EcoDensity: making Vancouver sustainable, livable, affordable

[GenWhy?]

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.

The Socialist Party?!

What kind of a socialist trys to unlock a free market approach to housing and unlocking millions of private real-estate development potential?

Killarney and Fraserview and both captured in the multiplex plan and the Secured Market Rental Policy. They are also subject to change as a part of the upcoming Villages plans. And since ABC wants to move a BRT line off 49th Ave and onto East Hastings first, well then why push extra density into this corner without transit improvements?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

We'll never know because anything else except mansions are illegal in this area. It's not worth the effort to do a proforma.

Your optimism is astounding.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

Have you ever heard of a land assembly? It's where a developer buys more than one lot to combine them into a big lot to build apartments or townhouses. They happen all the time and developers pay just as much as a Shaughnessy property for less land. The only thing stopping developers from doing the same thing in Shaughnessy is the ban on apartments and townhouses. In fact, it would be much easier in Shaughnessy because instead of buying land from multiple sellers, you might only need to buy one lot!

Hope you learned something! I used simple words for you.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

Is that insurance fraud of a burned-out house still there?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

So build the unaffordable housing in Shaughnessy and have all the speculators, money launderers and social climbers move into those instead of jacking up the rates of a more affordable place somewhere else.

Even you have to admit that forcing affordable high density out into Killarney or Fraserview (for the sake of an untouchable mansion-only district right next to downtown, no less) is pants-on-head stupid. Unless you already live in Shaughnessy, this isn't ABC protecting your house - this is ABC gatekeeping the house that you'd like to eventually have, for the sake of a few dozen donors.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

So build the unaffordable housing in Shaughnessy and have all the speculators, money launderers and social climbers move into those instead of jacking up the rates of a more affordable place somewhere else.

Even you have to admit that forcing affordable high density out into Killarney or Fraserview (for the sake of an untouchable mansion-only district right next to downtown, no less) is pants-on-head stupid. Unless you already live in Shaughnessy, this isn't ABC protecting your house - this is ABC gatekeeping the house that you'd like to eventually have, for the sake of a few dozen donors.

Exactly I have so many Clients that this area would be perfect for them to buy in, if they were looking for me housing, rather than them buying in the Cambie Corridor on the busy-— road.

Some well designed, expensive, good exterior finish and roomy townhomes (freehold maybe even) they would love here. Something like Shannon Mews.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Is that insurance fraud of a burned-out house still there?

If you're referring to 3737 Angus it was sadly, but not surprisingly, demolished. Perhaps ChangingCity could give some more detail:

Shaughnessy heritage home demolished years after fire
Kerry Gold
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 25, 2022
FOR SUBSCRIBERS

One of the earliest heritage houses in Vancouver’s Shaughnessy neighbourhood has been demolished, the conclusion to a long-running battle between homeowner and the city after the empty house caught fire five years ago.

Rounsefell House at 3737 Angus Dr., a “Heritage-A” listed structure that had been protected within the heritage conservation district of First Shaughnessy, is now a pile of rubble. It had caught on fire after sitting vacant for several years. Owners Miao Fei Pan and his wife, Wen Huan Yang, hadn’t lived in the house, but had plans to renovate the 10,000-square-foot Tudor home, which they purchased in 2012.

The owners prior to Mr. Pan had done extensive restoration to the house while protecting its unique woodwork and craftsmanship. Well-known architects Samuel Maclure and Cecil Fox designed the house in 1910, and it was one of the few remaining original Shaughnessy manors.

But in late October, 2017 a major fire broke out in the upper floor. The fire was deemed suspicious and Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services eventually confirmed

that it had been “maliciously set.” But no charges have ever been laid.

The fire left a large hole in the roof, and about 40 per cent of the house was destroyed. On Nov. 1, 2017, a week after the fire, the city ordered that steps be taken to preserve the property.

The order stated that the owners had to maintain the building to “reasonably prevent further damage caused by weather, infestation, rot or similar decay.”

In an e-mail, the city said the owners and their contractors assured them the work would be completed.

However, the hole was not covered and the interior remained exposed to the elements for more than a year, to the chagrin of heritage advocates and fans of the house. It had been part of heritage consultant John Atkin’s Shaughnessy walking tours.

