BC Provincial Government Housing Policies 2023

[Newcastle Kid]

Good stuff!

About Here did a great video on the staircase issue earlier in the year:

• Video Link

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Kid

Good stuff!

About Here did a great video on the staircase issue earlier in the year:

Funny enough he did a followup this week!

• Video Link

Given that he seems to have achieved a relationship with the current government, it might have been slightly planned.

[logan5]

What was the FSR allowed for single detached house lots? Did they come around to that yet?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by logan5

What was the FSR allowed for single detached house lots? Did they come around to that yet?

I believe it turned out that no FSR was ever required or even mentioned, the only strict requirement was number of units, period.

The province released a non-binding guideline for municipalities to "help" update their zoning, but it appears many only followed the mandatory requirements to the letter of the law.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I believe it turned out that no FSR was ever required or even mentioned, the only strict requirement was number of units, period.

The province released a non-binding guideline for municipalities to "help" update their zoning, but it appears many only followed the mandatory requirements to the letter of the law.

So they can decide their own density? If they go by setbacks, max height, and lot coverage, the density is well above 1 FSR. And non binding makes it all sound pointless. These land use policies are hard to understand.

[seamusmcduff]

The news release by the BC government mentions that the BCBC will be updated to allow for single egress stairs, but has no mention of the VBBL. Does anyone know if vancouvers building code will be updated shortly as well?

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024HOUS0158-001410

[whatnext]

WTF? How clueless is Ravi Kahlon?

Province pressures Richmond to allow massive density for 11 Burkeville properties
Eleven properties are located within 800 metres of Aberdeen Station and may be rezoned as a transit-oriented area.
Adam Campbell Adam Campbell
about 10 hours ago

Richmond has excluded 11 Burkeville properties from massive densification imposed by provincial legislation, but the province is pressuring them to allow up to eight-storey buildings on these single-family properties.

Provincial legislation requires rezoning to allow densification of single-family neighbourhoods in all municipalities, with higher densification near rapid transit.

The 11 Burkeville properties fall within 800 metres of the Aberdeen Canada Line Station – this radius around a rapid transit station in known as a transit-oriented area (TOA) and requires higher density that in other areas of Richmond.

However, in order for residents of Burkeville to use Aberdeen Station, they have to cross the Fraser River via the Moray Channel Bridge on foot, which is more like a two-kilometre, 30-minute walk – not 800 metres.…

…. Not only are they disconnected by a body of water, but residential densification close to the airport is not compatible with their activities, operations or noise regulations.

Furthermore, residential density is unlikely to increase transit usage and will lead to increased private vehicles, further disrupting the airport’s operations, according to a report from city staff…

https://www.richmond-news.com/real-e...erties-9458494

[Migrant_Coconut]

Half of Burkeville's 800m away from Templeton, so most of the village'd be upzoned anyway.

... Though transit-oriented density definitely works best with some actual transit - at last check, Burkeville has no buses.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Half of Burkeville's 800m away from Templeton, so most of the village'd be upzoned anyway.

... Though transit-oriented density definitely works best with some actual transit - at last check, Burkeville has no buses.

With input from YVR/Tranport Canada I’d say say that’s doubtful. Try the walk from Burnsville to Templeton. Not easy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

With input from YVR/Tranport Canada I’d say say that’s doubtful. Try the walk from Burnsville to Templeton. Not easy.

Which is why I suggested a bus route or two for "Burnsville." More SkyTrain service would help as well.

If the province makes an exception for them, then that's a precedent to make exceptions for every other NIMBY mayor with an excuse, and then Bill 47 is effectively toothless. A couple of low/midrises on Lancaster Crescent aren't going to kill anybody.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Which is why I suggested a bus route or two for "Burnsville." More SkyTrain service would help as well.

If the province makes an exception for them, then that's a precedent to make exceptions for every other NIMBY mayor with an excuse, and then Bill 47 is effectively toothless. A couple of low/midrises on Lancaster Crescent aren't going to kill anybody.

It’s hardly a hardship for Ravi Kahlon to back down and admit it’s a stupid idea. However I don’t expect common sense from him.

And there is a bus route that goes past Burkeville, the 412.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It’s hardly a hardship for Ravi Kahlon to back down and admit it’s a stupid idea. However I don’t expect common sense from him.

If Steveston's even further away, yet somehow warrants several times as much redevelopment, then it's hardly a hardship for Burkeville to add a hundred-ish more residents (which is what you usually get from a pair of eight floor buildings).

"Common sense" in an unprecedented housing crunch would be rezoning suburban metro stations which've been conspicuously underdeveloped and left as suburbistan for decades - helped in large part by the mayor in question - for more housing.

Originally Posted by whatnext

And there is a bus route that goes past Burkeville, the 412.

