EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

My vague understanding of Vancouver's city charter made is "untouchable" in a sense, to direct zoning intervention.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

My vague understanding of Vancouver's city charter made is "untouchable" in a sense, to direct zoning intervention.

Well if the Vancouver Charter makes direct zoning intervention untouchable... simply touch the Vancouver Charter!

Bill 44 - 2023 (the legislation we've been talking about) significantly amends the Vancouver Charter to allow the province to directly intervene in Vancouver zoning.

Specifically:

28 The following section is added to Division (1) of Part XXVII:
Limits on use of this Part and Part XXVIII

559.01 The following powers must not be exercised in a manner that unreasonably prohibits or restricts the use or density of use required to be permitted under section 565.03 [zoning by-laws and small-scale multi-family housing]:

(a) a power in relation to a by-law or permit under Division (3) [Zoning] of this Part;

(b) a power in relation to a heritage alteration permit, as defined in section 575 [definitions];

(c) a power under section 596A [designation of heritage conservation areas].

30 The following sections are added:
Zoning by-laws and small-scale multi-family housing

565.03 (1) In this section:

"manufactured home zone" means a district or zone in respect of which the only permitted residential use is for manufactured homes as defined in section 673 [definitions in relation to Part 17] of the Local Government Act;

"restricted zone" means,

(a) for the purposes of subsection (3), a district or zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to detached one-family dwellings, and

(b) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), a district or zone in respect of which the permitted residential use would, but for this section, be restricted to

(i) detached one-family dwellings,

(ii) detached one-family dwellings with one additional housing unit located within the detached one-family dwelling or on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the detached one-family dwelling is located,

(iii) duplexes, or

(iv) duplexes with one additional housing unit located within each dwelling comprising the duplex or no more than 2 additional housing units on the same parcel or parcels of land on which the duplex is located,

but does not include a manufactured home zone.

(2) Subject to an exemption under section 565.04 or set out in the regulations, a zoning by-law adopted on or after June 30, 2024 must permit the use of land, the use of land covered by water and the use of buildings, and the density of use, required under this section to be permitted.

(3) The Council must exercise the powers referred to in section 565 [zoning by-law] to permit the use and density of use necessary to accommodate one or both of the following on land within a restricted zone:

(a) at least one additional housing unit within a detached dwelling that would otherwise be a one-family dwelling;

(b) at least one additional housing unit within another building on the same parcel or parcels of land on which a detached one-family dwelling is located.

(4) The Council must exercise the powers referred to in section 565 to permit the use and density of use necessary to accommodate at least the prescribed number of housing units on the following land within a restricted zone:

(a) each parcel of land wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established by a regional growth strategy applicable to the city;

(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply, each parcel of land wholly or partly within an urban containment boundary established by a development plan.

(5) Despite subsection (4), the minimum number of housing units that must be permitted by the Council on a parcel of land referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) is the greater number prescribed for the purposes of this subsection if the parcel of land is

(a) wholly or partly within a prescribed distance from a bus stop in relation to which the prescribed requirements are met, and

(b) at least the prescribed size.

(6) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes regulations respecting the siting, height, bulk, location, size or type of housing unit required to be permitted under this section, the Council must exercise the powers referred to in section 565 in accordance with those regulations.

(7) In developing or adopting a zoning by-law to permit the use and density of use required under this section to be permitted, the Council must consider applicable guidelines, if any, under section 565.07 [provincial policy guidelines related to small-scale multi-family housing].

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Well if the Vancouver Charter makes direct zoning intervention untouchable... simply touch the Vancouver Charter!

Solid update. Highly appreciated!

[scottN]

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.

There are plenty of 25x120 ft lots in east vancouver and some even shallower on blocks with no laneways. Victoria drive between Venables and Broadway has many such shallow lots.

[chowhou]

Nothing is stopping the housing minister. No man, no machine, no apparatus. He cannot be stopped.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2023HOUS0063-001748

The proposed legislation will require municipalities to designate Transit Oriented Development Areas (TOD Areas) near transit hubs. These TOD Areas are defined as land within 800 metres of a rapid transit station (e.g., SkyTrain station) and within 400 metres of a bus exchange where passengers transfer from one route to another (e.g., Newton Bus Exchange in Surrey).

