EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

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.

Surely your FSR must be at least 2 then?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Surely your FSR must be at least 2 then?

Holy cow... just looking at it now - it is not! Both are 1.45 FSR.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Surely your FSR must be at least 2 then?

The majority of lots in Strathcona are 25' wide, and 122' deep. That's 3,050 sf, which is 283 sm. From E Hastings to the north side of Union is 400m, so assuming some of the bus routes on E Hastings meet the definition of 'frequent transit' then most of those could theoretically get a 6-plex. If the #22 on Prior is frequent transit, then all of Strathcona could be developed that way.

There are 6-plexes already existing on 25' lots, but they're all small self contained 1-bed rental units with the building looking like a big house on 3 floors, at, or under 1.0 FSR. That was what I was referring to when I said it's perfectly possible to have a 6-plex on 280 sm - they already exist. I haven't seen anything in the proposed legislation that says the units have to be family sized, or what the densities might be.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Holy cow... just looking at it now - it is not! Both are 1.45 FSR.

Average unit size in the first is 67sqm and the second is 62sqm then. Not sure if that's my size of 2br+.

Hopefully the province's policy manual in December requires a higher FSR than that.

Originally Posted by Changing City

There are 6-plexes already existing on 25' lots, but they're all small self contained 1-bed rental units with the building looking like a big house on 3 floors, at, or under 1.0 FSR. That was what I was referring to when I said it's perfectly possible to have a 6-plex on 280 sm - they already exist. I haven't seen anything in the proposed legislation that says the units have to be family sized, or what the densities might be.

Respectfully, I don't think that's what you meant. Vancouver is still going to have to change their zoning again to permit these six-plexes and hopefully the province's policy manual will require a higher FSR for lots which will be six-plex zoned.

[ssiguy]

This is a VERY good start and one that was needed 30 years ago but better late than never.

As far as this being an overriding of municipalities, well the reality is that it is and that's a good thing. City Halls across the province have shown themselves over the last 50 years to be completely incompetent in introducing any form of urban zoning that would create a city for all income levels which starts with housing. The problem I have with the legislation is that it assumes the cities are willing to play ball. The legislation ALLOWS for higher density but doesn't FORCE it which we all know means the lower income areas with increase density and the higher incomes won't.

It also doesn't mention the massive problem we have in Surrey where literally thousands of SFH home have been torn down to be replaced with other monster SFHs. Within just a 10 block walk of myself in Cloverdale there are dozens of homes that have had this happen and it is continuing at a dizzying pace. In South Surrey, the number of housing pull downs for monster homes is numbing. This sends housing prices soaring as once potentially affordable homes are destroyed and the house for sale has absolutely no relevance as it is the land that matters. There should be a Metro-wide banning of selling a property that does not automatically require the new owner to, if they choice to tear down and replace, must have a density of at least quadruple of what it is now.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The province has already said they want a carrot and stick approach. Forcing density is all-stick and would likely encounter much stiffer resistance at the city level.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Average unit size in the first is 67sqm and the second is 62sqm then. Not sure if that's my size of 2br+.

Hopefully the province's policy manual in December requires a higher FSR than that.



Respectfully, I don't think that's what you meant. Vancouver is still going to have to change their zoning again to permit these six-plexes and hopefully the province's policy manual will require a higher FSR for lots which will be six-plex zoned.

It absolutely is what I meant, but you haven't seemed to understand because you're apparently only thinking of 2 bed units. You're hoping the policy manual will require a certain FSR, but there's nothing we've seen yet that says there will be a specific density. There will be reference to height, parking, setbacks and lot coverage. If 3 floors are allowed up to 50% of site coverage (with a 1m side setback) then the FSR could be 1.5. That could see average unit size of 69 sm. That could be three 2-bed, and three 1-bed, for example.

For comparison, the City of Vancouver now have 32 applications under the Secured Rental Policy, and the first 7 have DPs. The average (gross) size of unit in those projects is 62 sm. The requirement for family housing units (2-bed or more) in those projects is 35% of units.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It absolutely is what I meant.

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.

C'mon man, this is what you meant. Regardless of whether Vancouver adopts higher FSR or not, they will still have to revisit and rewrite their zoning policies because even Strathcona is simply not zoned to allow six-plexes (even if legacy ones exist).

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is a VERY good start and one that was needed 30 years ago but better late than never.

As far as this being an overriding of municipalities, well the reality is that it is and that's a good thing. City Halls across the province have shown themselves over the last 50 years to be completely incompetent in introducing any form of urban zoning that would create a city for all income levels which starts with housing. The problem I have with the legislation is that it assumes the cities are willing to play ball. The legislation ALLOWS for higher density but doesn't FORCE it which we all know means the lower income areas with increase density and the higher incomes won't.

The dream is that blanket higher density should be a turning point for developers to snatch up SFHs to build six-plexes before other developers can snatch up SFHs to build SFHs because they should be able to make a higher return on higher density project. It shouldn't matter whether or not the cities are willing to play ball if the province mandates a certain zoning and developers are given free reign to develop under those guidelines.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Average unit size in the first is 67sqm and the second is 62sqm then. Not sure if that's my size of 2br+.