Even better, just make it 15 minutes all-day (as opposed to the crap service it has now), and make it easier to walk to/across Russ Baker. It's not Ravi's fault that Richmond hates pedestrians.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If Steveston's even further away, yet somehow warrants several times as much redevelopment, then it's hardly a hardship for Burkeville to add a hundred-ish more residents (which is what you usually get from a pair of eight floor buildings).

"Common sense" in an unprecedented housing crunch would be rezoning suburban metro stations which've been conspicuously underdeveloped and left as suburbistan for decades - helped in large part by the mayor in question - for more housing.



Even better, just make it 15 minutes all-day (as opposed to the crap service it has now), and make it easier to walk to/across Russ Baker. It's not Ravi's fault that Richmond hates pedestrians.

Steveston isn’t isolated from the rest of Richmond by a river and literally right beside a huge international airport.

As to the 412, why increase service to a low ridership route when Translink can’t afford the routes it is running?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Steveston isn’t isolated from the rest of Richmond by a river and literally right beside a hug international airport.

As to the 412, why increase service to a low ridership route when Translink can’t afford the routes it is running?

Good thing Burkeville is now only isolated by a poorly-designed cloverleaf. And nobody's forcing anybody to live next to YVR; if there's no demand, developers won't build, and tenants won't move in... if there is demand, then obviously that warrants more than 2-3 buses an hour.

If TransLink runs out of money entirely, Metro Vancouver has much bigger problems than traffic on Sea Island.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It’s hardly a hardship for Ravi Kahlon to back down and admit it’s a stupid idea. However I don’t expect common sense from him.

And there is a bus route that goes past Burkeville, the 412.

You were actually given a good explanation there. Once an exception is given, you'll have 15 other city's looking for an exception.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

You were actually given a good explanation there. Once an exception is given, you'll have 15 other city's looking for an exception.

And if those cities have equally good reasons they should be given an exemption. Note that despite Migrant Ciconut’s attempt at obfuscation, the provincial demand is based on Aberdeen station being within the arbitrary 800 metre rule despite that only being an “as the crow flies” measurement which doesn’t take into account the River. It is ridiculous

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And if those cities have equally good reasons they should be given an exemption. Note that despite Migrant Ciconut’s attempt at obfuscation, the provincial demand is based on Aberdeen station being within the arbitrary 800 metre rule despite that only being an “as the crow flies” measurement which doesn’t take into account the River. It is ridiculous

Any "obfuscation" is on your end - I pointed out right at the start that Burkeville also falls under Templeton's 800m radius, which also doesn't (and shouldn't) have Grant McConachie and the interchange as a "good" reason. Not much harder than getting from 6438 Byrnepark to Edmonds Station, which by your logic, shouldn't have been approved either.

Instead of rejecting it outright, perhaps Brodie/Richmond Council/YVR could try negotiating to upzone the park n' ride lots around Templeton instead, rather than pulling the NIMBY card and refusing to change at all? It's curious that every city with a "good" reason is always negotiating for less new housing than the province wants, instead of the same amount but in a different area...

[chowhou]

As far as I'm concerned, the density increases are far below what we need and Metro Vancouver could handle far greater density, far further from transit stations than what the policy is requiring. The fact that some residences in Burkeville are in practice greater than 800m when walking from Aberdeen Station is basically irrelevant. 800m as the crow flies just a convenient easy to understand number for a bare minimum policy.

On the flip side, much of No 3 road actually has overlapping TOD zones from the stations which are closer than 800m. It's not as though we're going to allow superpositioning the zones to allow additional density if you're extra close to a lot of stations, so there's no sense fussing over a little extra density if you're a little bit further in practice than expected from a station. It's just a blanket policy to force a little extra needed density that can be easily handled.

[mcj]

Standardized designs arrive to help build more homes faster - BC Gov Press Release

People building small-scale, multi-unit housing can plan faster and at a lower cost by using free standardized designs now available to the public.

Most of the designs are based on “building blocks” that can be mixed and matched, to add features such as a garage or bedrooms, and stacked up to three storeys high. They include concepts for duplex, triplex, quadplex and townhouse designs. Also included are a variety of roof shapes and exterior finishes, so all the designs can blend in seamlessly with existing neighbourhoods, keeping with the intent of small-scale, multi-unit housing to add density. There are also designs for accessory dwelling units, such as laneway homes, and a fully adaptable cottage suitable for aging in place.

Each design complies with the 2024 B.C. Building Code and can be customized for different lot sizes and configurations for use throughout B.C., recognizing that minor amendments may be required to manage specific site conditions. Design files are available for download and have also been compiled into a catalogue for ease of viewing, all at no cost.

Here is the full design catalogue

Some images from the DailyHive article on this, taken from the design catalogue:

[whatnext]

Neat idea. Kit houses gave us some of today's heritage homes maybe someone will market kits of these.

https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exh.../cat2104e.html