In these designated TOD Areas, municipalities will be required to:

permit housing developments that meet provincial standards for allowable height and density. The minimum allowable height and density is based on tiers – at its highest in the centre of the TOD Area – and will differ based on the type of transit hub (SkyTrain stop/bus exchange) and a municipality’s size, population and location. Note: A full list of intended allowable standards is available in a backgrounder.
remove restrictive parking minimums and allow for parking to be determined by need and demand on a project-by-project basis.
utilize standards and details in the provincial policy manual to provide consistency in the approach to developing TOD Areas.

Municipalities will still be able to require builders and developers to add parking to accommodate people living with disabilities. Commercial parking requirements will not be affected within TOD Areas. Builders and developers will be able to build as much parking as desired for a project but will not be required to meet a minimum standard of parking units.

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 approximately 100,000 new units in TOD Areas in B.C. during the next 10 years.

To support the legislation, the Province will create a provincial policy manual to support municipalities with setting their site standards and moving forward with proposed housing projects.

Following the release of regulations and the policy manual in December 2023, the lands that local governments have designated for transit-oriented growth in their official community plans will be immediately captured under the new minimum allowable density requirements included in the legislation.

For the remaining TOD Areas that require local government designation, municipalities will have until June 30, 2024, to designate these areas (pending regulation). It is expected that approximately 100 TOD Areas will be designated in approximately 30 municipalities throughout B.C. within the first year of the new legislation coming into effect.

Where a local government’s current zoning allows for less density than the new provincial minimum, the new increased minimum density must be allowed by the local government. However, local governments can approve higher density at their discretion.

This proposed legislation will advance alongside the proposed small-scale, multi-unit housing legislation (SSMU). While SSMU will add increased density near transit stops, TOD Areas that have higher density will take precedence over SSMU zoning should they overlap.

Policy Framework



^ This is the level of density every Skytrain should have allowed from the get go. I feel like I'm dreaming, minimum 5.0 FSR next to Nanaimo Station? Next to 22nd St. Station? Kootenay Loop? Dunbar Loop? Park Royal?? All to be zoned by next year.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by chowhou

^ This is the level of density every Skytrain should have allowed from the get go. I feel like I'm dreaming, minimum 5.0 FSR next to Nanaimo Station? Next to 22nd St. Station? Kootenay Loop? Park Royal?? All to be zoned by next year.

The bus exchanges upzoning in Metro Vancouver is the real game changer. That would seem to include Kootenay Loop, Dunbar Loop, Steveston Exchange, and a number of other bus exchanges currently surrounded by one- or two-storey strip malls.

[whatnext]

Just political posturing and pissing into the wind by the NDP. If the market's dead no developer is going to build. This does nothing to change that.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Nothing is stopping the housing minister. No man, no machine, no apparatus. He cannot be stopped.



^ This is the level of density every Skytrain should have allowed from the get go. I feel like I'm dreaming, minimum 5.0 FSR next to Nanaimo Station? Next to 22nd St. Station? Kootenay Loop? Dunbar Loop? Park Royal?? All to be zoned by next year.

Damn, not effing around here. I live in a SFH area that's within 800m of Patterson so this will be pretty transformative and I'm totally for it even if it means I might live next to an 8 story tower (hopefully we can get some corner stores with it).

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Just political posturing and pissing into the wind by the NDP. If the market's dead no developer is going to build. This does nothing to change that.

Quit being so optimistic!

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Quit being so optimistic!

If they want to get housing built, then they have to build it or offer worthwhile incentives on a large scale to private developers. Turn over provincial land to do it.

This is typical NDP stuff: 'we'll just mandate it and the private sector will have to do it". Capitalism doesn't work that way.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If they want to get housing built, then they have to build it or offer worthwhile incentives on a large scale to private developers. Turn over provincial land to do it.

