EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Lesson learned if they (and other NIMBYs) accepted a few dense towers we might not have been forced into this situation.

[Changing City]

Here's a 2 FSR 5 storey Cambie project. It was submitted very recently, but it appears that in theory it could be up to 8 storeys and 3 FSR after new zoning rules are established (which, if the legislation passes unchanged would be by June next year). I wonder if they'll keep going with this DP, or wait and go for something bigger?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by 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

I had thought about making a map like this myself but I wasn't sure how. Meanwhile Josh is out here doing god's work.

Two observations:
1. I love that there will now be a swatch of low- to mid-density housing permitted about four blocks wide on either side of the Skytrain through the inner suburbs and along the Fraser Highway. If all of these lots were built to the Province's max density, that would be serve as an incredible 'spine' of walkable, transit-orientated housing across most of the Metro Vancouver region. And I imagine we will see cities start to form 'ribs' too as they upzone arterials with major bus routes (Willingdon, Knight, 120 Street, KGB, 200 Street, etc.).
2. It looks like the multi-family building on Collingwood Place is now the least of the Southlands NIMBYs' concerns now that half that street and every street to the north of it has been upzoned thanks to the Dunbar Loop

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Here's a 2 FSR 5 storey Cambie project. It was submitted very recently, but it appears that in theory it could be up to 8 storeys and 3 FSR after new zoning rules are established (which, if the legislation passes unchanged would be by June next year). I wonder if they'll keep going with this DP, or wait and go for something bigger?

I thought I read cities will have to start changing their OCPs by June 2024 and have them enacted by June 2025? I could very easily be wrong - too much info in the last day.

[whatnext]

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?

Oh come now. Assuming that because one changed the legislation developers will automatically build is classic NDP. As GenWhy has pointed out lots of projects are being pulled back due to market conditions and costs. So these changes do nothing to address the housing shortage now, when it is needed.

Why would anyone expect a government led by the former head of Pivot Legal to have a clue about how business works? But as one can see, the yappy YIMBYs fall for it. Political mission accomplished.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why would anyone expect a government led by the former head of Pivot Legal to have a clue about how business works? But as one can see, the yappy YIMBYs fall for it. Political mission accomplished.

Compared to Kevin Falcon who is arguing that owners should be allowed to AirBNB their properties, but not redevelop to something more dense and profitable? Total clown show.

I don't hate BC United but get your act together and form a viable opposition FFS.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

... As GenWhy has pointed out lots of projects are being pulled back due to market conditions and costs...

This? The "/s" stands for "sarcasm."

As other posters have observed, there's still too much demand for the market to stay down for good.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Compared to Kevin Falcon who is arguing that owners should be allowed to AirBNB their properties, but not redevelop to something more dense and profitable? Total clown show.

I don't hate BC United but get your act together and form a viable opposition FFS.

Absolutely, BC United is a mess and the NDP will be re-elected because of it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This? The "/s" stands for "sarcasm."

As other posters have observed, there's still too much demand for the market to stay down for good.

If developers can't afford to build and people can't afford to buy then nothing will get built. And if you're thinking the BoC will then have to ride to the rescue and cut rates, well, that will just fuel inflation as the Loonie sinks vs the USD. Real estate addiction has led us into a very bad economic place that will be hard to get out of.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If developers can't afford to build and people can't afford to buy then nothing will get built...

The latter can be partially addressed with non-market units. The former isn't a thing for anybody but Westbank; what GenWhy actually said is that they have to cut back because they have TOO many projects.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If developers can't afford to build and people can't afford to buy then nothing will get built. And if you're thinking the BoC will then have to ride to the rescue and cut rates, well, that will just fuel inflation as the Loonie sinks vs the USD. Real estate addiction has led us into a very bad economic place that will be hard to get out of.

You seem to forget that housing includes rental units. In the City of Vancouver, 50% of the housing starts in 2021 were rental. Last year it was 54%. So far this year, it's 59%, (and the number of units being built is greater every year too).

In Vancouver there are a lot more rental projects recently approved under the new Secured Rental policy, and several really sizeable projects underway that were condo, and will now be rental in the West End, and the Broadway Plan projects proposed have so far all been rental too. And there are several more non-market rental buildings still to start construction Downtown, and in the DTES, with BC Housing providing provincial funding.

There's been federal loan funding support for some market rental projects across the region, and the enhanced GST Rental Rebate (from 36% to 100%) will make rental more attractive. There's also BC Housing grant and loan funding for affordable rental projects.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If developers can't afford to build and people can't afford to buy then nothing will get built. And if you're thinking the BoC will then have to ride to the rescue and cut rates, well, that will just fuel inflation as the Loonie sinks vs the USD. Real estate addiction has led us into a very bad economic place that will be hard to get out of.

A lot of the issues have been the artificial height limits and FSR. Building is possible, if we are allowed to respond in real time for what works. A 4-storey condo that worked yesterday and doesn't today, won't magically work tomorrow. It'll need to be taller. Hence why the Broadway Plan works at 17-20 storeys instead of what it was previously.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Oh come now. Assuming that because one changed the legislation developers will automatically build is classic NDP.

The NDP just relaxed artificial restrictions. Probably a more conservative / libertarian / free market policy. All about allowing more choices. This is great for spreading out opportunity, decreasing scarcity

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by 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

Is there a confirmed specific definition of what "a bus exchange where passengers transfer from one route to another (e.g., Newton Bus Exchange in Surrey)" means exactly? It feels extremely odd to me that a "bus exchange" like Capilano University where two busses meet (245 and 255) and absolutely no one is transferring is being considered a development zone, but an intersection like 4th and Macdonald where seven unique busses meet including two express busses and some of the highest ridership busses in the system (2, 4, 7, 14, 22, 44, and 84) isn't being considered.