The destruction of an important heritage home occurred because it had sat empty for far too long, Mr. Atkin says. He says that if the owner had taken immediate steps to repair the house, it could have been salvaged and restored.....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-est...ritage-home-demolished-years-after-fire/

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

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

This is the real reason to push for a Arbutus street car and 41st Skytrain line, to nibble at the edges of Shaughnessy by building 20-storey towers all along its edge. And maybe a BRT route on Granville to drive towers right down the neighbourhood's heart

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

You can't, it's illegal silly. That's the whole point.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by whatnext

If you're referring to 3737 Angus it was sadly, but not surprisingly, demolished. Perhaps ChangingCity could give some more detail:

Yeah I need more context on that. It was clear they were looking to redevelop the plot for years but the city was having none of it. The building catches on fire and they city tells them to clean it up because it's a listed property and the owner is liable for repairs.
Now it's gone through a demolition permit I have no idea how that would of been approved and I'm guessing the city is still fighting "Mr. Pan" because even though he's not gotten through any of the existing red tape, he's still managed to get his way up to now.

[GlassCity]

I'm getting nervous about the three bills (44 SSMU, 46 Financing, & 47 TOD) given that there are only 4 days left in this session of the legislature. Any experts on Provincial legislative procedures here with insight on how they might still be able to get this done? I've been following the daily "agendas", debates, etc. very closely and Bill 44 alone has been going very slowly.

In reading through the transcripts and stuff though, I have found some interesting nuggets:

• Province is looking into additional parkland acquisition tools
• Municipalities may still be able to use rental-tenure zoning under these new "minimum maximum" densities.

This adds both clarity and confusion to the language in the bills themselves: municipalities will not be able to deny an application due to density, height, or parking per the legislation, but may still be able to impose other requirements, which of course may have an effect on the viability of the development in the first place. Hopefully more specific direction is provided on this in the regulations and Policy Manual.

I'm too lazy to post the screenshots of this info, but if you search for "park" at the following link, you can see the opposition's questions and the minister's responses on this: https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/deb.../4th-session/20231122pm-CommitteeA-Blues

Same with "rental" at this one: https://www.leg.bc.ca/documents-data/deb.../4th-session/20231123pm-CommitteeA-Blues

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm getting nervous about the three bills (44 SSMU, 46 Financing, & 47 TOD) given that there are only 4 days left in this session of the legislature. Any experts on Provincial legislative procedures here with insight on how they might still be able to get this done? I've been following the daily "agendas", debates, etc. very closely and Bill 44 alone has been going very slowly.

Who says the 4th session ends in December? Typically yearly sessions run from February to February, so there's lots of time left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Parliament_of_British_Columbia

[GlassCity]

^ I'm going from the Parliamentary Calendar, which shows the last day of this session on November 30: https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/parliamentary-calendar

My anxiety has been calmed by the debate today though, where the opposition accused the government of extending the session to be able to push these bills through, which is probably exactly what'll happen. They already extended every session this week til 9PM.

[jollyburger]

The B.C. government is proposing changes to the provincial building code to allow for tall wood buildings to be built up to 18 storeys high in B.C.

That’s an increase from the current 12-storey limit.

The B.C. government is trying to promote the increased use of engineered wood products by promoting more construction with mass timber.

It announced plans today to amend the BC Building and Fire Codes to increase the height limits on wood buildings to up to 18 storeys. The government is hoping to see the use of mass timber in more building types, including schools, shopping centres and industrial facilities.

https://biv.com/article/2023/12/bc-proposes-increase-height-tall-wood-buildings

[Sheba]

I'm not sure which thread to post this in - Liberals to revive ‘war-time housing’ blueprints in bid to speed up builds

Nearly 80 years after it was first brought in, Global News has learned the federal government is reviving a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) program to provide standardized housing blueprints to builders, according to a senior government source.

Housing Minister Sean Fraser will announce Tuesday the Liberal government will hold consultations on how the relaunched program will function. The senior government source tells Global News blueprints of various building types and sizes will be made available by the end of 2024.

