municipal rights"; We live in one province and it is 100% the government's job to intervene in lower jurisdictions to fix the bad things happening. We cannot allow misbehaving municipalities to block or harm the critical infrastructure of our province and housing is every bit as critical as electricity or water. Imagine if Fort St. John was allowed the leeway to decide whether Site C was built, or Delta had the power to decide whether the Port of Vancouver was allowed to expand RBT, or West Vancouver and Whiterock were allowed to close down the railroads, or Surrey was allowed to close Peace Arch.

Housing policy handled at a municipal level has been a race to the bottom for too long, it's high time the provincial government stepped up and did something about it.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Here's TransLink's Frequent Transit Network map (based on minimum 15-minute headways): https://www.translink.ca/-/media/transli...network/frequent_transit_network_map.pdf.

The Provincial announcement didn't specify what would count as "frequent" or "close to", but the language of the actual bill itself (https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-busi...ment/4th-session/bills/progress-of-bills) specifically refers to buses. The 15-minute definition is the most common and is my current prediction for what they'll go with. Regarding "close to", the technical briefing (https://news.gov.bc.ca/files/Housing_Tech_Brief_Nov_01_2023.pdf) released with the announcement says parking requirements will be eliminated for these "small-scale multi-unit" projects (SSMUs) within 400 metres of frequent transit and will be "decreased" for projects closer to frequent transit, which implies that there will be a standard parking rate for projects far from frequent transit and something in-between for those close but not 400m close - I'm guessing that means lots within 800m would be allowed to go up to the 6 units.

Very impressed they chose 280 sq m lot size as the threshold between 3 units and 4 units - that's much smaller than I was expecting ahead of this announcement and opens the vast majority of urban lots across BC to 4 units.

Will be very interesting to see once the regulations and policy manual is released for more details. I saw a rumour that 1.5 FSR was being looked at for this - that would be huge if true, and could create ripple effects beyond those of the policy language as it already stands.

Yeah the 280 sq m lot size threshold is much smaller than I thought they would go with. I am a huge support of legalising multiplexes but even I will concede that for lots under 280 sq m it is going to be difficult to get even 3 reasonably sized units without a large FAR

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by bardak

Yeah the 280 sq m lot size threshold is much smaller than I thought they would go with. I am a huge support of legalising multiplexes but even I will concede that for lots under 280 sq m it is going to be difficult to get even 3 reasonably sized units without a large FAR

I'm not even sure where to find 280sqm lots (besides the crazy outliers like the Jack Chow Insurance building). A standard Vancouver 33x120 ft lot (which is small by BC standards) is 4000sqft or 370sqm, so you'd have to find a lot 25% smaller.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm not even sure where to find 280sqm lots (besides the crazy outliers like the Jack Chow Insurance building). A standard Vancouver 33x120 ft lot (which is small by BC standards) is 4000sqft or 370sqm, so you'd have to find a lot 25% smaller.

Smallest single lot development we've done is about 324 sm and we got a total of 7 nice units, mostly 2-bed+

Forgot we're also just starting to plan a roughly 300 sm site for 7 units. Both of these are in Vancouver proper.