This is typical NDP stuff: 'we'll just mandate it and the private sector will have to do it". Capitalism doesn't work that way.

This is literally the exact opposite of "typical NDP stuff". This is bog standard neoliberal "deregulate it and they will come" supply side economics. How are you this ideologically poisoned?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Just political posturing and pissing into the wind by the NDP. If the market's dead no developer is going to build. This does nothing to change that.

Really? The market is dead?

Here's nine month (Q1-Q3) annual CMHC Housing starts data for Metro Vancouver for the past decade.

2014 14,641
2015 15,236
2016 22,096
2017 18,025
2018 18,055
2019 22,229
2020 16,179
2021 20,486
2022 18,357
2023 25,217

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Really? The market is dead?

Here's nine month (Q1-Q3) annual CMHC Housing starts data for Metro Vancouver for the past decade.

2014 14,641
2015 15,236
2016 22,096
2017 18,025
2018 18,055
2019 22,229
2020 16,179
2021 20,486
2022 18,357
2023 25,217

The market is dead. Two of my rental towers is put on pause 'till next year to apply because the Owner wants to focus on the other 10 high-rise Rezoning applications in Vancouver! /s

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The market is dead. Two of my rental towers is put on pause 'till next year to apply because the Owner wants to focus on the other 10 high-rise Rezoning applications in Vancouver! /s

Stop, you're breaking ChangingCity's heart.

[idunno]

This is huge, and anyone who says it isn't is dead wrong! This kind of blanket rezoning has been unimaginable for the past 50 years.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Stop, you're breaking ChangingCity's heart.

Huh? I'll happily count the ten rezonings (and two more later).

I'm still unsure how the Minister's pronouncement on eliminating public hearings, and having a non-negotiated bonus payment, will work in Vancouver. I'm guessing the City isn't sure yet, either, although the legislation references the Vancouver Charter, so those commentators who thought the new rules didn't apply to Vancouver are probably wrong. I suspect that several projects will pause and review how much more they might want to develop. Not a great time to have let the Director of Planning go.

It doesn't look as if there's much difference between the Broadway Plan and the proposed regulations, so any projects allowed by that plan might not slow down. There are a few other plans that will have a very different permitted density though, all over BC.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

. I suspect that several projects will pause and review how much more they might want to develop.

Ironically, this legislation and the SSMU legislation might actually chill out small-medium scale developments for the next two years as developers consider their options going forward and wait for the blanket rezonings.

[Sheba]

I haven't seen this posted here - B.C. tables new bill to cut down on homebuilding delays

Provincial Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon tabled new legislation Tuesday that aspires to cut back on homebuilding construction times and simplify the process for accessing funds for critical services, infrastructure, and more.

If passed, the legislation would require local governments to shift their planning processes to an upfront framework, pre-zoning land to meet their housing needs and reducing the current use of the rezoning process.

As it stands, the Housing Ministry says some rapidly-growing municipalities use the rezoning process to negotiate with homebuilders for funding much-needed amenities.

“I’ve heard about homebuilders and municipalities getting caught in long-drawn-out negotiations or funding for amenities in some of our growing communities,” Kahlon explained at a Tuesday press conference.

“This can slow down construction, it can add additional and sometimes unexpected costs for many projects, and sometimes projects are no longer viable because of that.”

The bill would also create a new amenity cost charge tool that would give builders and municipalities a more transparent understanding of the costs associated with a housing project from the get-go.

...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

This is typical NDP stuff: 'we'll just mandate it and the private sector will have to do it". Capitalism doesn't work that way.

The last five years show that every developer and their grandmother is already chomping at the bit to build 20+ at every SkyTrain station. This just makes it official.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I haven't seen this posted here - B.C. tables new bill to cut down on homebuilding delays

The note on the legislation is here. In the past there has been some criticism of using DCCs, and DCLs. Now the provincial government is proposing ACCs (Amenity cost charges) that allow the municipalities to identify in advance what payments will be expected through a bylaw. That should cut out the project-by-project negotiations. I think Vancouver already has something like that approach in the Cambie Corridor and Broadway plans.