Until land and construction prices come down dramatically I don't think you'll see many 2-bed over 720 sf.

We got a 860 sf 2-bed and 1,300 sf (ish) for a 3-bed for the large lot.

[GenWhy?]

Would also point out that going an average unit size isn't accurate.

In these small lot developments I'm describing there are studios, 1-beds, 2-beds and in the larger lot, 3-bed units.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Would also point out that going an average unit size isn't accurate.

In these small lot developments I'm describing there are studios, 1-beds, 2-beds and in the larger lot, 3-bed units.

You said mostly 2br+ so I assumed there weren't many studios or 1-brs. 860 sf seems a lot more reasonable for 2br.

[GenWhy?]

Also (though I might be reading some people's comments incorrectly) the latest Provincial changes will not affect Vancouver, directly.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

You said mostly 2br+ so I assumed there weren't many studios or 1-brs. 860 sf seems a lot more reasonable for 2br.

Well there is one 1-bed in the bigger lot and one 1-bed and a studio in the smaller lot.

860 is nice. It's all in the design / layout too. You can really get some great layouts when it's not a standard apartment building / only 1 stairwell and no elevator eating your FSR

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

C'mon man, this is what you meant. Regardless of whether Vancouver adopts higher FSR or not, they will still have to revisit and rewrite their zoning policies because even Strathcona is simply not zoned to allow six-plexes (even if legacy ones exist).

Sorry, it was confusing, but that was meant to refer to the fact that Vancouver aligns with the SSMU bylaw requirement, as you noted.

The multiplex potential seems to need a new blanket bylaw to cover the whole city, once it's confirmed which areas are covered (in terms of transit), and also what the setbacks/site coverage etc requirements will be. What densities, or unit mix might result is entirely unclear at this point. (GenWhy seems to think that Vancouver doesn't have to change anything though?)

[bardak]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Until land and construction prices come down dramatically I don't think you'll see many 2-bed over 720 sf.

We got a 860 sf 2-bed and 1,300 sf (ish) for a 3-bed for the large lot.

Yeah I'm in an 1100sf 3 bedroom condo and I find it pretty spacious all things considered. Sometimes I wish I could give up some of the living/dining room space to get a small office but the layout doesn't allow for that. If the layout was extremely efficient you could make n 800sf 3 bedroom condo very livable.

I think the biggest issue with 6-plexes is going to be accessibility. Do you wast a tone of space on stairs to have individual ground floor entrances or do you invest in an elevator and keep suits to a single floor.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by bardak

Yeah I'm in an 1100sf 3 bedroom condo and I find it pretty spacious all things considered. Sometimes I wish I could give up some of the living/dining room space to get a small office but the layout doesn't allow for that. If the layout was extremely efficient you could make n 800sf 3 bedroom condo very livable.

I think the biggest issue with 6-plexes is going to be accessibility. Do you wast a tone of space on stairs to have individual ground floor entrances or do you invest in an elevator and keep suits to a single floor.

Exactly and this is why I'm highly looking to Staff looking at Boyle's Motion to look at getting elevators exempt from FSR calculations. Frankly only living space should be counted towards FSR and just use the setback requirements they already have. We design the WORST apartment layouts because we run out of FSR due to required corridors, stairwells, elevator shafts...

The City can still request the "overall" areas to calculate DCC / DCL / CAC fee charges.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Also (though I might be reading some people's comments incorrectly) the latest Provincial changes will not affect Vancouver, directly.

I believe that is incorrect, the provincial change to zoning has 2 components:

1. A province wide legalisation of secondary suites + laneway houses

Vancouver will not be affected by this because secondary suites and laneway houses are already legalised across the CoV

2. A province wide legalisation of three plexes and four plexes (min 280sqm lot) in all municipalities >5000 within urban containment boundaries plus legalisation of six plexes near frequent transit (min 280sqm lot)

Vancouver will be affected by this because three, four, five, and six plexes have greater restrictions in R1-1 zoning. Three and four plexes in Vancouver require 306sqm lots, five plexes require 464sqm lots, and six plexes require a whopping 557sqm lot.

The legislation explicitly mentions that Vancouver as implementing "similar or aligned" zoning, but Vancouver clearly only aligns with the first component and not the second component.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Exactly and this is why I'm highly looking to Staff looking at Boyle's Motion to look at getting elevators exempt from FSR calculations. Frankly only living space should be counted towards FSR and just use the setback requirements they already have. We design the WORST apartment layouts because we run out of FSR due to required corridors, stairwells, elevator shafts...

The City can still request the "overall" areas to calculate DCC / DCL / CAC fee charges.

Cue every McMansion having an elevator.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Serious question: is an elevator even cost-effective in a two-floor detached home?!

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Serious question: is an elevator even cost-effective in a two-floor detached home?!

Be careful of asking questions you might not want the answer to!

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Serious question: is an elevator even cost-effective in a two-floor detached home?!

My answer is always: "let the market decide"