General Vancouver Updates II

[GenWhy?]

"D. THAT in recognition of the significant public affection for Kits Pool, staff be
directed to engage with Park Board staff and report back by the end of July 2024
with a plan for consideration by Council and Park Board to establish a dedicated
fund for the public, corporate and philanthropic sectors to contribute and donate
to the capital costs of a new, modernized replacement pool, including plans for a
communications campaign to support the efforts to raise funds. "

Mayor Sim needs another audit. He might find a solution quicker than he thinks. He might also learn how things in the City are funded via this special tax I've heard so much about!

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The comment that there's no way that 22% of units could have 3 or more bedrooms is refreshingly direct.

The City's previous 10 year target of 72,000 units was, I thought, over ambitious, so pushing it up to 83,000 seems unwise. It seems to me to be a better to exceed 72,000 by a few thousand, (or just miss it), than fall short by many thousands. I wonder if the new number has a political, rather than a staff, source?

Did I miss anything?

Ya you missed the big blank area in the Housing Strategy update where solutions were supposed to be for all the things they won't achieve.

For instance if we can't meet a 22% 2-3 bed requirement, then what's the point of the 30% min for new development? Does it need a review? Do we need to look at what is and what is not working? What is restricting this? What would enable this and where?

They want to achieve 83k units but restrict height and FSR limits across great swaths of the City. Prioritize height and density in select areas that reduces competition and increases land costs for redevelopment.

They cannot achieve their below-market numbers handed down by the Province and don't offer a solution, and yet many options exist that are feasible but would mean more height and density.

It's a big fat joke.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Ya you missed the big blank area in the Housing Strategy update where solutions were supposed to be for all the things they won't achieve.

For instance if we can't meet a 22% 2-3 bed requirement, then what's the point of the 30% min for new development? Does it need a review? Do we need to look at what is and what is not working? What is restricting this? What would enable this and where?

They want to achieve 83k units but restrict height and FSR limits across great swaths of the City. Prioritize height and density in select areas that reduces competition and increases land costs for redevelopment.

They cannot achieve their below-market numbers handed down by the Province and don't offer a solution, and yet many options exist that are feasible but would mean more height and density.

It's a big fat joke.

The provincial target is for 18% 2-bed and 22% 3-bed. The City requires 25% 2-bed and 10% 3-bed, and they're anticipating they'll exceed those with 27% 2-bed and 14% 3-bed. So they think they can hit the overall 40% 2-3 bed requirement, but it won't have 22% 3-bed or more.

Presumably more height and density might help meet targets over a longer period, but would work against the 5-year target? Gilmore Place started site works in 2019, and they're just completing in 2024, for example. If the province were using housing starts as their target, that might be OK, but using completions means taller and higher density buildings that take longer won't help.

[GenWhy?]

Misinterpreted your "22%' comment.

Skimming the whole doc for work still

[logan5]

Big changes for Grandview/Woodland (Commercial Drive), as the City is going to rescind the Pace of Change policy for the area, which was slowing things down way too much. The City is also going to expand transit oriented development legislation by increasing the size of tier 1 zoning out to the 400 meter mark (from Commercial/Broadway Station), meaning that FSR 5.5 development will be allowed out to the 400 meter mark instead of the provincially legislated 200 meter mark.

This should trigger much more development and improve the environment in an area that is becoming dysfunctional.

My one concern about this, and about Main Street and South Granville as well, is the effect these new rules will have on the retail strips that are the heart of these neighbourhoods. What I have read so far seems to indicate that the retail strips will be eligible for redevelopment at the prescribed densities. That would not be good, as these mixed use buildings give the public realm a very sterile feel.

The solution for this would be to transfer that potential density off of Granville, Main, and Commercial. That way you preserve the heart of the neighbourood while still maintaining prescribed density.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...ion-amendments

[Jimbo604]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...-bus-exchanges

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...ion-amendments

DailyHive has two articles on changes coming to City Council this week that the province have said (legislated?) must be approved by June 30 loosening restrictions around development near bus and skytrain stations.

It also removes the pace of change limiter in the Grandview Woodland area, which, as one might expect, has slowed the pace of development applications in this area (Clarke to Kamloops St). With this change the pace of applications may be more in line with the speed that we are seeing under the Broadway plan.

Also parking minimums of all types are being removed will streamline the development application process. As apparently, if you can imagine, there were 63 different types of parking minimums which increased application complexity, as well as the pace of development implementation.

I think we all have been shocked by the speed of which some buildings without parking go up versus those with parking. Not in Vancouver, but for example these come to mind: Metrotown concord has taken two years to excavate parking and get back to ground level as well as the most recent Solo development by Brentwood.

Parking is still allowed, of course, but now it will be more the market deciding what level parking is desired is my understanding.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logan5

Big changes for Grandview/Woodland (Commercial Drive), as the City is going to rescind the Pace of Change policy for the area, which was slowing things down way too much. The City is also going to expand transit oriented development legislation by increasing the size of tier 1 zoning out to the 400 meter mark (from Commercial/Broadway Station), meaning that FSR 5.5 development will be allowed out to the 400 meter mark instead of the provincially legislated 200 meter mark.

