Cambie Corridor Updates

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Anyone that complains about density in Vancouver needs to jump on a plane and head to Asia. I think a nice stroll through Tokyo, Shanghai, or Hong Kong would open their eyes to the fact even this proposal is peanuts on the scale of density.

So true. Even London England, after Tokyo, had a comparatively "low density" feeling to it when I flew there from Tokyo, some years back.

[phesto]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Interesting article. I bike up Cambie every day. I didn't realize that golf course was so under-utilized. They'd surely want to make a big park part of the redevelopment, but it's a good idea.

The City courses aren't under-utilized from a golf perspective. I was speaking with someone at the City about this last year and rounds and revenue have been pretty consistent over the past several years. I'm not sure what kind of growth should be expected, but it certainly isn't in decline as the article seems to imply.

You could argue that the golf courses aren't the highest and best use for the land, but I would be vehemently opposed (as I suspect the majority of Vancouverites would be as well) to converting them to anything but parks.

Isn't the City already getting enough from the huge sums they are extracting from developers?

[wrenegade]

I am 1000% against this plan. The last thing this city should be doing is reducing the amount of green space. There is already room for 1000s of units along Cambie Street, how about the city just settles the fuck down and lets the neighbourhood develop. Who knows, maybe the 1000s of people who will be moving to Marine Gateway, Intracorp's project, Concord's Marine Gardens, Wesgroup's future project AND Oakridge will want to use the golf course?

[WarrenC12]

Hate to say it, you guys sound like the anti-bike people when a new bike lane is proposed...

[Zassk]

It's a huge amount of money. Enough to solve the city's problems for a generation.

Used for a single grand project, it would probably cover the entire cost of extending Millennium Line to Cambie. Or to extend Expo Line east to Hastings Park. Or to twin the Lions Gate Bridge. Or to build a Kits/Arbutus/Marpole LRT. All without a cent of the province's money.

Used in smaller increments, it could make a tremendous impact to the entire city. Whole swaths of green space could be bought in less lucrative locations of the city.

Golf has its place, but should not be put on a pedestal above all.

[officedweller]

The article suggests selling just the strip of land along Cambie - the golf course would remain in a reconfigured layout.
That redevelopment could prompt construction of the 57th Ave. or 59th Ave station on the Canada Line.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by officedweller

...Also - hearsay alert - I heard that a block of houses fronting Cambie near 33rd are being assembled by a developer. The number I heard was about 12 houses and the going price was $2.5M per house. Apparently that's the talk around the Holy Name Church lately (Cambie & 33rd).

Mosaic now has hoarding up around that site, just north of the Cowie townhomes for a project called "Elizabeth" Unfortunately just 1 and 2 bedrooms, with that location it would be nice to see some 3 bedroom units for families.

[officedweller]

This is probably the site - not as nice as the ones a bit further north at 29th:

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4949-5109cambie/index.htm

Plans show 3 bedroom units as well as two storey townhouses.

[wrenegade]

That's not Mosaic's site. Mosaic's Elizabeth will be immediately south of 32nd Avenue.

[Alon]

What's really bad for anyone who pays rent is zoning restrictions. Way more people want to live in dense areas than the zoning permits, and this drives rents through the roof. In Washington, where there are strict downtown height limits, gentrification is spreading out along Metro lines from neighborhood to neighborhood. In New York, where the zoning outside Manhattan and inner Brooklyn is also fairly strict (it's much denser than in Vancouver, but way more people want to live there), neighborhood groups have taken to opposing anything that would make their neighborhood more desirable to anyone, for fear of increasing rents.

Of course some people are collecting those rents. For homeowners, restrictive zoning is a way of having government regulations prop up their property values. It works in exactly the same way that leads companies to try to get rules passed to make it harder for new competitors to sprout, only with zoning it's considered neighborly community activism.

The problem of course is that if you upzone part of the city, rents in that part will not be any lower than in the neighboring downzoned areas. Housing is housing. And if the city is expensive as it is, new construction will be luxury, and so people think that all upzoning leads to luxury development. In reality what happens is downfiltering: high-income housing gets reused as low-income housing, sometimes with subdivision into smaller apartments. When you have tight restrictions, what happens is the opposite, upfiltering: richer people renovate run-down buildings and combine small apartments into larger units, and rents go up. I think Vancouver's too young to have seen this on a large scale, but in New York, Philadelphia, and other old cities there are poor neighborhoods with very high-quality housing, in areas that used to be desirable but then got hit by white flight.

So the correct zoning level is "as high as it takes to get housing prices down to the cost of construction." Don't worry about zoning for too much density; developers aren't obligated to build 8-story buildings if they think they can only rent enough apartments for 6 stories.

[Canadian Mind]

Originally Posted by Alon

What's really bad for anyone who pays rent is zoning restrictions. Way more people want to live in dense areas than the zoning permits, and this drives rents through the roof. In Washington, where there are strict downtown height limits, gentrification is spreading out along Metro lines from neighborhood to neighborhood. In New York, where the zoning outside Manhattan and inner Brooklyn is also fairly strict (it's much denser than in Vancouver, but way more people want to live there), neighborhood groups have taken to opposing anything that would make their neighborhood more desirable to anyone, for fear of increasing rents.

