EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[logan5]

What does "Minimum Allowable Density/Up To 5.0 (FAR)" mean? Is 5.0 the minimum density or maximum density? The Daily Hive story makes it sound like those are the minimum FAR numbers.

And does this policy supercede all current land use policies?

[Migrant_Coconut]

99.99% sure that "minimum allowable" means "no density allowed under 5.0." Holy carp.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

99.99% sure that "minimum allowable" means "no density allowed under 5.0." Holy carp.

99.9% sure it does not mean that; 99.99% sure it will mean that the zoning bylaws at a minimum must allow 5.0 FAR (but may allow more).

[mcj]

Originally Posted by logan5

What does "Minimum Allowable Density/Up To 5.0 (FAR)" mean? Is 5.0 the minimum density or maximum density? The Daily Hive story makes it sound like those are the minimum FAR numbers.

And does this policy supercede all current land use policies?

From the BC gov press release here, go down all the way to the bottom:

In Type 1A (SkyTrain stations) in Metro Vancouver, it is intended that municipalities will be expected to permit residential developments in TOD Areas using the following density criteria:

• prescribed distance of 200 metres or less from a rapid-transit hub – minimum density up to 5.0 FAR, minimum height up to 20 storeys.
• prescribed distance of 201 metres to 400 metres from a rapid-transit hub – minimum density up to 4.0 FAR, minimum height up to 12 storeys.
• prescribed distance of 401 metres to 800 metres from a rapid-transit hub – minimum density up to 3.0 FAR, minimum height up to eight storeys.

The "up to" refers to the language that will be described by zoning bylaws after this is implemented it seems.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

99.99% sure that "minimum allowable" means "no density allowed under 5.0." Holy carp.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the province is planning to force a developer to build at that FAR if they don't want to, it is just that the zoning bylaws set by the city will have to permit the FAR to be at least that high?

[mcj]

Originally Posted by GMD

I could be wrong, but I don't think the province is planning to force a developer to build at that FAR if they don't want to, it is just that the zoning bylaws set by the city will have to permit the FAR to be at least that high?

Yes exactly. The zoning bylaw language will say "up to" x storeys + x FAR allowed on this parcel.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

99.99% sure that "minimum allowable" means "no density allowed under 5.0." Holy carp.

It means municipalities must have a plan in place that allows developers to build up to 5 FAR, and up to 20 stories, in locations within 200m of a transit station. Then 4 FAR in the next ring, between 200m and 400m, and 3 FAR between 400m and 800m. Municipalities can permit more density, but not less.

That has significant implications in some places, especially older stations that haven't been developed much, but it's not dramatically more density in some station locations covered by more recent plans like Cambie or Broadway, or along what was once called the Evergreen Line, for example.

I'm not sure it's a given that developers will chose to max out the allowable - if they're building wood frame they can only build 6 storeys under current regulations. Until the guidelines on setbacks etc are published, it won't be clear how it all works.

I also don't see anything about mixed use, or existing industrial or commercial zoning, which has been important in putting retail in new locations, and retaining industrial and office development.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I also don't see anything about mixed use, or existing industrial or commercial zoning, which has been important in putting retail in new locations, and retaining industrial and office development.

From the BC gov news release:

This will apply only to residential or mixed residential land use, meaning that properties that are zoned for commercial, agricultural (Agricultural Land Reserve) and industrial land uses will not apply. Federally regulated properties, such as the Vancouver International Airport, are exempt, as are First Nations reserve lands.

How much of the FAR and storeys allowed for commercial uses is TBD.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by GMD

I could be wrong, but I don't think the province is planning to force a developer to build at that FAR if they don't want to, it is just that the zoning bylaws set by the city will have to permit the FAR to be at least that high?

Originally Posted by mcj

Yes exactly.

OK cool. So the CoV could conceivably set FSR's way past 3.0 800 meters out from a Skytrain station if they wanted to, and ABC would likely do that.

Even at the minimums, this is just massive for the city of Vancouver. Developers are going to zero in on and prioritize every Skytrain station in Vancouver. And I wonder if this opens the door to rewriting the Broadway Corridor policy. The densities and height already meet the minimums here, but this could be an excuse to do something more. The densities around the stations are way too low imo.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by mcj

From the BC gov news release:


How much of the FAR and storeys allowed for commercial uses is TBD.

Thanks

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by logan5

OK cool. So the CoV could conceivably set FSR's way past 3.0 800 meters out from a Skytrain station if they wanted to, and ABC would likely do that.

Even at the minimums, this is just massive for the city of Vancouver. Developers are going to zero in on and prioritize every Skytrain station in Vancouver. And I wonder if this opens the door to rewriting the Broadway Corridor policy. The densities and height already meet the minimums here, but this could be an excuse to do something more. The densities around the stations are way too low imo.

Along these lines, I wonder about regulations that impose significant limitations on actually achieving these densities. For example, in the Broadway Plan you have rate of change regulation, strict rental protections, policies around how many towers on a block, height restrictions around the hospital for helicopter access, view cones. Even if the density entitlement in the zoning changes to 4 or 5 FSR there could be a significant number of sites that are unable to achieve the full density. Heritage Conservation Areas (eg. Shaughnessy) will be interesting in this regard as well.

[seamusmcduff]

Surrey also has standard per unit DCC rates based on the area.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by mcj

From the BC gov news release:


How much of the FAR and storeys allowed for commercial uses is TBD.

I think there's still some big questions here. Aside from if they'll allow mixed use as of right is commercial areas, what about all the residential zoned areas that will now have potentially thousands of units in them but dont currentlydl have commercial nearby? If all these areas are rezoned for residential only and there's no commercial nearby that wouldn't be great for walkability.

Will the province force cities to also allow commercial at grade in these areas? Will cities have the option to also require commercial in these newly upzoned areas? Will developers have to rezone anyways if they want commercial? Hopefully they've thought this out and have answers for these questions.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by rickvug

Along these lines, I wonder about regulations that impose significant limitations on actually achieving these densities. For example, in the Broadway Plan you have rate of change regulation, strict rental protections, policies around how many towers on a block, height restrictions around the hospital for helicopter access, view cones. Even if the density entitlement in the zoning changes to 4 or 5 FSR there could be a significant number of sites that are unable to achieve the full density. Heritage Conservation Areas (eg. Shaughnessy) will be interesting in this regard as well.

Councillor Boyle is already after Shaughnessy.

I think the FSR under the helicopter flightpath will be fine. 888 West Broadway was nearly at 7.00 FSR. The limit on the number of towers on the block might have to be dropped, but the rate of change idea has already been toasted.

[logan5]

I imagine the folks that fought tooth and nail over the Safeway proposal in Grandview Woodlands must be disappointed. This will add a lot more height and density to the area around Broadway/Commercial Station.

[giallo]

I'd like to see the housing minister go even further, and zone rapid transit interchanges like Commercial/Broadway Station with even higher allowable densities. It's stations like C/B that are the most convenient and easily accessible in the region, therefore they should have the most housing, office and retail options built around them

[bardak]

So somebody on Reddit created a map of the rezonings. Other than categoriesing the WCE I think it has everything. Pretty massive impact.

https://rpubs.com/joshmessmer/1110999

[logan5]

I didn’t see anything about what tenure is allowed. Strata allowed?

[Migrant_Coconut]

NIMBYs be like:

Originally Posted by bardak

... Other than categoriesing the WCE I think it has everything...

Does the WCE count as rapid transit if it's unidirectional, bi-hourly, only shows up 5x a day and keeps waiting behind all the freight trains?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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?

He's a westside SFH NIMBY who's about to get apartments built near him and he's stamping his feet.