This should trigger much more development and improve the environment in an area that is becoming dysfunctional.

My one concern about this, and about Main Street and South Granville as well, is the effect these new rules will have on the retail strips that are the heart of these neighbourhoods. What I have read so far seems to indicate that the retail strips will be eligible for redevelopment at the prescribed densities. That would not be good, as these mixed use buildings give the public realm a very sterile feel.

The solution for this would be to transfer that potential density off of Granville, Main, and Commercial. That way you preserve the heart of the neighbourood while still maintaining prescribed density.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...ion-amendments

It's interesting that the planners are proposing that in Vancouver, within 200m of transit rezoning can go to 5.5 FSR, not just 5.0 as the provincial legislation requires. And, yes, at Broadway & Commercial that would extend to 400m from the station, (but not at any other location). Obviously other stations can see higher densities where there's a station or corridor plan that allows it, like all the Broadway Plan stations. Maybe that's the reason for the proposed change at Commercial and Broadway, which wasn't included in the Broadway Plan.

I don't think there's any provision for transferring density to protect those parts of Granville, Main and Commercial that fall within the station zones. The provincial legislation says the City must consider rezoning proposals up to the prescribed densities. The only exception is where there's a heritage building, but there aren't too many of those that would potentially be in play, and it's more likely that any proposed development would just save the facades, which also gets bonus density. The provincial legislation is a hammer, and a few things are likely to get broken

One thing struck me, seeing the map in the City's report. I wonder whether the Dunbar bus loop rezoning policy could lead to quite a bit of change in that area? That could be quite an attractive location for condo projects.



[Storeys]

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Dunbar loop's on the list, but not Blanca or Marpole? I don't get it.

[csbvan]

Really like the retail requirements near stations. It's a must for TOD.

In terms of redevelopment on the high streets, I wonder how desirable that will be? There is so much density opening up, does the consolidation of small, pricey commercial lots make sense to build to the allowable densities? Going off the high streets you can go up to 20 storeys with much higher densities and far easier development lots (many don't even require assembly).

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by logan5

Big changes for Grandview/Woodland (Commercial Drive), as the City is going to rescind the Pace of Change policy for the area, which was slowing things down way too much. The City is also going to expand transit oriented development legislation by increasing the size of tier 1 zoning out to the 400 meter mark (from Commercial/Broadway Station), meaning that FSR 5.5 development will be allowed out to the 400 meter mark instead of the provincially legislated 200 meter mark.

This should trigger much more development and improve the environment in an area that is becoming dysfunctional.


https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...ion-amendments

That's not right, the staff report specifies

In addition, staff recommend expanding the Tier 1 TOA heights and densities (up to 20 storeys, 5.5 FSR) to sites in Tier 2 in the Commercial Broadway Station Precinct where City plans and policies already allow 12 storeys. This would extend some additional opportunity for proposals at similar heights and densities to what the Broadway Plan enables in the apartment areas in the Station Precinct where mid-rise buildings are already supported.

(bolding is mine for emphasis)

page 10
https://council.vancouver.ca/2024062...ents/cfsc1.pdf

In other words, it only applies to a couple properties south of the cut, as opposed to the huge swath that the Hive's flawed reporting would indicate.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Really like the retail requirements near stations. It's a must for TOD.

In terms of redevelopment on the high streets, I wonder how desirable that will be? There is so much density opening up, does the consolidation of small, pricey commercial lots make sense to build to the allowable densities? Going off the high streets you can go up to 20 storeys with much higher densities and far easier development lots (many don't even require assembly).

Clearly the value attached to some properties will make the economics of redevelopment less likely. But we're already seeing buildings like Jordan's on West Broadway being acquired for a rental project (over retail) and there would seem to be a number of other similar sites on Granville that would be equally attractive. And the two storey brick faced building on the Broadway / Main / Kingsway triangle would be an obvious candidate (and not just because it started falling apart when the tunnel went past). Development of that triangle has always been difficult, especially in providing required parking. Now there doesn't have to be any.

[Migrant_Coconut]

In addition, staff recommend expanding the Tier 1 TOA heights and densities (up to 20 storeys, 5.5 FSR) to sites in Tier 2 in the Commercial Broadway Station Precinct where City plans and policies already allow 12 storeys. This would extend some additional opportunity for proposals at similar heights and densities to what the Broadway Plan enables in the apartment areas in the Station Precinct where mid-rise buildings are already supported.

... Would I be correct in saying we might see towers further away from the station being taller than towers near the station?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

... Would I be correct in saying we might see towers further away from the station being taller than towers near the station?

Why would you? Within Tier 1, up to 200m from the station, the proposed change allows up to 20 storeys and 5.5 FSR. And on a couple of locations in tier 2, from 200 to 400m from the station, developers will also be allowed to potentially develop to the same height and density.