Pre-approved housing plans are anticipated to cut down on the building timeline by having projects move through the municipal zoning and permitting process more quickly.

...

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

https://biv.com/article/2023/12/bc-proposes-increase-height-tall-wood-buildings

Very cool. Once builders and developers get used to mass timber it could open up a lot of opportunities.

[idunno]

Sean Fraser and Ravi Kahlon really putting in the work these days!

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Very cool. Once builders and developers get used to mass timber it could open up a lot of opportunities.

Unfortunately it's not really a major cost savings, it may grow but at this point it's still marginal.

Wood will take off if the code dictates lower embedded carbon, until then it will likely remain a niche application.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Unfortunately it's not really a major cost savings, it may grow but at this point it's still marginal.

Wood will take off if the code dictates lower embedded carbon, until then it will likely remain a niche application.

Yeah that's the sense I've had, but I also feel there's some reluctance to go outside the tried and true, which I hope will dissipate gradually as those niche applications add up. By opportunities I'm mainly thinking of lands with poor weight-bearing soils.

[jollyburger]

Apartment buildings with only one stairwell: The answer to B.C. housing woes?

For years, North American building codes have required apartment buildings to have two staircases that can be used as exits in case of a fire.

Some housing observers wonder if this has been hindering our ability to build more and varied styles of housing.

Article content
The B.C. government is now looking into relaxing requirements so that apartments taller than two storeys and, likely, shorter than six storeys can be built with just one staircase as in many European countries. It will spend the next year exploring possible changes to the B.C. Building Code as it studies ways to support more cost-effective and more-efficient construction.

Article content
Seattle has allowed single staircases in multi-family buildings since the late 1970s when it also mandated new fire safety measures such as installing sprinklers.

Interest in single-staircase buildings has picked up in the last few years, and this year, a bill legalizing these in buildings up to five storeys across Washington state was passed in the state Senate, according to Michael Eliason, founder of Seattle-brd Larch Lab.

“We have some of the same issues you do with large, tall towers next to detached, single-family home areas. These (single-staircase) buildings allow for something in between,” said Eliason, who wrote a 2022 report for the City of Vancouver touting “small-lot multi-family housing.”

Uytae Lee, who sits on B.C. Housing’s board of directors, runs a popular video channel about city issues. He recently produced one about single staircases entitled “Why North America can’t build nice apartments (because of one rule).”

“What I ended up thinking about was: What would be the way we framed this kind of a change, especially in the Vancouver context?” said Lee.

His video highlighted regulations in Canada where apartment buildings taller than two storeys are required to have two staircases, usually on opposite sides of a building and separated by long, narrow hallways on each floor. In Europe and elsewhere, many buildings have a single, central atrium or stairwell. This arrangement allows for more variety in floor plans, larger units and greater numbers of windows within units.

They might also allow developers to build more units on smaller sites, which could curb the need to assemble several larger plots of land and deal with expensive carrying costs associated with waiting years for sales to be completed, said Lee.

His video about how the current building code in North America is getting in the way of housing solutions comes as Urbanarium, a non-profit society made up of architects, landscape architects, planners and other professionals, is launching a contest called “decoding density.” It’s asking people to submit proposals for updating building codes that could improve the design of six-storey-plus wood-frame structures.

Article content
“We would like for the public to appreciate that the apartment buildings that are going to start appearing in their neighbourhoods don’t need to be simple boxes that fail to optimize the value of their site but rather benefit from and contribute to their communities,” Marta Farevaag, the co-chair of the contest, said in a news release.

Charles Montgomery, co-founder of the urban planning, design and research consulting firm Happy Cities, says a change by the province could not only improve the financial feasibility of smaller apartment buildings with different kinds of units, but also improve the way residents interact in them.

“If you care about creating neighbourhoods that have a human scale, that feel cosy, where neighbours are connected with one another, you should be jumping for joy that the province will be enabling the construction of single-staircase residential buildings in B.C.”

He said current regulations force the building of huge, long apartment buildings with “double-loaded corridors.”

“They feel like hotels. You walk into the corridor and they’re lonely places, alienating, and they’re kind of anti-social.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/could-allo...irwell-be-the-answer-to-our-housing-woes