Of course some people are collecting those rents. For homeowners, restrictive zoning is a way of having government regulations prop up their property values. It works in exactly the same way that leads companies to try to get rules passed to make it harder for new competitors to sprout, only with zoning it's considered neighborly community activism.

The problem of course is that if you upzone part of the city, rents in that part will not be any lower than in the neighboring downzoned areas. Housing is housing. And if the city is expensive as it is, new construction will be luxury, and so people think that all upzoning leads to luxury development. In reality what happens is downfiltering: high-income housing gets reused as low-income housing, sometimes with subdivision into smaller apartments. When you have tight restrictions, what happens is the opposite, upfiltering: richer people renovate run-down buildings and combine small apartments into larger units, and rents go up. I think Vancouver's too young to have seen this on a large scale, but in New York, Philadelphia, and other old cities there are poor neighborhoods with very high-quality housing, in areas that used to be desirable but then got hit by white flight.

So the correct zoning level is "as high as it takes to get housing prices down to the cost of construction." Don't worry about zoning for too much density; developers aren't obligated to build 8-story buildings if they think they can only rent enough apartments for 6 stories.

Very well written post.

[dreambrother808]

Agreed.

[easy as pie]

yeah, it's hit terrorism-level development restriction in san francisco. obviously, neighborhood integrity is important, and the 1960s horror show of "redevelopment" shows us the limits of urban renewal, on both the market side and the planning side. but yeah, in sf, we've basically settled into a zero development policy in the neighborhoods, and insanely restrictive zoning in even the areas of concentrated upzoning - park shading, pro-parking groups, outdated development plans, etc.

obviously, vancouver isn't really where to turn for answers, but you all up there ought to be thankful that your planning office is so strong, that the neighbors haven't yet been able to lock things down.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alon

..Of course some people are collecting those rents. For homeowners, restrictive zoning is a way of having government regulations prop up their property values. It works in exactly the same way that leads companies to try to get rules passed to make it harder for new competitors to sprout, only with zoning it's considered neighborly community activism..

Propping up property values is only worthwhile to a homeowner if you can cash in on them. If you have no intention to sell, it makes no difference. Conversely upzoning is a luck of the draw windfall to homeowners, courtesy of their civic government, this thread on the Cambie Corridor being a prime example.

[dreambrother808]

True. A homeowner's desire to preserve the status quo isn't necessarily greedy or nefarious. It is however at odds with other factors, such as perhaps the greater good. In that respect it could be viewed as selfish.

[Alon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Propping up property values is only worthwhile to a homeowner if you can cash in on them. If you have no intention to sell, it makes no difference. Conversely upzoning is a luck of the draw windfall to homeowners, courtesy of their civic government, this thread on the Cambie Corridor being a prime example.

A lot of people live their entire lives in an area but then sell during retirement. In the parts of California benefiting the most from the combination of restrictive zoning and capped property taxes, windfall profits on house prices provide assets for retirement, turning people into millionaires at age 70.

Upzoning in an environment where the zoning code either doesn't exist or stays ahead of demand, and where it's easy to build more to satisfy new demand, keeps housing prices at the level of construction cost, minus depreciation. In unrestricted suburban Houston, this is what happens - developers don't make much profit because they can't sell the houses for much more than it costs to put them up.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Alon

Housing is housing. And if the city is expensive as it is, new construction will be luxury, and so people think that all upzoning leads to luxury development. In reality what happens is downfiltering: high-income housing gets reused as low-income housing, sometimes with subdivision into smaller apartments. When you have tight restrictions, what happens is the opposite, upfiltering: richer people renovate run-down buildings and combine small apartments into larger units, and rents go up. ...

Yeah, great post. A lot of people don't think about these issues clearly. I think it's fairly common in Vancouver to simultaneously complain about new development and demand affordable housing, for example. Given this confusion it's not surprising that Vancouver's planning regime is so unbalanced.

[Jebby]

I really wish city council would take up the Langara Golf Course proposal. Adding 4,000 housing units there would do wonders for the corridor, not to mention if they demand something like 10% social housing and 15% rentals that would really be a great addition to the city's affordable housing stock.

Those that say it would be a huge loss of green space are exaggerating. The proposal is for only 20% of the golf course, and there are are 3 large parks within walking distance: Winona Park immediately south, Cambie Park across the street to the west, and Tisdall Park immediately north-west of the site. Not to mention Sunset park a few blocks east of the golf course, and Colombia park one station to the north. The city would also most probably demand some green and public spaces in the new development.

[jlousa]

Love to see the FSRs required to get 4000 units in only 20% of the golf course. Little mountain is pulling teeth to get 1800units in on a space in similar size to 20% of a golf course. Must be Vision math at work again, I think you'd be hard pressed to get 4000 units on the whole course.

[dleung]

the entire golf course is 7 times larger than the olympic village, which has 700+ units. You'll need olympic village densities over the entire site to get 4000 units. Little Mountain is essentially trying to fit 250% the number of units within the same area as Olympic Village.