At Safeway the towers are proposed to be even taller, so if there are any projects in Tier 2 that do go taller, to 20 storeys, they would be south of Broadway and viewed in the context of the Safeway towers, assuming those are approved.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

That's not right, the staff report specifies

(bolding is mine for emphasis)

page 10
https://council.vancouver.ca/2024062...ents/cfsc1.pdf

In other words, it only applies to a couple properties south of the cut, as opposed to the huge swath that the Hive's flawed reporting would indicate.

I didn't read it close enough. The Daily Hive post does include this...

“This would extend some additional opportunity for proposals at similar heights and densities to what the Broadway Plan enables in the apartment areas in the [Commercial-Broadway] Station Precinct where mid-rise buildings are already supported,” state City staff.

Though for lazy readers like me, it would not be so clear. Still, 4.0 FSR is still enticing to developers, and with the pace of change policy soon to be gone (limit 5 proposals in 3 years. Yikes), there will still be lots of new units being built in this popular neighbourhood.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

One thing struck me, seeing the map in the City's report. I wonder whether the Dunbar bus loop rezoning policy could lead to quite a bit of change in that area? That could be quite an attractive location for condo projects.

As the strata option comes with a 30% social housing requirement, I'm not sure that tenure will be able to pencil anywhere in the city.

The tier 3 & 5 areas seems particularly unlikely since while in theory one can do 8 floors, even city staff admit the cost of switching from wood frame to concrete makes it far near certain that projects will self-limit to 6 storeys.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I don't think there's any provision for transferring density to protect those parts of Granville, Main and Commercial that fall within the station zones. The provincial legislation says the City must consider rezoning proposals up to the prescribed densities. The only exception is where there's a heritage building, but there aren't too many of those that would potentially be in play, and it's more likely that any proposed development would just save the facades, which also gets bonus density. The provincial legislation is a hammer, and a few things are likely to get broken

That's just my own idea for a solution to something that is going to get a lot of pushback. Seems like a fair way to satisfy both sides.

There are a few buildings within that area along Main Street that would not be missed though, like that bingo parlour building. Hopefully the Province is willing to be somewhat flexible.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

As the strata option comes with a 30% social housing requirement, I'm not sure that tenure will be able to pencil anywhere in the city.

The tier 3 & 5 areas seems particularly unlikely since while in theory one can do 8 floors, even city staff admit the cost of switching from wood frame to concrete makes it far near certain that projects will self-limit to 6 storeys.

You could well be right. I was thinking of those condo towers over social housing on Davie from the West End plan as the model (but I think they're 6.5 FSR). Certainly the rental option should be attractive there. We've seen quite a few rentals proposed on Dunbar under the other rental policies.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Dunbar loop's on the list, but not Blanca or Marpole? I don't get it.

Blanca and Marpole loop are only served by two bus routes each, they serve as a turnaround point for trolley buses and not as transit exchanges.

Dunbar and Kootenay on the other hand are more proper transit exchanges, being served by five and eight bus routes respectively.

[Feathered Friend]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You could well be right. I was thinking of those condo towers over social housing on Davie from the West End plan as the model (but I think they're 6.5 FSR). Certainly the rental option should be attractive there. We've seen quite a few rentals proposed on Dunbar under the other rental policies.

I was thinking of the towers around Harwood that failed to move ahead with only a 20% social housing requirement, and resubmitted under the new below-market policy. Even the ones on Davie only had a a 25% requirement, and that was with a totally different market.

As for the rental side of things, I'm optimistic that MIRHPP has proven that the 20% below-market route can work at 12 floors.

However, at 6 floors it's more dicey since under the SRP there's only been 9 projects that opted for the six floor, 20% below-market rental route, while 24 others chose to move ahead with a smaller 5 floor, 100% market rental building instead. Granted, the economics could be a lot different on the side streets, but four floors at 100% market rental isn't working there right now either.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

I was thinking of the towers around Harwood that failed to move ahead with only a 20% social housing requirement, and resubmitted under the new below-market policy. Even the ones on Davie only had a a 25% requirement, and that was with a totally different market.

As for the rental side of things, I'm optimistic that MIRHPP has proven that the 20% below-market route can work at 12 floors.

However, at 6 floors it's more dicey since under the SRP there's only been 9 projects that opted for the six floor, 20% below-market rental route, while 24 others chose to move ahead with a smaller 5 floor, 100% market rental building instead. Granted, the economics could be a lot different on the side streets, but four floors at 100% market rental isn't working there right now either.

I think the Harwood strata tower was a stretch because of the timing, and the number of units that they would have to sell. We know other more modest West End towers were failing to find buyers around that time. The other thing that allowed the switch was the fact that the developer also builds rental, so it wasn't so difficult for them.

It'll be interesting to see whether anything gets proposed in the Dunbar zones. The outrage from some locals who have no idea that 12 storeys can be contemplated (and not turned down) can be imagined already.