Other "bus exchange adjacent" intersections which feel weirdly excluded are Knight and Marine (22, 80, 100, 405, 407, 430), Imperial and Patterson (31, 49, 116, 146, 147, 430), and most RapidBus/99 stops, especially the R4, R5, and 99.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Is there a confirmed specific definition of what "a bus exchange where passengers transfer from one route to another (e.g., Newton Bus Exchange in Surrey)" means exactly? It feels extremely odd to me that a "bus exchange" like Capilano University where two busses meet (245 and 255) and absolutely no one is transferring is being considered a development zone, but an intersection like 4th and Macdonald where seven unique busses meet including two express busses and some of the highest ridership busses in the system (2, 4, 7, 14, 22, 44, and 84) isn't being considered.

Other "bus exchange adjacent" intersections which feel weirdly excluded are Knight and Marine (22, 80, 100, 405, 407, 430), Imperial and Patterson (31, 49, 116, 146, 147, 430), and most RapidBus/99 stops, especially the R4, R5, and 99.

I'm guessing that the map represents Messmer's opinion regarding which zoning will apply and where rather than an absolute. Messmer does say (on Twitter) that there is "still ambiguity about what counts as what so: you can decide what transit counts and in what category (Rapid or Exchange)".

[Migrant_Coconut]

Good news:

City Council approves abolishing minimum parking requirements in Vancouver's central areas

...The expansion of the policy will come into effect on January 1, 2024, and specifically target vehicle parking requirements for general uses. The changes will not impact the required number of stalls for accessible parking and visitor parking.

“This is part of ensuring that we don’t have an oversupply of parking. I think that having an arbitrary minimum did not provide the flexibility for the market to build,” said ABC councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung during the meeting...

And I would apologize to ABC, if they hadn't done this right after:

ABC kills "badly needed" motion to densify Vancouver's Shaughnessy

... Councillors Boyle, Pete Fry and Adriane Carr voted in favour of the motion. All others, including Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim, voted in opposition except for Peter Meiszner, who was absent.

Those in opposition used similar language, with most suggesting the motion was “divisive.”

Speaking on the motion during Wednesday’s council meeting, Councillor Lenny Zhou called the motion “purely political” and “purely divisive” before saying he was voting in opposition.

Councillor Brian Montague called the motion “nonsensical” and a “distraction for staff.”

“I don’t think it’s practical, I don’t think it’s going to provide any actual density,” he added.

Councillor Mike Klassen called on some of the language used by those in favour of the motion, like “the wealthy few” and “referencing billionaires,” suggesting that language is being used to drive “other objectives rather than actually housing.”

Rebecca Bligh questioned, “Is this purely to divide the city?”

“I’m not here to divide certain areas up, to pit groups one against the other,” Bligh continued.

Carr, who supported the motion, pointed out that Vancouver is land-constrained, and the motion would not influence the protected heritage of Shaughnessy, which some were concerned about.

Fry suggested that historically, many homes in Shaughnessy, due to their size, were defacto apartments that had been converted into single-family homes.

He also said there’s a clear capacity for more people there and that it’s a beautiful neighbourhood, adding that it’s a “sensible enough motion.”

Fry also said that densifying the neighbourhood could have brought more shops and services.

Boyle pointed out that the neighbourhood’s population has decreased in recent years and said the motion would’ve brought “badly needed” housing to Shaughnessy. She took to X to express her disappointment after the motion was killed, saying, “So much for taking the housing crisis seriously...”

So rezoning Shaughnessy is too controversial and won't add much housing... but ditching the viewcones is different? Interesting.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So rezoning Shaughnessy is too controversial and won't add much housing... but ditching the viewcones is different? Interesting.

Is it really worth pushing for this when the province has already made it clear that Shaughnessy (even the so called "First Shaughnessy") must go through an OCP and rezoning process to allow at least four unit construction by 2025? I understand they may have drafted this motion before Nov 1st, but proposing it after bill 44 was tabled doesn't really seem that useful.

Bill 44 should even strip the heritage conservation area status of First Shaugnessey according to my reading of the bill which is way more of an accomplishment than this motion is requesting.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good news:

And I would apologize to ABC, if they hadn't done this right after:

So rezoning Shaughnessy is too controversial and won't add much housing... but ditching the viewcones is different? Interesting.

Boyle's sad attempt to scapegoat Shaughnessy homeowners was bound to fail. It was such a transparent attempt one has to wonder why she didn't join Sean Orr and run for the Socialist Party. The land costs in Shaughnessy are such that nothing built there would be "affordable". Funny she didn't champion knocking down the houses in Killarney or Fraserview which have much lower land costs and are architectural dreck that nobody would miss. There you might get some actual affordable homes out of the exercise.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Boyle's sad attempt to scapegoat Shaughnessy homeowners was bound to fail. It was such a transparent attempt one has to wonder why she didn't join Sean Orr and run for the Socialist Party. The land costs in Shaughnessy are such that nothing built there would be "affordable". Funny she didn't champion knocking down the houses in Killarney or Fraserview which have much lower land costs and are architectural dreck that nobody would miss. There you might get some actual affordable homes out of the exercise.

Shaughnessy actually has some of the lowest $/sqm land in the CoV. But naturally as always you didn't think before you pressed that funny little submit button.

Map of $/sqm in the CoV (2021 numbers)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Shaughnessy actually has some of the lowest $/sqm land in the CoV. But naturally as always you didn't think before you pressed that funny little submit button.

Map of $/sqm in the CoV (2021 numbers)

LOL, call us when you build your affordable missing muddle in Shaughnessy.